New page added that lists the amount of money distributed to the agency and the artist/agency commissions.

http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 22, 2013, 17:42

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 14:09

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 13:53
Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.

Sorry but that has to be one of those 'internet myths' that go on forever. If there were any truth to it then you'd find plenty of 'evidence' as there are folk out there apparently devoting their lives to the 'Getty Extortion Letter' issue;

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

The hypothesis that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' but traceable images for the sole purpose of seeking damages from infringements, as their primary source of revenue, is utterly bizarre.

Well it is bizarre, but not that unbelievable. Copyright trolling is a popular business these days, and Getty has been involved in it for a number of years - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images, "Controversial practices to enforce copyright". The idea is to bully people into paying up, they almost never go to court. I heard it's quite lucrative, since many people prefer to pay them some money rather than going to a lawyer and incur legal expenses.
It's hard to say if Getty is planning to that with Google images, we still know pretty much nothing about the deal. But it's one or part of the possibilities.

Interesting, I just found an old 2006 thread about similar practices from Getty.....someone complaining of receiving a letter from Getty demanding $1000.

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me

Quote from: cybernesco on January 22, 2013, 20:55
Interesting, I just found an old 2006 thread about similar practices from Getty.....someone complaining of receiving a letter from Getty demanding $1000.

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me

The letters were still being mailed well into 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter

eta: Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter (Short Version)

Quote from: Kenny on January 22, 2013, 20:28
New page added that lists the amount of money distributed to the agency and the artist/agency commissions.

http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images

Where are the totals coming from?  Did Getty or Google reveal the actual amount exchanged in the deal?  I see where the price of the images are coming from (cost of licensing the file at the given resolution), but where did the other data come from?  Also, would none of these images need a special extended license for the type of redistribution that Google is allowing?  If so, what would the cost of that license be for these images? 

The page is currently a bit sparse on sources, but it is still very, very interesting.

There are no extended licenses at Getty.  Published, anyways.  This is just a list of the cost of the regular RF images.

Quote from: sjlocke on January 22, 2013, 21:31
There are no extended licenses at Getty.  Published, anyways.  This is just a list of the cost of the regular RF images.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

MATTDIXON posted this in another thread but I didn't see any response to it.

mattdixon

Intersting quote from the UK Government spokesperson.

It is illegal under UK law to "knowingly or without authority" strip metadata from "a copy of a copyright work", and this will continue to be the case when the Orphan Works scheme comes into force.

What is Google's liability when they strip metadata from images used in the UK?

ETA the link:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/getty-joins-opposition-to-copyright-changes/msg292949/?topicseen#new

just a note... when quoting people from other places, please link to the original content.

Quote from: jbryson on January 22, 2013, 21:14
The letters were still being mailed well into 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter...

Yep. I know someone personally who got one of those settlement letters a few months ago. And they were asking for a lot more than $1,000. About 10x that if I recall correctly.

Just another one of the disgusting business practices Getty employs.

They are over 12,000 images now:  http://kga.me/gds/

Quote from: EmberMike on January 23, 2013, 01:25

Quote from: jbryson on January 22, 2013, 21:14
The letters were still being mailed well into 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter...

Yep. I know someone personally who got one of those settlement letters a few months ago. And they were asking for a lot more than $1,000. About 10x that if I recall correctly.

Just another one of the disgusting business practices Getty employs.

While conversely, when defending themselves, they claimed the DMCA gave them  protection from infringement claims if they act in a timely manner to take down allegedly infringing material quickly.
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/AFP-Washington-Post-7312.shtml

From oldladybird on IS forum:

Discussions are ongoing with Google. Once we have an update we can provide that both parties have agreed on, we will post here.
The lack of update is not an indication that the subject is closed.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827083

So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2013, 16:07

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

This is so fu*king ironic! Exclusives always blaming SS for starting the sub model, making it popular and at the same time laughing at non-exclusives for selling images for 25c, other people complaining about small agencies leading the race to the bottom. But at the end, Getty, with prices 100x higher than those in micro, is giving away images for free, not only bringing prices to an absurdly low level, but destroying the micro industry altogether.

Is it a plan to destroy micro, so there will only be macro? But who'd buy images at macro prices, if they even aren't prepared to pay micro prices...Are the people in charge under such an enormous pressure from stock owners that they're really doing everything they can for short term gains?

Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2013, 16:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2013, 16:07

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.

Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.

Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here and here.

Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:47
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.

Ciao, then. 

And this post says that WIX is making Google Drive available to their users - so the sub-sub licensor is now sub-licensing??

Quote from: jsnover on January 23, 2013, 16:57

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here and here.

Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.

Yes and yet it wont effect me in a sense that is. However you have to agree though, its lots of noise for nothing really, it was obvious that sooner or later it would come to this.

I mean the trad agencies could they foretell the arrival of micro?  yes in fact they did but they were just too late in reacting.

Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence:  Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:47

Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2013, 16:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2013, 16:07

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.

Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.

Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.

What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.

What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.

What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....

Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 17:04
Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence:  Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.

I don't really see the whole "if one does it, they'll all do it" philosophy. These agencies (while similar) clearly have different strategies.

Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 17:06

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:47

Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2013, 16:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2013, 16:07

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.

Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.

Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.

What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.

What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.

What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....

Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal

Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it?  heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.

I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly.  Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.

best.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 17:20

Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 17:06

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:47

Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2013, 16:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2013, 16:07

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 16:03
So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.

Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.

Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.

What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.

What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.

What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....

Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal

Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it?  heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.

I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly.  Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.

best.

The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.

The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.