pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 203550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2013, 12:27 »
0
Is there any point for the copyright holder to contact google directly and ask them to remove the images? I am thinking they will not do it, but if not copyright holders does contact them, they might be a little less eager to push more projects like that in the future.


If you issue them a DMCA notice they have to act on it: http://www.google.co.uk/dmca.html but whether or not you'd get anywhere in the long term is another matter, though it would be very bad publicity it were to appear in the press that they are using images without the knowledge or knowing consent of 1000's of artists


« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2013, 12:28 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 21:54 by Sadstock »

« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2013, 12:33 »
0
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...

Thats the sad nature of going public and the company's duty is to their shareholders. Nothing matters except for profits.

Same thing with all the decisions made by getty/istock. Getty, however is operating from a business model of the 90's. be the gatekeeper of images.... be selective in who you bring in to the club. charge a premium for those images... and give the contributors 20%. That works when you charge thousands per image and the contributor makes a living off those 20%. With millions of images nowadays their business model doesn't work in this new environment. They have squeezed the goose too much and finally realized where the breaking point was and is trying desperately to backpedal. i fear they are going in the way of Kodak in 5 years which is probably a good thing.

Unless they do something drastic in favor of contributors in the next few months, I wonder how many other exclusives are jumping ship.

tee

« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2013, 12:38 »
+2

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
Once iS breaches their part of the contract, the rest is null and void.

« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2013, 12:38 »
0

It's death by a thousand cuts.

This summarizes it very well.

« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2013, 12:46 »
+1
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


They can put whatever they want in an "agreement". It's up to a judge to decide if it holds water. Don't believe everything they put in it. Besides, there is a certain point of "good faith" that you agreed to, when they go beyond that point with the damage that Google has done, I believe you have a case.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2013, 13:00 »
0
...Is there any point for the copyright holder to contact google directly and ask them to remove the images? I am thinking they will not do it, but if not copyright holders does contact them, they might be a little less eager to push more projects like that in the future.

A DMCA takedown notice might be an interesting approach - I don't have any images there to try it, but what could the contributor possibly lose? Probably should also try that with the Microsoft site as well.

If anyone does try it, please post here and let us know what happens.

I guess iStock might close your account and still give away your content for a year without paying you, as per the agreement, but other than that ...  ;)

« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2013, 13:00 »
0
Thinking about the DMCA route, I think that if google, microsoft, getresponse.com and whoever else istock have given away images too were all flooded with DMCA notices by mail or email or even phone then the extra workload in having to respond to each one plus the bad publicity would make them rethink their 'deals' with istock/getty.  In turn the bad publicity would make istock/getty rethink too - look what happened with instagram once the mainstream press got hold of it!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2013, 13:21 »
+1
Certainly, I always get pinterest to take down any of my images that I find there, despite CR saying pinterest is a 'partner'.

« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2013, 13:56 »
0
Am I blind? All I can see in Google Drive is common "Stock" word when inserting image.
How the **** can this  be considered by someone as "promotion" when there is absolutely no info about istockphoto?

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2013, 14:19 »
0
Found one of my pictures. Just type in " *.* " and magic
you can do whatever you want FOR FREE
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 06:46 by alexmk »

« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2013, 14:50 »
0
We're not getting any corporate response.  I'm predicting the next move they will make is to shut down the forums on IS all together.  What a mess.

RacePhoto

« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2013, 14:53 »
0
Slightly more "arrow" illustrative version of sjlocke message, explaining how to find them.

Basically, you go to https://drive.google.com and create a new document. Then you "insert" and select "image".


select image

Then in the IMAGE dialog, you pick "Search" and "Stock Photo" pick a search term.


free image

Welcome to MicroStock.


Poncke

« Reply #38 on: January 10, 2013, 15:06 »
0
Two words:  Class Action.
To be honest Lisa, I think that will never happen. I dont know why.  Seems like its the  "deer in headlights" syndrome

« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2013, 15:46 »
0
So "mr_erin" has confirmed that Google paid iStock/Getty for these images:

"Just FYI - we do know that Google paid for these images and have a license to use them, this is not a promo deal like MS. We're gathering the details on the license, this was done via the Getty Images sales so royalties would have come through that channel. We're looking into when this would have or will be visible to you as well."

Note the caged reference to the possibility that those whose images are on there might not have been paid and also the fact that a few posts back mr_erin said:

"Unfortunately we were not up to speed on this deal which is definitely not ideal, but please give us a bit more time to gather the facts and then we can take it from there."

So the chatty Ms. Rockafellar's improved communications doesn't even extend to keeping iStock up to speed with what Getty is doing.

Some of the images are Vetta, Agency and E+, which means they can have come from Getty, not iStock. Does any iStock exclusive have images on Google that can not have come from Getty - via Thinkstock or Getty Images main site?

« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2013, 15:50 »
0

mr_erin

Just FYI - we do know that Google paid for these images and have a license to use them, this is not a promo deal like MS. We're gathering the details on the license, this was done via the Getty Images sales so royalties would have come through that channel. We're looking into when this would have or will be visible to you as well.

= bend over...

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2013, 16:01 »
0
So "mr_erin" has confirmed that Google paid iStock/Getty for these images:

"Just FYI - we do know that Google paid for these images and have a license to use them, this is not a promo deal like MS. We're gathering the details on the license, this was done via the Getty Images sales so royalties would have come through that channel. We're looking into when this would have or will be visible to you as well."


Note the caged reference to the possibility that those whose images are on there might not have been paid and also the fact that a few posts back mr_erin said:

"Unfortunately we were not up to speed on this deal which is definitely not ideal, but please give us a bit more time to gather the facts and then we can take it from there."

So the chatty Ms. Rockafellar's improved communications doesn't even extend to keeping iStock up to speed with what Getty is doing.

Some of the images are Vetta, Agency and E+, which means they can have come from Getty, not iStock. Does any iStock exclusive have images on Google that can not have come from Getty - via Thinkstock or Getty Images main site?

Because I'm not exclusive  I believe mine comes from Thinkstock or Photos or whatever but the point is we didn't get paid for that >:(

« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2013, 16:03 »
0
CMicare -
Hi--I wanted to introduce myself; I suppose now is as good a time as ever! I am Claudia Micare and I manage Contributor Relations at Getty Images and now I am working with iStock. There is so much conjecture here that I am afraid the string is more confusing than anything else so I wanted to ask that you hold on any more assumptions. As soon as we have all of the information we need we will post it for you. Yes it is not great that we didn't have this information ahead of it launching. New kinds of opportunities are happening very quickly these days, but we should have had this information earlier, that is not even a debate and we are working on this too in the background.

When we post the detail there will be a lot to talk about I am sure. Questions and observations are fine but to avoid confusion and misinformation we should stick to the facts we have now. We are working on getting you more as we speak.
= grab your ankles...

« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2013, 16:22 »
+1
Because I'm not exclusive  I believe mine comes from Thinkstock or Photos or whatever but the point is we didn't get paid for that >:(


There is no license on any of the sites, extended or otherwise, that permits unmodified redistribution of the original image. I guess those user picks from Thinkstock could have included any iStock or StockXpert (Hemera) files live at the time - which  makes it a happy accident if you didn't have as many files moved over in the summer :) Less of a chance of being hurt by this - although my pride is a bit dented that I don't think any of my images are there.

As far as I can tell they have the title as the only search vehicle - i.e. none of the keywords are searchable. So Sean's image has a title Adult Student Rasing Hand and you can find it by searching for adult hand but not by teacher or classroom

I'm just horrified that they're all saying they don't have any details and are trying to find out. Who actually did this awful deal and why can't they get a statement together faster than this?

Getty has truly outdone itself - which is saying a lot given their history - in sticking it to image creators while enriching themselves.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2013, 16:30 »
+2

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2013, 16:35 »
0
CMicare -
Hi--I wanted to introduce myself; I suppose now is as good a time as ever! I am Claudia Micare and I manage Contributor Relations at Getty Images and now I am working with iStock. There is so much conjecture here that I am afraid the string is more confusing than anything else so I wanted to ask that you hold on any more assumptions. As soon as we have all of the information we need we will post it for you. Yes it is not great that we didn't have this information ahead of it launching. New kinds of opportunities are happening very quickly these days, but we should have had this information earlier, that is not even a debate and we are working on this too in the background.

When we post the detail there will be a lot to talk about I am sure. Questions and observations are fine but to avoid confusion and misinformation we should stick to the facts we have now. We are working on getting you more as we speak.
= grab your ankles...
.....and the fact is: that our images via Getty are free to download and everyone is happy but contributors and the fact#2 is: we hadn't been informed and asked and the fact#3 is: that we didn't agree and get paid for this.
Just to avoid confusion and misinformation.

« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2013, 16:38 »
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

aspp

« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2013, 16:40 »
+1
"New kinds of opportunities" - lol. Nice.

Quite excited to see how they are going to spin this.

aspp

« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2013, 17:11 »
+3
Which being translated is, "Oh, sh*t, we forgot RogerMexico has gone. Who is going to spin this for us?"

Anyhow this is how it will play out:

Lobo will start a fresh new thread in which someone from Getty will post about what a fantastic thing this is really. Several people and the troll will cheer enthusiastic responses. This will be followed by 200 pages of angry posts and an occasional official response which will fail to address any of the issues. After about 3 weeks the thing will go off the boil and the issue will declared over. Lobo will close the thread. Anyone with any further questions will be invited to shut their cake hole contact Contributor Relations.

« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2013, 17:19 »
+2
In the iStock thread, one contributor has a Getty license for the image of his he found there  'Premium Access Time Limited' sale to 'Google eCommerce and Google Drive'.

So there is a license where Getty allows this kind of thing? He didn't say how much, but in an earlier note on that page said the amount now seemed laughable given what they were doing, so he clearly didn't grasp what this premium access really meant.

Now makes me worry that neither SS nor 123rf will give us the details of what rights they sell with these custom licenses. I wouldn't agree to a license that permitted unlimited giveaways of an image I was selling (or trying to) but when they don't spell out what they're doing, we're supposed to just trust them.

After a debacle like this, I'm unnerved about even the other agencies I previously felt mostly OK about.

The contributor posted the amount. I almost can't believe it - $12

Getty thinks it's OK to let the world download the image for free for $12. I know I've said many times that Jonathan Klein has little respect for any photographer but absolutely none for microstock contributors - he has repeatedly dissed us in interviews. But that is truly and utterly an insane amount to pay for this giveaway of copyrighted content.

Shame on Getty.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 18:32 by jsnover »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
20040 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
9744 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
17514 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
5820 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
4788 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