pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty/Flickr Contributors & Google Deal  (Read 5983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 31, 2013, 13:04 »
+17
Hi, I'm new here and forgive me if this has been mentioned but if it has, I can't find it.

iStock photographers are not alone in this mess...there are many photographers who have a contract with Getty through Flickr whose photographs were licensed to Google for $12 or $6. I had 223 images with Getty (through Flickr) but terminated my contract last week because of the Google deal. I don't have any on Google Drive yet but am holding my breath for my next statement. Anyway, this deal was the final straw for me.

Unlike iStock contributors, photographers with Getty through Flickr cannot remove individual images from their portfolio. The only way out is to terminate your contract. Once the contract is terminated, you cannot rejoin. You are also banned from participating in the two contributor forums although some of your licenses may be ongoing. The forums are private, for contributors only, so word isn't getting out about what's going on there.

I just wanted to put this out there because although there might be some articles about Flickr/Getty photographers being affected by the Google deal, I can't remember seeing anything about it in any of the articles that I've read.


« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2013, 13:06 »
0
Thanks for the extra info Pegleg. The issue has been discussed at length on this thread and others;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/

« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2013, 13:14 »
0
Thanks for your reply, gostwyck. I've read that thread here and there but unfortunately I don't have time to go through all of it. Also did a search for "Flickr" and couldn't find anything relevant. My apologies if it's already been discussed to death!

« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2013, 13:15 »
+2
Thank you for sharing. What a shame that artists feel they have to terminate their contract.

Did they not reach out to you to find common ground?

Again it is a pity, they didnt give all artists the same option like they gave Blend Images: to nominate files for promotional use and maybe offer something special in return.

This could have all been easily done TOGETHER with the vast contributor community. We wouldnt even have to know what kind of deal it is or who they wanted to work with. Just  a "free files for promotional use" lightbox from all their partners and I am sure they would have had thousands of donations.

And if they then ask the google community to nominate images from that pool, it would have truly been a "crowd sourced" project through and through.

Just a little communication, a healthy dose of respect for other peoples property and reaching out with an open mind and this whole disaster could have been one of the most successful crowd sourced projects in the stock world.

« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2013, 13:16 »
0
Thanks pegleg. They have invited over 10% of my Flickr photostream recently.
I am sure they are fishing for idiots. Nothing else but a scam.

« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2013, 13:19 »
0
I pegleg, are you the one that has posted a link of my blog in the Flickr contributor forum, because I did get a lot of traffic from there yesterday but could not get in to check it out because as you say it is a private forum.  Thanks for your side of the story!! Denis Pepin

Poncke

« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2013, 13:24 »
0
Thanks for sharing, if you dont mind, I will quote you in my next blog about this deal, tomorrow.

« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2013, 13:25 »
0
Thank you for sharing. What a shame that artists feel they have to terminate their contract.

Did they not reach out to you to find common ground?

No, not in my case. If I could've pulled individual images, I might've gone that route. However, I sell my work on my own and was concerned that some of my more popular photos might've ended up in this deal and that would render them valueless. I'm still paranoid that they could've gone ahead and thrown them into the Google deal after I terminated my contract but before the images were removed from the Getty site.

This could have all been easily done TOGETHER with the vast contributor community. We wouldnt even have to know what kind of deal it is or who they wanted to work with. Just  a "free files for promotional use" lightbox from all their partners and I am sure they would have had thousands of donations.

And if they then ask the google community to nominate images from that pool, it would have truly been a "crowd sourced" project through and through.

Just a little communication, a healthy dose of respect for other peoples property and reaching out with an open mind and this whole disaster could have been one of the most successful crowd sourced projects in the stock world.

I totally agree. It's a real shame.

« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2013, 13:27 »
0
Thanks pegleg. They have invited over 10% of my Flickr photostream recently.
I am sure they are fishing for idiots. Nothing else but a scam.

Unfortunately there are still legions of people throwing themselves at Getty. I don't know if they're unaware of this situation or they just don't care.

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2013, 13:28 »
0
Again it is a pity, they didnt give all artists the same option like they gave Blend Images: to nominate files for promotional use and maybe offer something special in return.

However, mr_erin was at pains to emphasise that the Google deal is NOT a promotional deal, it's a 'special licence':

A few facts:
This is a license deal arranged with Google through Getty Images, this is not a promotional arrangement


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6817897

« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2013, 13:29 »
0
I pegleg, are you the one that has posted a link of my blog in the Flickr contributor forum, because I did get a lot of traffic from there yesterday but could not get in to check it out because as you say it is a private forum.  Thanks for your side of the story!! Denis Pepin

Hi Denis, no, I'm not the one but I read your blog post and it was very thorough, thanks! What happened was, a separate private group has been set up by another contributor to discuss details related to the Google deal and the link was posted there.

« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2013, 13:30 »
0
Thanks for sharing, if you dont mind, I will quote you in my next blog about this deal, tomorrow.

Yes, you can quote me on that! The more info that gets out there, the better.

Poncke

« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2013, 13:41 »
0
Thanks for sharing, if you dont mind, I will quote you in my next blog about this deal, tomorrow.

Yes, you can quote me on that! The more info that gets out there, the better.
Thanks so much. I will post you the link as soon I finished so you can share.

« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2013, 13:42 »
0
I pegleg, are you the one that has posted a link of my blog in the Flickr contributor forum, because I did get a lot of traffic from there yesterday but could not get in to check it out because as you say it is a private forum.  Thanks for your side of the story!! Denis Pepin

Hi Denis, no, I'm not the one but I read your blog post and it was very thorough, thanks! What happened was, a separate private group has been set up by another contributor to discuss details related to the Google deal and the link was posted there.

Thank you for your positive comment and sharing your dilemma with us! I will update my blog as well.

« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2013, 13:48 »
0
Thank you, Poncke and cybernesco. Much appreciated.

« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2013, 13:50 »
0
There had been some mention of the Flickr contributors from Sheila Smart - in her blog and the Fred Miranda forums

I didn't know that Getty had made it imposible for their Flickr contributors to select items to remove - seems most unreasonable as you could be offered a deal for purchase of the rights, for example, and want to remove just that image but keep the rest. Fits with this growing theme of Getty removing choices from their contributors - other than "leave if you don't like it". They really are tightening those thumbscrews.

Thanks for posting here and you can add a link to this thread if you find - or create - any press about this issue. Do you use Facebook or Twitter and have you sounded off about this issue there already?

« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2013, 14:01 »
0
There had been some mention of the Flickr contributors from Sheila Smart - in her blog and the Fred Miranda forums


Thanks, I've read Sheila's post about it and I've been meaning to drop a line and show my support. I haven't seen the Fred Miranda forum discussion yet.

Quote
I didn't know that Getty had made it imposible for their Flickr contributors to select items to remove - seems most unreasonable as you could be offered a deal for purchase of the rights, for example, and want to remove just that image but keep the rest. Fits with this growing theme of Getty removing choices from their contributors - other than "leave if you don't like it". They really are tightening those thumbscrews.


They often say something along the lines, "If you don't like it, you don't have to contribute". Their attitude is definitely take it or leave it. The thing is, they've changed the rules since I signed the contract. Paltry licensing fees from premium access and their portal partners were bad enough. Like I said before, the Google deal was the final straw for me.

Quote
Thanks for posting here and you can add a link to this thread if you find - or create - any press about this issue. Do you use Facebook or Twitter and have you sounded off about this issue there already?


I'll add a link if I come across anything. I don't use FB much and haven't yet tweeted about it. I wanted to make sure my images were off their website and unavailable for licensing before I made any moves like that. I'm sure you  understand why.

« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2013, 14:09 »
0

I didn't know that Getty had made it imposible for their Flickr contributors to select items to remove - seems most unreasonable as you could be offered a deal for purchase of the rights, for example, and want to remove just that image but keep the rest. Fits with this growing theme of Getty removing choices from their contributors - other than "leave if you don't like it". They really are tightening those thumbscrews.



There have been some recent musings on the iStock forum about the possibility of forum bans and/or account terminations there:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&page=12.

« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2013, 14:24 »
0

I didn't know that Getty had made it imposible for their Flickr contributors to select items to remove - seems most unreasonable as you could be offered a deal for purchase of the rights, for example, and want to remove just that image but keep the rest. Fits with this growing theme of Getty removing choices from their contributors - other than "leave if you don't like it". They really are tightening those thumbscrews.



There have been some recent musings on the iStock forum about the possibility of forum bans and/or account terminations there:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&page=12.


Yes, I was reading that last night. Lobo asks these questions:

1. If people deactivate their portfolios should they still be allowed to participate in the forums?
2. Should they be allowed to keep their accounts open?
3. Should we revoke their photog applications and make them reapply if they decide to come back?

At Flickr/Getty, photographers don't have any of those options open to them. As far as question 3 goes, we can't reapply in any case.

« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2013, 15:27 »
+4
I too, like Peg have been put in the position of having to terminate my agreement with Getty Images/flickr collection, for the reasons stated so well by her.

It's good to finally be getting the word out, as just about anything I've seen to date has been about iStock, and because of the private nature of the Getty groups, very little about the position we've been placed in.

What it comes down to is Getty having no respect for their contributors in any way.  We were treated unprofessionally for a very long time now, and there is virtually no communication.   

Thank you to those of you who will help us to share this situation with the world.   I myself have posted about it and shared info from other sites on my facebook pages, but if anyone is reading, they're sure not commenting.

Mostly, thank you for listening, and letting us vent, and thanks to Peg for getting the word out through you guys.

:)

« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2013, 15:51 »
0
That thread on FredMiranda is downright scary. Is this the Alex Hibbert who was banned and had his images removed in a few hours from Getty?

http://www.alexhibbert.com

http://alexhibbertphoto.squarespace.com/polar/

I have never heard of anything like this happening on istock. The only cases of portfolio deletion was of people uploading content that wasnt their own, i.e. criminal behavior/fraud.

Very strange way to deal with people, especially if it all gets shared immediately on the internet/forums/blogs.

How would reports like these be good for a companies online reputation?  :-[
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 15:58 by cobalt »

« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2013, 16:20 »
+1
How would reports like these be good for a companies online reputation?  :-[

They can't be good for Getty's reputation, but in the case of the Getty/flickr collections, I'm sure they were hoping the word would never get out.    And if Sean Locke (iStock) hadn't uncovered it and spread the word, nobody would know.

Getty's answer to contributors on flickr who are demanding answers is "we can't discuss this yet"

« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2013, 19:57 »
0
That thread on FredMiranda is downright scary. Is this the Alex Hibbert who was banned and had his images removed in a few hours from Getty?

http://www.alexhibbert.com

http://alexhibbertphoto.squarespace.com/polar/

I have never heard of anything like this happening on istock. The only cases of portfolio deletion was of people uploading content that wasnt their own, i.e. criminal behavior/fraud.

Very strange way to deal with people, especially if it all gets shared immediately on the internet/forums/blogs.

How would reports like these be good for a companies online reputation?  :-[


I think it is the polar explorer - there were a couple of threads that touched on it and then this one which went a bit off the rails but where someone "yelled" at him that he wasn't a photographer at all, just a polar explorer who took some snapshots!!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 00:37 by jsnover »

« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2013, 21:37 »
0
I think it is the polar explorer - there were a couple of threads that touched on it and then this one which went a bit off the rails but where someone "yelled" at him that he wasn't a photographer at all, just a polar explorer to took some snapshots!!


Boy-oh-boy, the FM forums have changed! Prior to microstock I was a regular there (and learnt lots about photography too) and the forums were a cuddly place to show your stuff and pat each other on the back. Funnily enough it was someone cheekily posting their SS referral link on the FM forum that made me aware of microstock in the first place (NB: that individual has already made $5K from my referral alone). The self-styled 'pros' that seem to dominate the forums nowadays are staggeringly 'up themselves' __ and positively hostile to microstock. Good.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
4367 Views
Last post January 29, 2009, 22:36
by jeffclow
18 Replies
6635 Views
Last post January 24, 2009, 10:40
by stock shooter
2 Replies
1938 Views
Last post January 23, 2013, 05:54
by StockCube
17 Replies
5334 Views
Last post January 17, 2013, 06:09
by ShadySue
3 Replies
2114 Views
Last post January 28, 2013, 20:32
by Suljo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results