pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 143193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #1175 on: February 03, 2013, 02:44 »
+1
Does the Istock/Google deal also affect vector contributors, i.e. are vector contributors at risk too?

That are two different questions. Images already in the Getty/Google deal or images being at risk. The Google Drive images are fact, not risks.

If you consider a potential cheap mass license deal a risk, any kind of content anywhere is at risk, yes. No one can know which deal is coming up next.


Microbius

« Reply #1176 on: February 03, 2013, 04:05 »
0
Does the Istock/Google deal also affect vector contributors, i.e. are vector contributors at risk too?
One of my IS vectors is in the Google-Drive thing, but as a JPG. I don't think native eps files are available, just raster exports of the vectors.
I also have jpeg versions of vectors on there, so yes a definitely also affects vector contributors

« Reply #1177 on: February 05, 2013, 09:20 »
+1
Whenever I've done an image search on google Istock images rarely appear unless the search criteria is rather narrow. Every other agency comes up ahead of istock. I wonder if this deal with google was some attempt to garner favour.?

« Reply #1178 on: February 05, 2013, 11:34 »
+10
...I wonder if this deal with google was some attempt to garner favour.?
The Google-Drive deal is a business development agreement, very common among corporations these days. It is designed to profit Google and Getty/iStock. How exactly? We do not know, party because Getty/iStock will not reveal to us the terms of the agreement. That should tell us something:
-Google profits
-Getty/iStock profits
-we lose

Getty has de facto seized our copyrights and made them Getty assets, by re-writing its agreement with contributors. Now Getty/iStock can use its assets in any way it pleases, and pay us little or nothing. People who continue to submit to iStock are causing this to happen by allowing it to happen.

When you are doing business with someone who turns out to be acting in bad faith, who is in effect a thief, you can sue them or whatever, but your first step should be to stop doing business with them. We all have that option. Those of us who fail to take that option are part of the problem.
 

« Reply #1179 on: February 05, 2013, 12:10 »
+3
The root of this problem is that Google just has too much money to throw around.  That kind of money will simply corrupt anything in its path.  Companies like IS/Getty are easy marks - run by speculators,  happy to sell off the future value of a business for a little cash today. 

« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 13:55 by stockastic »

« Reply #1180 on: February 21, 2013, 14:20 »
+1
Interesting article on crisis management....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/carnivals-crisis-mismanagement_b_2725633.html
I would argue that the author would consider the iStock/getty handling of the Google fiasco as a management failure.

« Reply #1181 on: March 15, 2013, 12:16 »
+1
Someone posted this page with restrictions for the stock images found in Drive.  I don't know if this is new or what:
http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=docs_image_search&answer=179622

« Reply #1182 on: March 15, 2013, 12:26 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:18 by Audi 5000 »

cuppacoffee

« Reply #1183 on: March 15, 2013, 12:31 »
0
Before reusing content that youve found, you should verify that your use is permitted and check the exact terms of reuse stated in the license. For example, most licenses require that you give credit to the image creator when reusing an image. Google has no way of knowing whether your use is permitted, so we arent making any representation that the content is actually lawfully licensed.

« Reply #1184 on: March 15, 2013, 13:03 »
+2
I think that has been there all along. I remember thinking "credit? What about payment?"  The way it's phrased makes it sound like its ok to use as long as you just give credit.

« Reply #1185 on: March 15, 2013, 13:09 »
+2
I agree, this sounds like the images are all basically free by amateurs who just want to see their name printed. It doesnt say anyhwere that these are commercial stock images and that you MUST buy a proper license if you want to use the files outside of a google drive document.

Google and Getty cannot solve this by adding a few words nobody will read.

Getty is selling our files to 425 million for 12 dollars. That is completly unacceptable.

They are basically turning them over for free to one fifth of the internet population.

Together with the strange "pay per view" deal it looks like Getty is moving away from actually selling files. Maybe they feel it is too much hard work to compete with all the other agencies. But of course they can "rent" the content or make supersize deals that give them millions and leave less than the illusion of peanuts for the individual artists.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 13:15 by cobalt »

« Reply #1186 on: March 15, 2013, 13:28 »
+3
Before reusing content that youve found, you should verify that your use is permitted and check the exact terms of reuse stated in the license. For example, most licenses require that you give credit to the image creator when reusing an image. Google has no way of knowing whether your use is permitted, so we arent making any representation that the content is actually lawfully licensed.

That's a nice way for Google to try and cover it's behind. "We aren't making any representation that the content is actually lawfully licensed." but we also removed all metadata from the images...

« Reply #1187 on: March 15, 2013, 13:35 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:18 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #1188 on: March 15, 2013, 13:51 »
+1
Stock images available in Google Drive are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive and must be used in accordance with our program policies. Images may not be offered for sale or used within templates provided to third parties. If you use stock images depicting a person in connection with a sensitive or unflattering subject, you must include this or a similar statement: "for illustrative purposes only; individual is a model."
"Images may not be offered for sale or used within templates provided to third parties." Since these uses are precluded in standard RF stock licenses anyway, this language suggests that Google Drive users are receiving a standard license to, for example, use the images in their website, print ads, etc.

This page (intentionally?) only clouds the issue of what rights Google Drive users receive.

« Reply #1189 on: March 15, 2013, 14:12 »
+1
Here are a couple screengrabs of what those pages looked like on January 10th, 2013.

Page where Google Drive users insert stock images into their document:


Page that Google Drive displayed to user's if they clicked on the 'learn more' link in the screengrab above:



The 'Fair Use' link in the screengrab above goes to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

« Reply #1190 on: March 15, 2013, 14:53 »
+2
A number of  the images formerly on Google Drive appear to be gone - team does not show the raised arms, hand pile or green vested folks with boxes, for examples.

I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.

The text has been changed from what Kenny posted below to say, in part:

"When searching for images in Google Drive, your search results page will include license details that specify how image search results may be used. Only select images that you have confirmed you can use in your intended context according to the license details. Your use of selected images must comply with our program policies. Include appropriate attribution if necessary. If you find images without a designation of usage rights in the search results, please report them in the help forum."

It's still vague, but the biggest problem is that the search results have zero information of any kind (that I can locate) about the licenses. So they say it's your responsibility but they don't provide any license information for stock images.

« Reply #1191 on: March 15, 2013, 15:43 »
+1
Note that the first sentence from Google introduces the concept of fair use, a pretty complex area not fully settled in law, but does not advise to check to see if your usage is permitted by the license.  You have to read down the page to find that.

« Reply #1192 on: March 15, 2013, 16:21 »
+3
Google stripped the metadata and then say:"Include apprpiate attribution if necessary. It's a joke. At the end Getty exploit the contributors Google shift the blame to the users.

« Reply #1193 on: March 15, 2013, 16:43 »
+3
Laughable. 

I feel bad for serious stock photographers who made heavy investments of time, and trusted IS with their work, and are now seeing what happens when big corporations see something new they can exploit for short term profits.


« Reply #1194 on: March 16, 2013, 18:42 »
0
So do we have a clear image about how many users/images have been taken off iS since 2nd Feb? At least the big players ...
I am pretty curious on the whole thing. Seems that iS/Google are still not doing ANYTHING...

« Reply #1195 on: March 16, 2013, 18:47 »
+3
I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.

Yes, they are gone.  I can not find any of my images - the pharmacy one, the student one, or the tailgate ones.

I wish they would keep us up to date on what the deal is.

« Reply #1196 on: March 17, 2013, 03:49 »
+2
I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.

Yes, they are gone.  I can not find any of my images - the pharmacy one, the student one, or the tailgate ones.

I wish they would keep us up to date on what the deal is.
But that would actually require a competent staff that cares about their contributors and who can communicate effectively, and we all know that iStock isn't capable of either.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #1197 on: March 17, 2013, 08:52 »
0
I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.

Yes, they are gone.  I can not find any of my images - the pharmacy one, the student one, or the tailgate ones.

I wish they would keep us up to date on what the deal is.

Perhaps they must remove any images that are no longer on istock since their original agreement was with istock (or their partners)? No one has seen the actual, original agreement between google and istock that started this fiasco. Just speculating...

ShadySue

« Reply #1198 on: March 17, 2013, 09:12 »
+1
I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.

Yes, they are gone.  I can not find any of my images - the pharmacy one, the student one, or the tailgate ones.

I wish they would keep us up to date on what the deal is.

Perhaps they must remove any images that are no longer on istock since their original agreement was with istock (or their partners)? No one has seen the actual, original agreement between google and istock that started this fiasco. Just speculating...
Allegedly the agreement was between Getty and Google - allegedly iStock admins didn't know anything about it until Sean pointed it out.
It would be a very unusual agreement that required images to be pulled if the person pulled their port. iStock's IT dept could never cope would be 'extremely challenged' to cope with that!

« Reply #1199 on: March 17, 2013, 09:16 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:18 by Audi 5000 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
15213 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
8285 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
8953 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
4144 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
2293 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results