MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 173659 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #100 on: January 10, 2013, 20:48 »
+8
See also the discussion here:
https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4

And to be very fair, someone from ToonVectors said way back LAST AUGUST (and we're just finding out about it now):

Toon Vectors  11 Aug 2012
"Hopefully you will also coordinate with the folks at Thinkstock to make sure all the original artists / photographers are first contacted to approve the use of the selected images before including them in the Google Drive stock image library.

While this kind of use may not strictly violate the letter of whatever licensing and contributor agreements are in place at Thinkstock, I doubt that many of the image creators anticipated this sort of usage. It is important that the image creators are fairly compensated and also that they are given the right to opt out if they do not consider the compensation a fair value for their intellectual property."


Kudos, ToonVectors.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 20:54 by ShadySue »


« Reply #101 on: January 10, 2013, 21:05 »
0
Thank you iStockPhoto, SimmiSimons, and Google Drive. Happy user here :) I just downloaded a high resolution exclusive photograph from the Vetta collection at Google Drive for free ($100 dollar value)!

http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg (2000 x 1331 pixels - Print Quality)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4



I always wonder how images with wrong color balance and color cast can be approved at any site.
Cmoan Rebeca heres cookie, cmon, wof wof, cookie.
Dont fuck around with Kelly Konjson...
Start solving problems NOW
Also Retadeka I dont want more competition from you "exclusive" contributors what ever it means at my nonexclusive sites.



« Reply #102 on: January 10, 2013, 21:16 »
0
Thank you iStockPhoto, SimmiSimons, and Google Drive. Happy user here :) I just downloaded a high resolution exclusive photograph from the Vetta collection at Google Drive for free ($100 dollar value)!

http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg (2000 x 1331 pixels - Print Quality)


http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4



I always wonder how images with wrong color balance and color cast can be approved at any site.
Cmoan Rebeca heres cookie, cmon, wof wof, cookie.
Dont * around with Kelly Konjson...
Start solving problems NOW
Also Retadeka I dont want more competition from you "exclusive" contributors what ever it means at my nonexclusive sites.


LMAO! I must say Suljo, you never disappoint me! :D

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #103 on: January 10, 2013, 22:10 »
0
The statement that they are looking at ThinkStock for images answers the question if non-exclusives are also in this cluster-f**k.  They are and in spades.  I had about 20 images (out of 21) rejected by IS yesterday and today.  Now I'm very happy about that as they are all up and selling well on other sites.  If they had fallen prey to this scheme, these other sales would likely dry up.  Now the only question left for me is should I pull the rest of my port or not.  Dollar-wise it's no big deal as IS only accounts for 2-3% of my monthly income (they used to be number one, ahead of everyone else) and what are the odds of any particular image falling prey to this scheme and loosing sales from other sites due to this giveaways?

« Reply #104 on: January 10, 2013, 22:12 »
+1

« Reply #105 on: January 10, 2013, 22:14 »
0
Based on all of what is happening, I think there might be grounds for a class action case. You cannot force contributors to an "agreement" to promote our images without giving us an option to opt out of it. There is a case against facebook now that seems to be of the same guide lines. Facebook is trying to settle it quietly. The judge has rejected the settlement since it does not award any damages to facebook contributors. For facebook, it could result in a lot money.

From the article: "The lawsuit, brought by five Facebook members, alleged the social networking site violated California law by publicizing users likes of certain advertisers on its Sponsored Stories feature without paying them or giving them a way to opt out, the documents said."

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_quietly_settled_lawsuit_that_could_have_involved_up_to_1_in_3_amer

There are also other articles that show how Facebook is forcing people to pay to insure all your followers will read your posts. Guess what? People are now turning against facebook. Amazing how you can screw up your own business...


----------------------------

From 15b of the contributor agreement
b.You consent to service of any required notice or process upon you by email, registered mail or overnight courier with proof of delivery notice, addressed to the address or contact information provided by you at the time you are first granted access to the membership portions of the Site. You agree to waive any right you may have to (i) trial by jury; and (ii) to commence or participate in any class action against iStockphoto related to the Site or this Agreement.

Not saying that the language is ironclad, but we did agree to it


Surely that wouldn't stand up, can they kill me and say I agreed no trials by jury.

« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2013, 22:45 »
+3
Holy crap. Found at least one of mine there... search for "fruit", it's image number 3. What's the h*ll??? I can't tell where the image came from, since I am non-exclusive, but this is just unbelievable. From what people posted here  it seems to be Getty's f**kup ... Google had to get non-watermarked images from somewhere. So, they were supposed to get contributor's agreement for such use and they just ... didn't. I mean - "eh, come on, let's pocket the money, give away some images from some bozos, they are almost giving them away for free anyway... who's gonna find out". I sure hope they'll put a stop to that, and fast. I'll take part in any class action or whatever, but if nothing happens and this is not fixed and becomes business as usual, I am out of there. No question about it.
I think we should contact Google about it too - I want to see what license they have for such use and where did they get it. Nothing I ever agreed to that's for sure.

« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2013, 22:54 »
0
Holy crap. Found at least one of mine there... search for "fruit", it's image number 3. What's the h*ll??? I can't tell where the image came from, since I am non-exclusive, but this is just unbelievable. From what people posted here  it seems to be Getty's f**kup ... Google had to get non-watermarked images from somewhere. So, they were supposed to get contributor's agreement for such use and they just ... didn't. I mean - "eh, come on, let's pocket the money, give away some images from some bozos, they are almost giving them away for free anyway... who's gonna find out". I sure hope they'll put a stop to that, and fast. I'll take part in any class action or whatever, but if nothing happens and this is not fixed and becomes business as usual, I am out of there. No question about it.
I think we should contact Google about it too - I want to see what license they have for such use and where did they get it. Nothing I ever agreed to that's for sure.

iStock staff have acknowledged that money changed hands between Getty and Google - this isn't Google acting unilaterally. And if you read above you'll see that it appears the license was for $12!! Time limited but no notion of how long. It might as well be forever given how many people and businesses are now using Google Drive

If you put your image into a document and then right click and Save Image As... you'll see the file number in the JPEG. It's probably Thinkstock and you can search there by file number to check

« Reply #108 on: January 10, 2013, 23:09 »
0
I am angry.

They won't allow Exclusives to give away the files for free in any websites, but iStock is apparently violating that.

There is one Vetta file (not owned by me) smallest size is around 800 pixels and costs 60$, but in Google Drive with 1600+ pixels and it's FREE!


« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2013, 04:01 »
0
I am angry.

They won't allow Exclusives to give away the files for free in any websites, but iStock is apparently violating that.

There is one Vetta file (not owned by me) smallest size is around 800 pixels and costs 60$, but in Google Drive with 1600+ pixels and it's FREE!




Yes, and here is a $100 file

Thank you iStockPhoto, SimmiSimons, and Google Drive. Happy user here :) I just downloaded a high resolution exclusive photograph from the Vetta collection at Google Drive for free ($100 dollar value)!

http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg (2000 x 1331 pixels - Print Quality)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4

mattdixon

« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2013, 04:21 »
+1
I think they've become so rattled by loosing market share they're acting out of desperation and giving away content for free to try and claw back traffic. They're a dangerous distributor to be with these days, they will surely lose control of this and Vetta pics will end up in the public domain.

rubyroo

« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2013, 04:45 »
+2
I'm late to this thread but have been reading the whole thing with my mouth open.  This is just obscene.

I feel that agency contracts should be far less one-sided and should contain a very clear commitment to the artist, simply stipulating that they will NEVER offer our images for free without our absolute and unequivocal consent to do so and that they will NEVER permit our images to be used without attribution to the artist.  This whole business only exists on the strength of respect for copyright and remuneration to the artist.  Without these, there is no business.  How hard is it for them to understand that?

This is not so much witnessing a car crash in slow motion as the aftermath of a 3,000 car pile up.

I'm so sorry for all who have been affected. I'm not sure yet if I have... just building up the nerve to check.


« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2013, 04:50 »
+3
If the commission rate is $12, presumably Getty is keeping $48 per image as the "distributing fee", x 5,000 images
= $240,000 profit.

You can see why the Getty rep would be rubbing his hands in glee over closing that deal for a bunch of crap microstock images.

rubyroo

« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2013, 04:58 »
+1
As ShadySue said elsewhere, they seem to treat our images as though they are wholly owned by them.

One of the weirder aspects of the StockXpert buyout was that our images were absorbed into something called the Hemera Collection.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Hemera Collection actually WAS a wholly owned Getty collection - so I don't know why our images were included under that umbrella.

I have to wonder if they've blurred the line between what's ours and theirs so much that they don't see the line any more.

mattdixon

« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2013, 05:10 »
+3
It looks like some kind of special extended licence has been offered to Google, the sales guys are justing doing their job. Someone higher up the food chain is green lighting these initiatives, and creating these special licences without checking IPTC data, back links or any kind of promotional benefit whatsoever. God knows how many other 'schemes' are in the pipeline. It's like they're shizrophrenic, on the one hand they're saying Agency and Vetta is worth $100's of dollars and free at the same time. I think they may actually give me a heart attack.

« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2013, 05:41 »
+1
I have browsed through all files in this collection and I must say it's a wonderful collection very diverse with all aspects of modern stock photography. Who ever curated this did a great job! Unfortunately he did curate it for the dumbest deal in stock photography ever!

« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 13:25 by incarno »

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2013, 07:15 »
0
I have browsed through all files in this collection and I must say it's a wonderful collection very diverse with all aspects of modern stock photography. Who ever curated this did a great job! Unfortunately he did curate it for the dumbest deal in stock photography ever!

It's not all new images.  I just had a quick look and recognised many Getty Images that I bought for commercial projects at least 8 years ago. Not that it makes any difference. I may be another handing in my crown shortly.

« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2013, 07:25 »
0
I have browsed through all files in this collection and I must say it's a wonderful collection very diverse with all aspects of modern stock photography. Who ever curated this did a great job! Unfortunately he did curate it for the dumbest deal in stock photography ever!

It's not all new images.  I just had a quick look and recognised many Getty Images that I bought for commercial projects at least 8 years ago. Not that it makes any difference. I may be another handing in my crown shortly.
Certainly there are some classic shots but it's not a typical micro or macro collection it's very diverse and because of it a very valuable collection and shouldn't give away for free or peanuts!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2013, 07:29 »
0
Is there any way that the 1 in 10,000 users of this collection who might wish to purchase (hahaha) a bigger size is able to find out how to find the bigger size to purchase, without moving heaven and earth or using GIS, which IME many/most people have never heard of.
Not all pics on iStock show up via GIS anyway. If I do a GIS on one of my istock images, I'm more likely to find them on spider - pics (where at least there's a link to iStock) or the scam site I'm not naming.

rubyroo

« Reply #119 on: January 11, 2013, 07:55 »
0
I have browsed through all files in this collection and I must say it's a wonderful collection very diverse with all aspects of modern stock photography. Who ever curated this did a great job!

How did you browse all the files?  I tried the route of adding an image to a project and using the search and, quite frankly, the images that were returned were very poor.  Also the search results were only about 50% relevant.  I don't doubt that others are seeing higher quality images than I am, but I'm confused as to why that might be.

« Reply #120 on: January 11, 2013, 07:57 »
0
Use a * as your search term.

Also, the search is only based on the title.

rubyroo

« Reply #121 on: January 11, 2013, 08:14 »
0
Aha!  Thank you so much Sean  :)

I also just realised there was a dropdown to select 'stock' and I'd been looking at the 'Google' selection, which is why the quality was so poor.

What a difference that made.  My God.  If anyone ever wanted an example of why our images should be remunerated when others are freely available, just compare the difference between those two results.

ETA: (Perhaps that's a statement too far, given the variation between free images out there - but I haven't turned my eyes towards a poor quality image in so long that it was quite a shock!)
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 08:46 by rubyroo »

Imgorthand

« Reply #122 on: January 11, 2013, 08:28 »
0
* it! Found one of mine :( So where do I send the money for the legal action?

« Reply #123 on: January 11, 2013, 08:35 »
+3
Here's someone who has had their Photographers Choice images (the deal where you pay $50 to sell an image on Getty) included in the deal for a big $12 royalty. 

Step 1: pay $50 to 'sell' your image on Getty
Step 2: collect $12 in royalties
Step 3: have your image given away for free on Google

Quote
I found some of my Photograper's Choice RF images added to Google drive.


I checked the Getty statements to see any purchase and I found them:


----


Product Type: Premium Access Time Limited


Customer Name: Google eCommerce & Google Dri


Gross Royalty (in USD): 12.00


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023

« Reply #124 on: January 11, 2013, 08:37 »
+1
none of mine there, the brain says phew... the ego takes a hit  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
16602 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
8805 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
11370 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
4938 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
3775 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle