Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 259900 times)

Poncke · « **Reply #925 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:41 »

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 09:12

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 09:09
Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 08:53
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.

I wish it were a myth because it's frankly embarrassing. However, the only reason I ever googled it was because I heard about it from a designer who was adversely affected by it.

Here is a 'victim', admitting that his web designer took the image, but still felt innocent and extorted by Getty http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/

ShadySue · « **Reply #926 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:42 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 12:31

Wait, so they are counting on people using the images outside Google Docs and then charge them for the use? Thats just evil and will never get any significant results imo. Thats bully tactics, or legally called incitement

'Ensnarement' in some legislations, I think.

Poncke · « **Reply #927 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 21, 2013, 12:42

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 12:31
Wait, so they are counting on people using the images outside Google Docs and then charge them for the use? Thats just evil and will never get any significant results imo. Thats bully tactics, or legally called incitement
'Ensnarement' in some legislations, I think.

Had to google it but thats indeed also what I mean. Those tactics cant hold water. But then again, if the Google licence says you can only use them in google docs, you never know. Its a weird way of making money tho. I would try selling images through an agency first... ow wait

jjneff · « **Reply #928 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:59 »

So lets put images up for free, dare you to use them outside of Google Docs. and then ask you for money? Talk about being black listed in a few short months. That is not a business model that is entrapment. What business in their right mind would even want to deal with that mess. SS stands to gain a ton if they play their cards right! How about sell the image and use it under the terms you bought it :-) works for me. Not to mention everyone and their brother will use the images for print use and who traces that? We have already lost thousands just because of that!

cobalt · « **Reply #929 on:** January 21, 2013, 13:25 »

Here is a good article about pic scout from the bjp. it says getty will expand its use to footage and audio.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2046860/getty-images-acquisition-spree-snaps-picscout-photolibrary

sharpshot · « **Reply #930 on:** January 21, 2013, 13:34 »

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 08:53

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 08:46
Quote from: cmannphoto on January 21, 2013, 08:26
Quote from: fotorob on January 21, 2013, 08:11
I seriously think the new owners of Getty Images try to get some quick cash without worrying about the harm done after the sold the company again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html

Since this deal was done last summer under H&F, I think they where the ones looking for the quick cash before they dumped it on Carlyle.

How do you know that? Can you link to your source?

Being as Getty management and family now own almost 50% of Getty (Carlyle own just over 50%) it is hardly in their interest to destroy their own business __ or indeed to have invested so heavily into it if they knew that it was in the process of being destroyed by H&F.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815

Sorry but the Carlyle/H&F angle here is just a red herring. These are Getty actions for reasons that are as yet unclear. One assumes that the Getty family would only have invested so heavily in the business (in Aug 2012) if they had a 'Big Idea' up their sleeve which they expected to provide growth.

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.

Why would Google want to get involved in that? It would be Google users that used the images when they didn't have the appropriate license having to pay Getty. They aren't going to like it and Google would be about as popular with them as Getty is with us. It still makes no sense to me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #931 on:** January 21, 2013, 13:47 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 12:48

Quote from: ShadySue on January 21, 2013, 12:42
Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 12:31
Wait, so they are counting on people using the images outside Google Docs and then charge them for the use? Thats just evil and will never get any significant results imo. Thats bully tactics, or legally called incitement

'Ensnarement' in some legislations, I think.
Had to google it but thats indeed also what I mean. Those tactics cant hold water. But then again, if the Google licence says you can only use them in google docs, you never know. Its a weird way of making money tho. I would try selling images through an agency first... ow wait

yes, I was pretty sure it was a similar thing under different names. But in the shower, I remembered it's 'entrapment' rather than 'ensnarement'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Poncke · « **Reply #932 on:** January 21, 2013, 13:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 21, 2013, 13:47

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 12:48
Quote from: ShadySue on January 21, 2013, 12:42
Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 12:31
Wait, so they are counting on people using the images outside Google Docs and then charge them for the use? Thats just evil and will never get any significant results imo. Thats bully tactics, or legally called incitement

'Ensnarement' in some legislations, I think.
Had to google it but thats indeed also what I mean. Those tactics cant hold water. But then again, if the Google licence says you can only use them in google docs, you never know. Its a weird way of making money tho. I would try selling images through an agency first... ow wait

yes, I was pretty sure it was a similar thing under different names. But in the shower, I remembered it's 'entrapment' rather than 'ensnarement'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

LOL, funny stuff to ponder on in a shower.

Thanks for clarifying.

Karen · « **Reply #933 on:** January 21, 2013, 14:44 »

All the good guys left Getty. Just wondering why kelvinjay is still a Forum Moderator on Istockphoto?

ShadySue · « **Reply #934 on:** January 21, 2013, 14:46 »

Quote from: Karen on January 21, 2013, 14:44

All the good guys left Getty. Just wondering why kelvinjay is still a Forum Moderator on Istockphoto?

That one's a mystery to me too. Maybe in the current climate, he earns more than from sales (?), otherwise, who knows?

gostwyck · « **Reply #935 on:** January 21, 2013, 14:47 »

Quote from: Karen on January 21, 2013, 14:44

All the good guys left Getty. Just wondering why kelvinjay is still a Forum Moderator on Istockphoto?

For the money? It beats working for a living.

aspp · « **Reply #936 on:** January 21, 2013, 15:09 »

Nobody at Istock seemed to know anything about this until SL posted about it. Presumably including the Getty SVP and others who had committed, apparently sincerely, to improving communications. I doubt that any of them are best pleased about the way in which they had their professional credibility so publicly and embarrassingly undermined like that. The lack of communications and the long delay in stitching together a meaningful explanation may well point towards internal arguments and confusion over the way in which this deal was launched unannounced and unexplained.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #937 on:** January 21, 2013, 15:29 »

iStock HQ apparently didn't know about the Getty deal as per the initial posts. By now I figure they have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement - even against their will. So we won't get the true story.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #938 on:** January 21, 2013, 15:35 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 14:47

Quote from: Karen on January 21, 2013, 14:44
All the good guys left Getty. Just wondering why kelvinjay is still a Forum Moderator on Istockphoto?

For the money? It beats working for a living.

Classic.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #939 on:** January 21, 2013, 16:10 »

This is somewhat OT - but relates to what Getty's thinking about uses of images online. Getty Creative just tweeted a link to a blog about the use of images in social media - growing, text is dead long live the image, a bit amped up but still perhaps the way they see the world moving

Pinocchio · « **Reply #940 on:** January 21, 2013, 19:18 »

Hi, I found some very interesting video about PicScout, link from this page https://www.iptc.org/site/Home/Meetings/IPTC_Business_Meets_Technology_Day_2012 and look through the film strips towards the bottom for a presentation by Offir Gutelzon (that's the only one I've looked at yet).

The summary is that PicScout captures image metadata (IPTC etc) from the image at the time it's fingerprinted and stores metadata and fingerprint in a database; when image and metadata get divorced, PicScout uses the fingerprint to recover the metadata - just like a marriage counselor reuniting a happy couple...

Trick question: what terms and conditions apply when PicScout/ImageIRC informs you that someone wants to license your image?

Regards

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #941 on:** January 21, 2013, 19:51 »

You're right - it is an interesting video.

Assuming that in time everyone who licenses images has "registered" their image with them. The model seems very straightforward for the honest and savvy image buyer who can easily be directed to the agency from which they can license registered content - the example the speaker gave was seeing an image in some online location that you'd like to license but you don't know where to do that.

The other side of this is people who use the image but have no intention of licensing it - is someone planning to chase them to make them license an image? Or will there be some sort of ad-revenue-sharing deal, or ? He didn't say anything at all about whether this would replace the Getty "pay up or else" letters.

It seems there is more of a story to tell about how exactly this technology will be used broadly - assuming that's what Getty has in mind.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #942 on:** January 21, 2013, 20:29 »

So if I understand this, the fingerprint is read from the image but the image is not altered. Hence, contributors could get all of their images fingerprinted and put into the system, even after being submitted to the agencies. The, when a "buyer" comes looking, both the photog and Getty would be linked to the image. Does this sound right? So even if Getty (or somebody) strips the metadata and alters the image, we are still linked.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #943 on:** January 21, 2013, 21:03 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on January 21, 2013, 20:29

So if I understand this, the fingerprint is read from the image but the image is not altered. Hence, contributors could get all of their images fingerprinted and put into the system, even after being submitted to the agencies. The, when a "buyer" comes looking, both the photog and Getty would be linked to the image. Does this sound right? So even if Getty (or somebody) strips the metadata and alters the image, we are still linked.

That's what I understand him to have said. He claims that cropping, flipping and overprinting text don't eliminate the ability to match up the image in use with the registered original. At some point I think their tracking would break down, but who knows where that line is. There was a recent thread here about a thief who used other people's images, blurred, cropped and sometimes flipped, as a background for a foreground of his own. I'm guessing that PicScout wouldn't find something like that.

If it weren't Getty who owned the technology, I'd be a lot more excited about the possibilities

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #944 on:** January 21, 2013, 21:06 »

I don't see this as any different from TinEye, GoogleImages, SpiderPic, etc. it's just an image database with an algorithm to match content. Nothing new really. Call it 'fingerprinting' or whatever you like.

gostwyck · « **Reply #945 on:** January 21, 2013, 21:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2013, 21:06

I don't see this as any different from TinEye, GoogleImages, SpiderPic, etc. it's just an image database with an algorithm to match content. Nothing new really. Call it 'fingerprinting' or whatever you like.

Yes Sir, Mr President Sir. Absolutely correct.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #946 on:** January 21, 2013, 22:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2013, 21:06

I don't see this as any different from TinEye, GoogleImages, SpiderPic, etc. it's just an image database with an algorithm to match content. Nothing new really. Call it 'fingerprinting' or whatever you like.

I think you're missing the limitations in GoogleImages, TinEye and the rest. (a) PicScout claims they can handle transformations and overlays (google images and TinEye both fail with those) and (b) they can deliver the appropriate metadata to enable proper credit if you have the image but no access to that.

I tried one of my images and the transformations that PicScout claims to be able to handle. Google couldn't find any of them other than the original. TinEye couldn't even find the original

I'm not going to test out Getty's stuff, but if their claims are actual - and they say they have 80million images from 300K photographers in their database - then they are very different from any of the existing image search tools

Anyka · « **Reply #947 on:** January 22, 2013, 02:29 »

80 million images that are not only in Getty's database, but are also sold by SS, FT, DST etc Guess which "metadata" will appear when you match your image using this technology : the name of the copyright holder (you) and Getty. Not SS, FT, DST etc! So guess who's going to send the bill? And I'm being nice now, I said BILL, not extortion letter.

Anyka · « **Reply #948 on:** January 22, 2013, 03:16 »

Hi, I am thinking of posting this on my Facebook page, but it needs some finetuning.
Trying to make it VERY understandable for non-photographers. Purpose is discouraging people to use Google Drive AND downloading illegally, in one go.

Downloading images just got a bit more dangerous ...

In the back of your head, you know that downloading music, text or images is illegal, but everyone does it. They're posted on blogs, facebook, pinterest, twitter etc and nobody gets caught.

You've probably also heard of the extortion letters sent by Getty, charging $ 1000 (and much more) to unsuspecting people and companies who used one of their images. You did not get one? Well, the chance you'll be one of their next victims has just got a bit bigger :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGqsogYFQJU&feature=youtu.be

In case you don't have the time or patience to view the whole video : Getty has bought PicScout, a new technology to fingerprint images, put them in a huge database so that ANY image that has "lost" its metadata (copyright info, name of photo agency ...) can be easily traced. After that it's easy to send a bill ...

More than 80 million Getty images, INCLUDING the free stock images on Google Drive, have already been fingerprinted, so beware if you use these outside Google Drive, or in fact, download ANY image from the web without proof that you bought it or have the consent of the copyright owner.Stock images can be bought and downloaded in high resolution for as little as $ 5 from agencies like www.graphicleftovers.com, www.shutterstock.com, www.123rf.com and www.fotolia.com, and even $ 1 for smaller formats, so why risk being found by PicScout ? I'm sure you can find better purposes for $ 1000 ?

I think posting such a text would be free advertising for the agencies, and keep people away from Google Drive and illegal downloading. I don't think I'm saying anything that is not true, not allowed or could make Google/Getty/Istock's lawyers come after me. Any comments?
Also : non-photographers might not know Getty. How should I call Getty? Largest image reseller in the world?

sharpshot · « **Reply #949 on:** January 22, 2013, 03:21 »

Isn't there still a flaw with PicScout? How can it help when people use our images on printed materials, like calenders and T-shirts? What about all the countries that will just laugh at a letter from Getty? I still don't think they should make those big unwatermarked images available.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 259900 times)

Poncke

ShadySue

Poncke

jjneff

cobalt

sharpshot

ShadySue

Poncke

Karen

ShadySue

gostwyck

aspp

StanRohrer

Microstock Posts

Jo Ann Snover

Pinocchio

Jo Ann Snover

StanRohrer

Jo Ann Snover

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

Anyka

Anyka

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors