MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: luissantos84 on March 27, 2014, 08:31
-
LATE NOTICE MOTION AGREED UNANIMOUSLY AT THE LPB MARCH MEETING:
This DM is appalled at Getty’s decision to make its photographic content available free of charge for so-called “non-commercial” use, thereby further undermining the ability of photographers to earn a living. This DM instructs the NEC to ensure NUJ publications avoid the use of Getty Images and to call upon all members to boycott the purchase or use of Getty Images photographic content wherever possible until Getty reverses this decision.
http://londonphotographers.org/2014/03/lpb-calls-for-getty-images-boycott/ (http://londonphotographers.org/2014/03/lpb-calls-for-getty-images-boycott/)
source (https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsBohemian (https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsBohemian))
-
I have always boycotted getty.
I shall continue.
-
the boycott will bring more publicity for Getty, free advertisement about them providing free content, who cares about those "starving" London photographers, except other photographers
-
the boycott will bring more publicity for Getty, free advertisement about them providing free content, who cares about those "starving" London photographers, except other photographers
You have a point, especially when the ability to embed is almost hidden on the GI UK site, and not at all promoted there. Getty don't care about bad publicity, for them 'any publicity is good publicity' and this is better than most free publicity.
-
I'm working with a Creative Director/art director today who completely misunderstood the Getty embedding news (major ad agency, licenses images from Getty). She thought they were making all their images free to use. I had to explain that they were actually only making low-res images available for embedding online for non-commercial purposes...in other words, this Getty move would not affect her job or the prices of images she uses in any way.
I found the fact that she misunderstood this a bit frightening, because art directors like her are the people who have access to hi-res comp images through corporate accounts. Of course, in order to license an image for a client, things still need to be negotiated with Getty by an art buyer—who, I hope, knows that ad agencies still have to pay the same amount for images—but unfortunately, that's how unclear the news about the Getty deal is.
Large legit agencies will still pay, but what about smaller companies with employees who misunderstand?
-
She thought they were making all their images free to use.
On what planet would that make any sense, if she stopped to think about it?
-
Large legit agencies will still pay, but what about smaller companies with employees who misunderstand?
They'll be sued by Getty, could turn out to be a nice earner for them.
-
.
-
You mean like all the people who are stealing images currently?
-
She thought they were making all their images free to use.
On what planet would that make any sense, if she stopped to think about it?
It doesn't, obviously. But the fault is Getty's. They're the ones who purposely worded their press release "Getty makes their images free to use!" not "now, bloggers can embed Getty images for non-commercial use in exchange for allowing Getty access to their visitor information and possible future advertising placement," which is accurate. But that wouldn't have made a splash, right?
If you're a busy ad person who uses Getty a lot and you're skimming headlines, you see "Getty makes images free to use!"
-
In the UK many feel that the NUJ (LPB is the NUJ) has long been rather pointlessly resistant to inevitable change - especially as that affects the evolution of media. The Guardian's well respected columnist Roy Greenslade who is also the former editor of the left wing Daily Mirror wrote this item (http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2007/oct/25/whyimsayingfarewelltothe) in 2007 about why he was quitting the union. I believe that some of what he wrote then is echoed again today in the union's reaction to this latest storm in a teacup.
(FWIW - IMO today there is a whole generation which has grown up in a world in which the NUJ and the print unions no longer seem especially relevant - because the media is no longer really so much about the big papers and broadcasters.)
-
.
-
http://time.com/15300/getty-provides-35-million-images-for-free/ (http://time.com/15300/getty-provides-35-million-images-for-free/)
-
.
-
Large legit agencies will still pay, but what about smaller companies with employees who misunderstand?
They'll be sued by Getty, could turn out to be a nice earner for them.
Does entrapment in the US only apply to Government agencies, not companies? "Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute."
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00645.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00645.htm)
-
.
-
I can't say as I can't access the US site directly without using 'hide where I am' systems.
However, the fact that screenshots I've seen of the US Getty site are so very different from the new (AFAIK) Getty UK site, shows that, as I suggested way back, they fall foul of our misleading advertising/promotions law.
-
.
-
I can't say as I can't access the US site directly without using 'hide where I am' systems.
However, the fact that screenshots I've seen of the US Getty site are so very different from the new (AFAIK) Getty UK site, shows that, as I suggested way back, they fall foul of our misleading advertising/promotions law.
It says:
MILLIONS OF IMAGES
FREE TO SHARE
SPREAD THE WORD
then you can click on the link that says "Learn how to share images for free":
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/Creative/Frontdoor/embed[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/Creative/Frontdoor/embed[/url])
They may just be testing it out in the US first? I think what it says isn't misleading, you can share images using the embed program for free.
They didn't have a uk site, or at least I wasn't forced to use it, until a few days after this scheme was announced..
Linking to terms and conditions on a different page is definitely misleading when the conditions are vastly different to what the teaser page suggests.
-
.
-
They may just be testing it out in the US first?
Getty's press release was released to UK media, and reported by such. There are several links in the original thread, including [url]http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement]http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement] [url]http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement (http://[url=http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement)[/url] posted 5th March.
Checking back through the original thread here, I note that on 6th March, I could see the embed image on embeddable files, on the .com site.
On 13th March, I posted that suddenly I was forced onto the .co.uk site, and observed that it might have been because the Getty promotion, which was at best 'Yank my chain' and at worst 'bait-and-switch' was contrary to the UK consumer law which I had referred to earlier, in a different, but related thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-will-embed-advertising-work/msg369815/#msg369815 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-will-embed-advertising-work/msg369815/#msg369815)
Later that day, I posted a screenshot where the embed promotion was non-existent, but there was a tiny embed link at the bottom of the page.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg370577/#msg370577 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg370577/#msg370577)
If someone happens to click the Embed link right at the bottom of the page, they get to this page:
(http://www.lizworld.com/E1.jpg) which indicates that </> is the embed icon.
Click on the green 'search embed images', and you get taken to this page:
(http://www.lizworld.com/E2.jpg)
Note in the yellow band, it says, These search results have been filtered, so you may not be seeing all available content. and we know there are certain lucky classes of contributors whose content isn't included.
But note that no embed </> icons are visible.
Actually, in this post:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg370551/#msg370551 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg370551/#msg370551)
I asked if anyone could work out how to embed an image via the uk site, and no-one has replied to that.
-
Back to the original topic - Bravo to the LPB! Wish there was still a trade association in the US with the stones to do the same.
-
I found the fact that she misunderstood this a bit frightening, because art directors like her are the people who have access to hi-res comp images through corporate accounts. Of course, in order to license an image for a client, things still need to be negotiated with Getty by an art buyer—who, I hope, knows that ad agencies still have to pay the same amount for images—but unfortunately, that's how unclear the news about the Getty deal is.
Large legit agencies will still pay, but what about smaller companies with employees who misunderstand?
I don't think that lady is alone in her thinking. Many people see FREE, and they don't read any further.
-
Vastly different? They are free to share, what's misleading?
You were arguing in the other thread there are several degrees of free. What changed? According to you free isnt always free, so there is room for misleading people, in your logic. Of course now that argument doesnt help you defending Getty, so you change your tune.
-
Back to the original topic - Bravo to the LPB! Wish there was still a trade association in the US with the stones to do the same.
LPB is not a trade association. It's a trade union. It's the National Union of Journalists. Like any union it is political and factional. I wonder how many people unanimously voted for this motion at the branch meeting.
NUJ has an agenda. That is not a criticism. The primary aim of a union is to defend at all costs the jobs of the membership - even to the point of excluding new entry and competition. Often in the face of inevitable change.
NUJ has been opposed to journalists multiskilling, social media etc. In general they are very cautious of changes to the existing established models which undermine any status quo. That is certainly understandable. But it also potentially inhibits innovation - and it may work against the interest of those who are not part of the union. And if the road is only going in one direction then it may also not be best to oppose a thing without consideration ...
-
.
-
Vastly different? They are free to share, what's misleading?
You were arguing in the other thread there are several degrees of free. What changed? According to you free isnt always free, so there is room for misleading people, in your logic. Of course now that argument doesnt help you defending Getty, so you change your tune.
If I remember correctly what I was saying before was in relation to 'free images' this is 'free to share', what I think I said was that 'free images' can have more than one meaning and possibly be confusing (although in this case it doesn't take much to figure out what it means) but 'free to share' clearly doesn't mean use commercially or in any way you want.
'Free to share' sounds just like that site I found which was inviting people to download my FAA image. They were sharing my image for free. Exactly what I, as an iS exclusive, I'm not allowed to do, even with totally unstocky images.
Is there any legal definition of 'free to share'? In real life, if someone shares something with me, I can do what I like with it, including sell it on.
-
.
-
Is there any legal definition of 'free to share'?
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/Terms.aspx[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/Terms.aspx[/url])
Embedded Getty Images Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship; (b) in violation of any stated restriction; (c) in a defamatory, pornographic or otherwise unlawful manner; or (d) outside of the context of the Embedded Viewer.
Right, but as you yourself pointed out, you need to go to another page to see that.
Anyway, the forbidding of endorsement or sponsorship is also a condition of iStock purchase, but it's done regularly.
-
Vastly different? They are free to share, what's misleading?
You were arguing in the other thread there are several degrees of free. What changed? According to you free isnt always free, so there is room for misleading people, in your logic. Of course now that argument doesnt help you defending Getty, so you change your tune.
If I remember correctly what I was saying before was in relation to 'free images' this is 'free to share', what I think I said was that 'free images' can have more than one meaning and possibly be confusing (although in this case it doesn't take much to figure out what it means) but 'free to share' clearly doesn't mean use commercially or in any way you want.
Whichever way, if somebody is announcing any images "free to share", is inviting troubles.
-
Back to the original topic - Bravo to the LPB! Wish there was still a trade association in the US with the stones to do the same.
LPB is not a trade association. It's a trade union. It's the National Union of Journalists. Like any union it is political and factional. I wonder how many people unanimously voted for this motion at the branch meeting.
Tom(ay)to Tom(ah)to.
A semantic argument that doesn't in any way lessen my admiration for their stance.