MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on January 10, 2013, 08:17
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1)
All I can say is <expletive deleted>.
-
I am finding this really upsetting and my images aren't even being given away!
My sympathies to those who have suddenly found that they are in bed with a company prepared to exploit those promotional contract terms to the max.
"Oh it's okay we would never take advantage of the clause to do give all your images away, it's just legalese, tick the box and move on." A few months down the line and you have no control over your work. Reminds me of the stuff Facebook keeps trying to sneak into their terms of service.
So much for starting afresh.
ETA turned out they were being given away after all
-
To me, this is the demonstration of something I've been thinking lately.
Agencies believe the content appears magically in their servers and contributors are noisy users of the service and it would be great if they just simply disappeared.
Agencies and their CEOs/Executives have stopped valuing content and contributors long time ago.
-
Well, at least iStockLawyer was speaking the truth when he said re the original Microsoft deal:
"Would we do this same deal now? No, not in this way. "
Clearly not. In the original 2007 deal, contributors were paid.
Now they are not paid.
Nice one, legalman. You're treating our work like wholly owned content.
-
If you haven't assumed the position as an iStock exclusive its time you now do. Bend over and hold your ankles as we have more deals coming your way :-)
-
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
-
t
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
there are non exclusive images as well
-
Two words: Class Action.
-
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.
It's death by a thousand cuts.
-
Two words: Class Action.
I think moving on I will stick to UK agencies. At least then I'll know where I stand without having to resort to international lawyers.
Here we have legally 'unfair contracts', which can be rendered null and void. I have no idea if our ASA would be an unfair contract (the notion that they can rake in money giving away our stock files, and we can't give away even non-stock files freely), and I have no idea if such a concept exists in Canadian or US law.
-
hmmm perhaps we should all have read this part of the artist supply agreement a bit more carefully:
In addition to the foregoing grant iStockphoto and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks relating to Content for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url])
>:( >:( >:(
-
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.
If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.
-
Two words: Class Action.
How hard would it be? its about time really. out of thousands of contributors, im sure people have friends that are lawyers...
I find it funny now we see a lawyer from istock chiming in the forums.
-
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.
-
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.
Are overseas NDAs unconstitutional ? Do they violate free speech ?
Just curious.
-
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.
Are overseas NDAs unconstitutional ? Do they violate free speech ?
Just curious.
I am not a lawyer, so I am not the right one to go in to details, but hiding behind vague terms such as "for promotional use" surely does not give them right to do whatever they want with our images.
-
The ASA is according to the laws of Alberta and Canada:
"this Agreement will be governed under the laws of the Province of Alberta and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein (without reference to conflicts of laws principles). You hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Province of Alberta, Canada with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement will not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is expressly excluded. "
-
I cast my crown to the ground
Where can honesty be found?
Is it at iStockphoto?
With another promo?
No, freedom is in the work I do
Which will never be for you!
-
I cast my crown to the ground
I think this is a very smart first step. However, going non-exclusive may not help protect your images from promotional use. Looks like they can use non-exclusive content the same way if they want.
Pretty ironic that one of the main reasons most people gave for going exclusive was they wanted the copyright protection and the security of knowing their images were only available in one place.
-
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.
Are overseas NDAs unconstitutional ? Do they violate free speech ?
Just curious.
I am not a lawyer, so I am not the right one to go in to details, but hiding behind vague terms such as "for promotional use" surely does not give them right to do whatever they want with our images.
You would think not, they must be on legally shaky ground.
-
What about just shopping around the story of how the biggest microstock site in the world made all the wrong decisions, hired inept programmers, tarnished their reputation with buyers and contributors, and lost control of the market they dominated? Seriously, let's go to the press. Cheaper than hiring a lawyer, at least.
-
What about just shopping around the story of how the biggest microstock site in the world made all the wrong decisions, hired inept programmers, tarnished their reputation with buyers and contributors, and lost control of the market they dominated? Seriously, let's go to the press. Cheaper than hiring a lawyer, at least.
twitter it
-
Even if extended licenses have been purchased, it would be crazy to give google free distribution rights.
furthermore images are as big as 2.56 MP! (1600 x 1600). Beyond normal accepted web usage.
I am waiting for the official response to loose my mind, but this really makes me sick.
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.
-
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 (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...
-
...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.
-
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 (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
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It's death by a thousand cuts.
This summarizes it very well.
-
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."
[url]http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_quietly_settled_lawsuit_that_could_have_involved_up_to_1_in_3_amer[/url] ([url]http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_quietly_settled_lawsuit_that_could_have_involved_up_to_1_in_3_amer[/url])
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.
-
...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 ... ;)
-
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!
-
Certainly, I always get pinterest to take down any of my images that I find there, despite CR saying pinterest is a 'partner'.
-
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?
-
Found one of my pictures. Just type in " *.* " and magic
you can do whatever you want FOR FREE
-
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.
-
Slightly more "arrow" illustrative version of sjlocke message, explaining how to find them.
Basically, you go to https://drive.google.com (https://drive.google.com) and create a new document. Then you "insert" and select "image".
(http://s5.postimage.org/foketn3on/google_drive_untitled.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
select image (http://postimage.org/)
Then in the IMAGE dialog, you pick "Search" and "Stock Photo" pick a search term.
(http://s5.postimage.org/klxzer5nr/google_drive_insert.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
free image (http://postimage.org/)
Welcome to MicroStock.
-
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
-
So "mr_erin" has confirmed that Google paid iStock/Getty for these images: (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6816369)
"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?
-
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...
-
So "mr_erin" has confirmed that Google paid iStock/Getty for these images: ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6816369[/url])
"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 >:(
-
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...
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10334716-adult-student-rasing-hand.php?st=e5293be) 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.
-
So "mr_erin"
"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."
([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6816369[/url])
Which being translated is, "Oh, sh*t, we forgot RogerMexico has gone. Who is going to spin this for us?"
-
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.
-
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 (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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4)
-
"New kinds of opportunities" - lol. Nice.
Quite excited to see how they are going to spin this.
-
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.
-
In the iStock thread, one contributor has a Getty license (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6816515) 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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6816605). 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.
-
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.
If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.
I think she was referring to this in the ASA:
"notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or Distribution Partner marketing programs"
-
If there were to be a class action, wouldn't it be against Getty for giving away content that it had privileged access to, rather than against iStock.
Nothing in the istock agreement says you can't sue getty.
It sounds to me as if they are running scared now they are talking about it being paid for through Getty. As I understand it, there isn't any stock license that covers free eternal giveaways of our work
-
When I looked at the Google Drive site I saw a bit of vague, puny ass-covering written at the bottom of the page that said something like 'make sure you have the right licence to use the image you select'. Which does nothing of course - there are no contact details in the stripped-out exif - the images are unwatermarked, at a decent size and have the appearance of being free clip art or something.
-
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.
If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.
I think she was referring to this in the ASA:
"notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or Distribution Partner marketing programs"
Do I read that aright? That they can continue to sell it for a year and keep all the cash for themselves? That's not talking about licenses continuning to be active because they were RF and can't be revoked, it is talking about selling new licenses for a year after your account is closed.
As it doesn't specify that they WON'T pay commission, I assume they would have to part with it if you asked them to. But where would the record of your sales be if your account was frozen/deleted?
All this is utterly outrageous.
-
As they are talking about Getty licensing it, does this mean it is only exclusive Vettas that are there, or have they shoved independents' images up there, too, maybe via TS? Has anybody noticed inde stuff there?
-
I don't really know - I am not a lawyer. I was hoping Sean could tell us.
If I had read that when signing up I imagine I would have thought that it meant they did not have to pull images that were used to promote iStock if the photog suddenly dropped the crown. ie if there was an ad campaign ongoing with one of your images. But in the current climate it reads in a far more sinister light.
-
no it's not saying quite what I thought, it only applies to exclusive material that has previously been used in so-called promotional arrangements
-
Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.
If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.
I think she was referring to this in the ASA:
"notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or Distribution Partner marketing programs"
I know what she was referring to.
-
CMicare:
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting."
="we forgot to hire a new spin doctor, and iStockLawyer is still busy with the other questions, so it'll take some time to get the weasel words together."
-
great great great stuff, anything else left iStock?
you guys will win all the prizes :o
-
It's funny how they try to "gather information" on a deal they did with the second biggest company in the world. "Did you saw that contract... you know the one with google ... the one we give away thousands of files for free"
Pure comedy. I would laugh my ass off if I weren't involved in their business disaster.
-
Sean sure did stump them with this one
-
CMicare
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting.
I honestly understand why we see so many of those reminders in this string, I am aware that you have been patient about a good number of things for quite some time. For that I am sorry. We are working on this--see you tomorrow."
= It's going to take a while for me to heat up this red hot poker.
-
Anyone here considering legal action? I am willing to give $$ towards it even though I don't have any images there. This is not a joke so lets stop winning and start doing something about it!
-
Sean sure did stump them with this one
I didn't even find it - someone else gave me a hint...
-
Anyone here considering legal action? I am willing to give $$ towards it even though I don't have any images there. This is not a joke so lets stop winning and start doing something about it!
You think we're winning and want to stop? ;) (I know you meant wheenging!)
-
Sean sure did stump them with this one
I didn't even find it - someone else gave me a hint...
Sean, would legal action be an option for you?
-
CMicare
"I honestly understand why we see so many of those reminders in this string, I am aware that you have been patient about a good number of things for quite some time. For that I am sorry. We are working on this--see you tomorrow."
I already know how this will go...
Tomorrow is Friday. Nothing will be said all day long. About 5 or 6pm eastern time Friday, there will some sort of a mind screw of a statement that buys more time. Then nothing else will be said again until late Tuesday. That statement will say that these agreements are will within the parameters of the artists agreement that we agreed to. = This will make no sense, it will not be fair, but that won't matter. That will be the end of it as far as iStock is concerned.
I feel certain this is what will occur.
-
Sean sure did stump them with this one
I didn't even find it - someone else gave me a hint...
Yeah, but you brought it up to the attention of other contributors and HQ, who seem to be in the dark about this at IS.
-
CMicare:
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting."
="we forgot to hire a new spin doctor, and iStockLawyer is still busy with the other questions, so it'll take some time to get the weasel words together."
I just though it meant "it's 3:15 on the west coast and I'm tired of playing now so I'm heading out early for Happy Hour and a nice dinner."
-
CMicare:
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting."
="we forgot to hire a new spin doctor, and iStockLawyer is still busy with the other questions, so it'll take some time to get the weasel words together."
I just though it meant "it's 3:15 on the west coast and I'm tired of playing now so I'm heading out early for Happy Hour and a nice dinner."
That too. >:(
-
The only way iStock and Getty will change is if you hit their bottom line. Period. No amount of swearing and yelling in any forum, the official one or this one, is going to change their tune.
The only way to get their attention is if people stop contributing and pulling their work and denying them the exorbitant share of income that they clearly do not deserve.
Between this, Microsoft, and all the other crap that's gone on, I've just about had enough.
-
CMicare
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting.
I honestly understand why we see so many of those reminders in this string, I am aware that you have been patient about a good number of things for quite some time. For that I am sorry. We are working on this--see you tomorrow."
= It's going to take a while for me to heat up this red hot poker.
Thanks very much, Debbie, for posting these replies here so we don't have to wade through the Istock thread to find them.
And LOVING your extra commentaries at the bottom ;D
-
Could this spread to the other agencies as well? :-\
-
The only way to get their attention is if people stop contributing and pulling their work and denying them the exorbitant share of income that they clearly do not deserve.
That's one way, but I think the legal option would be more effective.
-
Could this spread to the other agencies as well? :-\
I found a ShutterStock image, that was not on Getty or IS
-
Could this spread to the other agencies as well? :-\
Of course, if they see iStock getting off with it.
-
Is it possible that it is on Thinkstock or used to be at iStock but has been deactivated?
Indies who were at StockXpert are in the Hemera collection at Thinkstock
-
I'm pretty sure other agencies are involved with Googe Drive Stock. I was able to download these high resolution files by Yuri Arcurs and I could not find them at iStockPhoto using the Google image finder tool.
1. http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-1.jpg (http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-1.jpg)
2. http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-2.jpg (http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-2.jpg)
3. http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-3.jpg (http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-3.jpg)
-
The only way to get their attention is if people stop contributing and pulling their work and denying them the exorbitant share of income that they clearly do not deserve.
That's one way, but I think the legal option would be more effective.
Honestly, when things have blown up in the past talks of litigation have often come up with no action. All of us are spread out around the globe with no clear organization like a union and no leader. Who will pay for the legal action? How will funds be raised? Who would administer all of that? Who would organize everything? Who has that kind of time and money? I hope this time around I'm proven wrong.
-
I'm pretty sure other agencies are involved with Googe Drive Stock. I was able to download these high resolution files by Yuri Arcurs and I could not find them at iStockPhoto using the Google image finder tool.
1. [url]http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-1.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-1.jpg[/url])
2. [url]http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-2.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-2.jpg[/url])
3. [url]http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-3.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/pics/Free-stock-photo-by-Yuri-Arcurs-at-Google-Drive-3.jpg[/url])
Interesting, All the images have a ThinkStock image #
-
CMicare
"We will come back on this tomorrow. Clearly there are a lot of questions that need answering and a lot to explore here. I just wanted to let you know that we will need at least several more hours to give you the clear picture and information, solutions etc. We know you are waiting so no more reminders are needed about the fact that you are waiting.
I honestly understand why we see so many of those reminders in this string, I am aware that you have been patient about a good number of things for quite some time. For that I am sorry. We are working on this--see you tomorrow."
= It's going to take a while for me to heat up this red hot poker.
Thanks very much, Debbie, for posting these replies here so we don't have to wade through the Istock thread to find them.
And LOVING your extra commentaries at the bottom ;D
- Thanks Lisa, I don't know that my comments are helpful, but I'm frustrated beyond belief and so grateful that there is MSG so I can see what other people are thinking and vent a little too. :P
-
The Yuri images are at photos.com - in the partner program. Thinkstock was the place Google told people to go look when asking for suggestions for stock images
-
The Yuri images are at photos.com - in the partner program. Thinkstock was the place Google told people to go look when asking for suggestions for stock images
Interesting that both ThinkStock and Photos.com use the same file#s for the same image
-
I bet Picturengine is looking pretty good right now, huh?
-
"New kinds of opportunities" - lol. Nice.
Quite excited to see how they are going to spin this.
So am I. They've had all day to respond to this and still no-one, at either Getty or Istock, has got a clue what's going on. Beautiful!
We're not unwittingly on some reality TV programme here are we? F*cking seems like it. Another day, another self-induced disaster at Istock.
-
I can't remember - was that quote:
We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring. Rebecca Rockafellar
or was it:
We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy and uncaring. Rebecca Rockafellar
-
what!!!
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/ (http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/)
-
We're not unwittingly on some reality TV programme here are we?
Funny you should say that. There's a UK soap called EastEnders that I watched for too many years. No matter how bad a plot I thought up from the pov of the characters, they always thought up worse.
I see a parallel.
-
In the iStock thread, one contributor has a Getty license ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6816515[/url]) 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 ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6816605[/url]). 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.
I had 10 of those on October 31th, they were added into the PP for that day but they have Getty Images written there, I believe I don't have anything at GI ;D
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qnGPeJu_tMs/UO9oN9_T0jI/AAAAAAAABiY/Mw_BGJTU2Sc/s1600/istock+31th.JPG)
-
what!!!
[url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url] ([url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url])
Go to www.thinkstock.com (http://www.thinkstock.com) and search for images, or browse through them by category. Using the form below, submit the item numbers (linked underneath each image) for up to 10 images you’d like to nominate for use in your documents, presentations, spreadsheets. We’ll use your ideas to create and curate the next generation of our stock image library.
Does that mean they will purchase them or just ask for them
-
More info on this deal
"The free stock photos found on Google Drive are a crowd sourcing initiative instigated by Google. Over 6 months ago, Google posted on their blog that they wanted Google Drive users to send in their favorite photos from Thinkstock. The Google community of users saw photo contributions as an opportunity and donated their own photos to the free stock photo option. The result is over 5,000 free photos on Google Drive for you use. How magical is that. IN a review of the quality of the free stock photos found on Google Drive, it seems the selection process from contributing photographers must have been rigorous, as the photos are great!"
I'm flattered 1 out of 5000 images is mine >:( Tks a lot Istock. How magical is that?
-
More info on this deal
"The free stock photos found on Google Drive are a crowd sourcing initiative instigated by Google. Over 6 months ago, Google posted on their blog that they wanted Google Drive users to send in their favorite photos from Thinkstock. The Google community of users saw photo contributions as an opportunity and donated their own photos to the free stock photo option. The result is over 5,000 free photos on Google Drive for you use. How magical is that. IN a review of the quality of the free stock photos found on Google Drive, it seems the selection process from contributing photographers must have been rigorous, as the photos are great!"
I'm flattered 1 out of 5000 images is mine >:( Tks a lot Istock. How magical is that?
You need to provide a link to the source of what you've quoted. Who is it by and from where?
-
I can't remember - was that quote:
We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring. Rebecca Rockafellar
or was it:
We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy and uncaring. Rebecca Rockafellar
As I see it, we can only safely eliminate the term 'lazy', because the certainly have been busy gobbling up cash and screwing their contributors.
-
More info on this deal
"The free stock photos found on Google Drive are a crowd sourcing initiative instigated by Google. Over 6 months ago, Google posted on their blog that they wanted Google Drive users to send in their favorite photos from Thinkstock. The Google community of users saw photo contributions as an opportunity and donated their own photos to the free stock photo option. The result is over 5,000 free photos on Google Drive for you use. How magical is that. IN a review of the quality of the free stock photos found on Google Drive, it seems the selection process from contributing photographers must have been rigorous, as the photos are great!"
I'm flattered 1 out of 5000 images is mine >:( Tks a lot Istock. How magical is that?
You need to provide a link to the source of what you've quoted. Who is it by and from where?
Same as the link above
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/ (http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/)
-
.
-
More info on this deal
"The free stock photos found on Google Drive are a crowd sourcing initiative instigated by Google. Over 6 months ago, Google posted on their blog that they wanted Google Drive users to send in their favorite photos from Thinkstock. The Google community of users saw photo contributions as an opportunity and donated their own photos to the free stock photo option. The result is over 5,000 free photos on Google Drive for you use. How magical is that. IN a review of the quality of the free stock photos found on Google Drive, it seems the selection process from contributing photographers must have been rigorous, as the photos are great!"
I'm flattered 1 out of 5000 images is mine >:( Tks a lot Istock. How magical is that?
You need to provide a link to the source of what you've quoted. Who is it by and from where?
Same as the link above
[url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url] ([url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url])
That link doesn't contain that quote.
-
More info on this deal
"The free stock photos found on Google Drive are a crowd sourcing initiative instigated by Google. Over 6 months ago, Google posted on their blog that they wanted Google Drive users to send in their favorite photos from Thinkstock. The Google community of users saw photo contributions as an opportunity and donated their own photos to the free stock photo option. The result is over 5,000 free photos on Google Drive for you use. How magical is that. IN a review of the quality of the free stock photos found on Google Drive, it seems the selection process from contributing photographers must have been rigorous, as the photos are great!"
I'm flattered 1 out of 5000 images is mine >:( Tks a lot Istock. How magical is that?
You need to provide a link to the source of what you've quoted. Who is it by and from where?
http://www.dragonblogger.com/google-free-stock-images-2/ (http://www.dragonblogger.com/google-free-stock-images-2/)
-
Sorry wrong link, now i can't find it
-
what!!!
[url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url] ([url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url])
Oh dear f*#king *.
-
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.
-
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)!
[url]http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg[/url]) (2000 x 1331 pixels - Print Quality)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4[/url])
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.
-
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)!
[url]http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg[/url]) (2000 x 1331 pixels - Print Quality)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4[/url])
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
-
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?
-
what!!!
[url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url] ([url]http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/[/url])
Oh dear f*#king *.
I don't remember you swearing before ;) must be bad.
Can we nominate admins photos for this wonderful deal.
-
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."
[url]http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_quietly_settled_lawsuit_that_could_have_involved_up_to_1_in_3_amer[/url] ([url]http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_quietly_settled_lawsuit_that_could_have_involved_up_to_1_in_3_amer[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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 $12!! Time limited but no notion of how long. It might as well be forever given how many people and businesses are now using Google Drive
If you put your image into a document and then right click and Save Image As... you'll see the file number in the JPEG. It's probably Thinkstock and you can search there by file number to check
-
I am angry.
They won't allow Exclusives to give away the files for free in any websites, but iStock is apparently violating that.
There is one Vetta file (not owned by me) smallest size is around 800 pixels and costs 60$, but in Google Drive with 1600+ pixels and it's FREE!
-
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)!
[url]http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/istockphoto/free-exclusive-images-by-istockphoto-at-google-drive.jpg[/url]) (2000 x 1331 pixels - Print Quality)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17034773-golden-retriever-dog-into-a-dry-wheat-field.php?st=c1629c4[/url])
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Use a * as your search term.
Also, the search is only based on the title.
-
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!)
-
* it! Found one of mine :( So where do I send the money for the legal action?
-
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
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023)
-
none of mine there, the brain says phew... the ego takes a hit :)
-
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
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
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023[/url])
There are no words. Just unbelievable.
-
I know this is mostly about the google 'deal' but this is equally damming and giving away stock images to people that would otherwise buy them: http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html (http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html)
It's also probably the tip of an even bigger iceberg of free give aways by istock.
-
none of mine there, the brain says phew... the ego takes a hit :)
Exact same boat here. I think I'll go with the brain though. I'm relieved none of mine are there.
-
^^ So far, I seem to be another of the lucky (sucky?) ones with no images there.
-
Here's why this affects all of us, whether our images are used in this
promotion scheme or not:
Posted by CJP on Istock's forum:
Getty have lost it. Giving images away for free is utter madness - only this week one of my design business clients told me they are no longer buying images because they said they can get them free. I actually warned them about the risk of using images without a licence!! Now I find I've been mugged by my own agent! You couldn't make this up.
-
I have 4 images there. They are from Getty/Flickr collection. Google bought them in 31-Oct-12. They paid $60 and I got $12 for each one.
And in 29-Nov-12, google bought another 2 images (Customer Name: Google: eC
ommerce & Google Dri), but can't find them there. Something different is that they paid only $30 for each one this time. :-\
-
I know this is mostly about the google 'deal' but this is equally damming and giving away stock images to people that would otherwise buy them: [url]http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html[/url] ([url]http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html[/url])
It's also probably the tip of an even bigger iceberg of free give aways by istock.
I would venture that this would actually come under an 'electronic items for resale', as the images can be included in a template that the subscriber (paid) can send out. It isn't just a random 'do anything you like with this image' set up.
-
So what's happening? Is Istock or Getty making any statements on this? From what I understand they promised to come back today with something?
-
So what's happening? Is Istock or Getty making any statements on this? From what I understand they promised to come back today with something?
If my memory serves, this is c10 am iStocktime.
They need time to coggle something up with some legalese 'distractors' thrown in.
-
I have 4 images there. They are from Getty/Flickr collection. Google bought them in 31-Oct-12. They paid $60 and I got $12 for each one.
And in 29-Nov-12, google bought another 2 images (Customer Name: Google: eC
ommerce & Google Dri), but can't find them there. Something different is that they paid only $30 for each one this time. :-\
How do you feel about it? Is it a problem for you? Why isn't this discussed in the Flickr forums? Four pictures are quite a lot if I read the iStock forums there is a lot of outcry even from contributors that aren't affected at all.
-
One possible avenue to go after Istock/Getty and/or Google might be the removal of metadata and distribution of these images without metadata which seems to be inconsistent with Istock/Getty’s and Google’s obligations under the EU’s InfoSoc Directive and the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
http://picworkflow.com/blog/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/ (http://picworkflow.com/blog/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dreamstime-makes-a-good-change/msg225199/#msg225199 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dreamstime-makes-a-good-change/msg225199/#msg225199)
Note that Google usually gets to plead “ignorance” to things that are DMCA inconsistent like on bootleg video’s posted on YouTube since it was posted by somebody else, but in this case Google licensed the images and then made them available, so they are on the hook (if there is one).
-
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
Yup the number matches Thinkstock image number, here it is: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/search/#122507672 (http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/search/#122507672)
That's where they got it from. I still can't believe this happened - it's not like they thought they own the rights to these images, they are not that dumb... they thought they can get away with this. We're being screwed intentionally - they don't think people can or will do anything about it.
-
I have 4 images there. They are from Getty/Flickr collection. Google bought them in 31-Oct-12. They paid $60 and I got $12 for each one.
And in 29-Nov-12, google bought another 2 images (Customer Name: Google: eC
ommerce & Google Dri), but can't find them there. Something different is that they paid only $30 for each one this time. :-\
How do you feel about it? Is it a problem for you? Why isn't this discussed in the Flickr forums? Four pictures are quite a lot if I read the iStock forums there is a lot of outcry even from contributors that aren't affected at all.
Are any of the Getty/Flickr images in the Google set? If so, then certainly the media wind-up could be started at the Flickr forums. Even if we don't know, the Getty/Flickr contributors would likely want to go look for themselves to see if they have any orphans now loose.
-
In addition to everything else, it is teaching the public that image grabbing is okay. We really need a highly publicized lawsuit to act as an example for all.
How did the music industry combat this years ago? We need to follow their example. AFAIK, Apple stepped in and coded downloads to allow only limited copying of downloaded material. I know there are still bootleg sites out there, but the music industry has not imploded from it. We need a smart programmer to develop a way to disable right clicking a jpg that can be embedded into all uploads.
Our agents distributors pimps won't help us, so we will likely need to band together and start this movement on our own.
-
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
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
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023[/url])
This is totally insane..boundaries are being pushed to the limit...it seems that braking point will only be reached once contributors start removing their images. Until then, they really don't give a *
-
I have 4 images there. They are from Getty/Flickr collection. Google bought them in 31-Oct-12. They paid $60 and I got $12 for each one.
And in 29-Nov-12, google bought another 2 images (Customer Name: Google: eC
ommerce & Google Dri), but can't find them there. Something different is that they paid only $30 for each one this time. :-\
How do you feel about it? Is it a problem for you? Why isn't this discussed in the Flickr forums? Four pictures are quite a lot if I read the iStock forums there is a lot of outcry even from contributors that aren't affected at all.
Are any of the Getty/Flickr images in the Google set? If so, then certainly the media wind-up could be started at the Flickr forums. Even if we don't know, the Getty/Flickr contributors would likely want to go look for themselves to see if they have any orphans now loose.
Yes there are many Getty/Flickr images in the Google set!
-
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
Yup the number matches Thinkstock image number, here it is: [url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/search/#122507672[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/search/#122507672[/url])
That's where they got it from. I still can't believe this happened - it's not like they thought they own the rights to these images, they are not that dumb... they thought they can get away with this. We're being screwed intentionally - they don't think people can or will do anything about it.
I think that they will simply say that they negotiated a 'special' license with Google, acting as our agent/distributor. The low price of $60 per image was discounted due to the high volume of 6000 image licenses being bought. Total price was $360K with $60K being given to contributors and Getty pocketing the other $300K. I think it was that deliberate and nothing to do with 'promotion' of either Getty or the artists.
-
I think that they will simply say that they negotiated a 'special' license with Google, acting as our agent/distributor. The low price of $60 per image was discounted due to the high volume of 6000 image licenses being bought. Total price was $360K with $60K being given to contributors and Getty pocketing the other $300K. I think it was that deliberate and nothing to do with 'promotion' of either Getty or the artists.
I just noticed that on the buy credits page, they are now advertising credits as low as 29c to corporate buyers. Never noticed that amount as low before.
However, in no case should they be licensing our images ('our' loosely as I don't think I'm personally affected) to be given away free.
-
I think that they will simply say that they negotiated a 'special' license with Google, acting as our agent/distributor. The low price of $60 per image was discounted due to the high volume of 6000 image licenses being bought. Total price was $360K with $60K being given to contributors and Getty pocketing the other $300K. I think it was that deliberate and nothing to do with 'promotion' of either Getty or the artists.
I think this is the truth of the situation that will be covered in corporate goo when it's served up.
-
Yeah, Sue that's the thing. We have to stand together on this one. Who knows what is next.
-
Sorry, my mind is mush.
There's a lot of talk of Google having stripped out copyright and metadata.
Doesn't iStock strip this out as standard?
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I seem to have forgotten the definitive answer.
-
Sorry, my mind is mush.
There's a lot of talk of Google having stripped out copyright and metadata.
Doesn't iStock strip this out as standard?
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I seem to have forgotten the definitive answer.
When I bought a couple of images via IS the CR information was corectly given in the Metas
-
Sorry, my mind is mush.
There's a lot of talk of Google having stripped out copyright and metadata.
Doesn't iStock strip this out as standard?
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I seem to have forgotten the definitive answer.
When I bought a couple of images via IS the CR information was corectly given in the Metas
Thanks.
-
I have just seen this on IS forum. Will help searching if your image has been used.
Posted By sjlocke:
I've downloaded all 6923 images available on Google, and should have a page tomorrow, possibly with all the images and exif.
In the meantime, here is a text list so you can search in your browser and see if you find yourself: http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html (http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html)
-
I have just seen this on IS forum. Will help searching if your image has been used.
Posted By sjlocke:
I've downloaded all 6923 images available on Google, and should have a page tomorrow, possibly with all the images and exif.
In the meantime, here is a text list so you can search in your browser and see if you find yourself: [url]http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html[/url])
Oh no, 7 of mine!!!
-
You beat me to it uvox4 :D
Three cheers for Sean for taking time to do this!!!
-
Oh no, 7 of mine!!!
Elena, the ones of yours that are there...are they from Getty or from your microstock portfolio?
-
You beat me to it uvox4 :D
Three cheers for Sean for taking time to do this!!!
IS could learn a lot from Sean. They should have somebody like him running the place.
-
Oh no, 7 of mine!!!
Elena, the ones of yours that are there...are they from Getty or from your microstock portfolio?
Actually, at least 8 of mine. One that I know of from Thinkstock via Ingram Publishing (so my name is not listed), and the other 7 are from Getty images, I think all of them from Tetra Images collection, exclusive to them. Lovely.
-
Oh no, 7 of mine!!!
Elena, the ones of yours that are there...are they from Getty or from your microstock portfolio?
Actually, at least 8 of mine. One that I know of from Thinkstock via Ingram Publishing (so my name is not listed), and the other 7 are from Getty images, I think all of them from Tetra Images collection, exclusive to them. Lovely.
Thanks Elena. It's good to get an idea how indies files are ending up there.
-
Thanks a lot Sean. That helps in finding the images. One of mine and I'm not impressed.
I was thinking of trying to fill up all my upload slots to iStock this year, not sure I want any more of this.
-
Oh no, 7 of mine!!!
Elena, the ones of yours that are there...are they from Getty or from your microstock portfolio?
Actually, at least 8 of mine. One that I know of from Thinkstock via Ingram Publishing (so my name is not listed), and the other 7 are from Getty images, I think all of them from Tetra Images collection, exclusive to them. Lovely.
Thanks Elena. It's good to get an idea how indies files are ending up there.
I also saw some files from Blend Images. Both Tetra and Blend are high-priced collections selling not only on Getty but on other macros, what they h*ll Getty thinks they are doing. I am emailing Tetra and Blend to let them know this is happening if they are not on it already.
-
I also saw some files from Blend Images. Both Tetra and Blend are high-priced collections selling not only on Getty but on other macros, what they h*ll Getty thinks they are doing. I am emailing Tetra and Blend to let them know this is happening if they are not on it already.
I saw quite a few from John Lund (from blend).
-
I have 4 images there. They are from Getty/Flickr collection. Google bought them in 31-Oct-12. They paid $60 and I got $12 for each one.
And in 29-Nov-12, google bought another 2 images (Customer Name: Google: eC
ommerce & Google Dri), but can't find them there. Something different is that they paid only $30 for each one this time. :-\
How do you feel about it? Is it a problem for you? Why isn't this discussed in the Flickr forums? Four pictures are quite a lot if I read the iStock forums there is a lot of outcry even from contributors that aren't affected at all.
Are any of the Getty/Flickr images in the Google set? If so, then certainly the media wind-up could be started at the Flickr forums. Even if we don't know, the Getty/Flickr contributors would likely want to go look for themselves to see if they have any orphans now loose.
The first one I traced back to the Getty Images site was from their Flickr collection.
-
Thank you for compiling the list Sean.
-
This feels like a Dreamstime sell the right license .. except we only get $12 and they get to pick whichever photos they want. They are essentially killing the value of the photos they stuck in this freebie
-
I also saw some files from Blend Images. Both Tetra and Blend are high-priced collections selling not only on Getty but on other macros, what they h*ll Getty thinks they are doing. I am emailing Tetra and Blend to let them know this is happening if they are not on it already.
I saw quite a few from John Lund (from blend).
.. yeah.. wow. 17 on my count.
-
Funny that I haven't seen the King of MS on the string?
-
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
I was able to verify that none of my images are there, which is a partial relief, but Getty's high handed giveaway sets a new low water mark for bad behavior.
I saw Sean had 6 images given away and Yuri (Jacob Wackerhausen is on some of the images, Yuri Arcurs on others) 10. Lise Gagne only 2, Monkey Business Images 4.
Did anyone do better/worse than 10?
-
This feels like a Dreamstime sell the right license .. except we only get $12 and they get to pick whichever photos they want. They are essentially killing the value of the photos they stuck in this freebie
Looking at the quality of those images it is almost impossible to believe that Getty really did sell a 'give away for free and forever' license ... for just sixty paltry dollars to Google! It's utterly insane. Even at $6000 per image (with $1200 going to the artist) I'm not sure many of them would have agreed to it.
-
I only found six of mine - the copyright info is missing on a few. If you were adding up all the times my name showed up, that would be why you got ten.
-
I only found six of mine - the copyright info is missing on a few. If you were adding up all the times my name showed up, that would be why you got ten.
I already fixed my post as I realized that mistake :)
It's lunchtime at HQ and still nothing from them. Did you ever find the $72 in Premium Access Licenses from your GI statements?
-
I only found six of mine - the copyright info is missing on a few. If you were adding up all the times my name showed up, that would be why you got ten.
I already fixed my post as I realized that mistake :)
It's lunchtime at HQ and still nothing from them. Did you ever find the $72 in Premium Access Licenses from your GI statements?
Hang on, I just realized I need to check my iStock Getty reports since these are all Vetta/Agency...
-
Found 2 of mine. No copyright info. Great!
-
Yes, I did get paid $12 each on 10/31. Wheeee!
-
Looking at the quality of those images it is almost impossible to believe that Getty really did sell a 'give away for free and forever' license ... for just sixty paltry dollars to Google! It's utterly insane. Even at $6000 per image (with $1200 going to the artist) I'm not sure many of them would have agreed to it.
We don't know the details of this scam. I suspect there might be some additional compensation involved, e.g. Google pays ridiculously low image royalties, but pays a commission to Getty for "doing the selection of the images" or whatever, or offers them credits to be spent on AdSense etc.
I find it pathetic that iStock needs a ****ing "lawyer" in their forum. If they were innocent they would not need a lawyer to explain their actions. I don't know any other agency that needs a lawyer to communicate with their contributors on a regular basis.
-
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
I was able to verify that none of my images are there, which is a partial relief, but Getty's high handed giveaway sets a new low water mark for bad behavior.
I saw Sean had 6 images given away and Yuri (Jacob Wackerhausen is on some of the images, Yuri Arcurs on others) 10. Lise Gagne only 2, Monkey Business Images 4.
Did anyone do better/worse than 10?
So far I found 2 from Thinkstock, 6 from Tetra collection, 1 Photographer's Choice. 9 in total.
-
So far I found 2 from Thinkstock, 6 from Tetra collection, 1 Photographer's Choice. 9 in total.
Not exactly a contest you want to win though, sadly. I guess you're currently the bronze silver medalist :)
It'd be nice if Tetra was able to kick up a stink with Getty, but they may be like so many others - ill able to afford losing Getty's business and thus unwilling to do more than complain politely.
Modified as I did a couple of checks for names I know and Andrew Rich - RichVintage has 11, so he's "beating" Yuri in this horrible sweepstakes
-
So far I found 2 from Thinkstock, 6 from Tetra collection, 1 Photographer's Choice. 9 in total.
Not exactly a contest you want to win though, sadly. I guess you're currently the bronze silver medalist :)
It'd be nice if Tetra was able to kick up a stink with Getty, but they may be like so many others - ill able to afford losing Getty's business and thus unwilling to do more than complain politely.
Modified as I did a couple of checks for names I know and Andrew Rich - RichVintage has 11, so he's "beating" Yuri in this horrible sweepstakes
I think the 'Grill Family' are this week's lucky winners. Jamie Grill especially but also some from Daniel and Tom himself. They won't be best pleased.
-
So far I found 2 from Thinkstock, 6 from Tetra collection, 1 Photographer's Choice. 9 in total.
Not exactly a contest you want to win though, sadly. I guess you're currently the bronze silver medalist :)
It'd be nice if Tetra was able to kick up a stink with Getty, but they may be like so many others - ill able to afford losing Getty's business and thus unwilling to do more than complain politely.
Modified as I did a couple of checks for names I know and Andrew Rich - RichVintage has 11, so he's "beating" Yuri in this horrible sweepstakes
Ha, I still made the podium so far:) Tetra is already looking into this, talking to Getty. We'll see what happens.
-
We don't know the details of this scam. I suspect there might be some additional compensation involved, e.g. Google pays ridiculously low image royalties, but pays a commission to Getty for "doing the selection of the images" or whatever, or offers them credits to be spent on AdSense etc.
I find it pathetic that iStock needs a ****ing "lawyer" in their forum. If they were innocent they would not need a lawyer to explain their actions. I don't know any other agency that needs a lawyer to communicate with their contributors on a regular basis.
The thing is we make our money selling image licenses and Getty make their money selling image licenses __ it's just that their cut is 4x that of the our. If this is a bad deal for us then it's a bad deal for Getty too and they lose 4x what we do. Getting free advertising isn't much use if your customers have disappeared and got used to getting their images for free. It's even more bizarre that the deal didn't include a link back to the original image so that larger sizes can be bought. This just doesn't make any sense to me.
-
If I were iStock, I would be trying to get in contact with Sean by any means possible. He does a unbelievable job of keeping most of us contributors informed. If they were able to lure him over to the dark side, wouldn't need all the lawyers in the threads. ;)
-
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
I was able to verify that none of my images are there, which is a partial relief, but Getty's high handed giveaway sets a new low water mark for bad behavior.
Ditto. Thank you so much Sean, you are a marvel.
I'm glad to see that none of mine are there either, but so sorry for everyone who has lost sales over this. Just appalling. Don't they realise that people work hard at producing high quality work to sustain their own income? We don't do it to line Getty's pockets - we do it to line our own.
-
I think the 'Grill Family' are this week's lucky winners. Jamie Grill especially but also some from Daniel and Tom himself. They won't be best pleased.
Wow- they are well represented :) 101 search hits but I didn't count duplicates per file. Seems like a company similar to Monkey Business Images from looking at their web site.
An aside; I didn't realize that I can use the image number if I have it - as in from Sean's text file - to search in the Google Drive dialog to locate the images.
-
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
Sean and istock clearly live by entirely different moral standards.
-
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
I doubt this is something that iStock or Getty want made public.
I would encourage anyone who recognizes names on Sean's list to let those people know what is going on if they don't already know.
-
We haven't heard much of the Getty letters lately, but doing a quick search, I see that they are still alive and kicking. Here's a copy of one dated May 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter (Short Version) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/95708364/Attorney-Timothy-B-McCormack-Settlement-Demand-Letter-Short-Version#)
Here is a link to information about it, which indicates that Getty does not have an in-house attorney at all, but rather only one attorney of record and he is "of counsel" meaning "not in house". It makes me wonder if this is "istocklawyer".
You can read about this, and about the sole attorney of record here:
http://stopgettyimages.com/getty_images_extortion_attempts.htm (http://stopgettyimages.com/getty_images_extortion_attempts.htm)
-
I would encourage anyone who recognizes names on Sean's list to let those people know what is going on if they don't already know.
Funnily enough I've been doing just that. More angry contributors perhaps means some/more action from the wretches who dreamed this up.
-
I would encourage anyone who recognizes names on Sean's list to let those people know what is going on if they don't already know.
Funnily enough I've been doing just that. More angry contributors perhaps means some/more action from the wretches who dreamed this up.
Yup I've been a busy bee too:) BTW Tom Grill and family are owners of Tetra Images.
-
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
I was able to verify that none of my images are there, which is a partial relief, but Getty's high handed giveaway sets a new low water mark for bad behavior.
I saw Sean had 6 images given away and Yuri (Jacob Wackerhausen is on some of the images, Yuri Arcurs on others) 10. Lise Gagne only 2, Monkey Business Images 4.
Did anyone do better/worse than 10?
So far I found 2 from Thinkstock, 6 from Tetra collection, 1 Photographer's Choice. 9 in total.
17 for John Lund.
-
Here's another fiesty one:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter (http://www.scribd.com/doc/83405769/Attorney-Timothy-B-McCormack-Settlement-Demand-Letter#)
-
If this really was a legit 'deal' for nearly 7000 images to Google then I'd assume it would have been discussed, if not directly handled, at the very highest level within Getty. It's not just a financial deal, it's also a significant strategic move too.
I'm also surprised that having closed such a significant deal that neither company have announced it publically. I'd have thought it was worth a press release and a few interviews in the media __ if only for the free publicity that that brings. Yet nothing. There's something about all this that just doesn't make sense.
-
Okay, depending on when Happy Hours starts in Calgary, we should be hearing from an Admin OR a Lawyer anytime between now = 4:20 pm and 6 pm eastern time. They will thank us for being patient and thank Sean for finding such terrific information! They will tell us to get out and enjoy the weekend and shoot some fresh pics! They will be working diligently on a statement for us that should be available to read early next week - meaning maybe Thursday afternoon. At that time they will tell us they are working on the details of the situation and will have information for us shortly - meaning early February. ;)
-
CMicare
Posted 1 min ago
Quote
"I know you are in a hurry and we are too.
It is 4:30 NY time, 2:30 in Calgary and 1:30 Seattle time so it is infact still the day we said we would get back to you. We are getting there.
Regarding claims against our customer that they are using images illegally; again they are not and that Getty broke your contract this is false. Again we will comje back today."
---- so they say ---
BTW, I nailed it! :D
-
Haha. That's exactly what we are waiting for whole day. :-\
-
Nice to know the clocks are working up there :o
-
No idea how you did it Sean, but thank you for that list! I'm not on it, but feel as angry as if I was.
It's bedtime now (in Belgium), and I'm wondering how many pages filled with posts I will find when I get up in the morning.
-
Fact: Google did not steal images. Fact: Getty made a deal with Google for these images. Fact: you were paid $12.00 for their free use. Fact: the artist got shafted. Fact: unless stopped they will do it again and again.
-
And, just now from the forums:
""isn't it the task of iStock to monitor and police any illegal use of our images?
We do--in fact we are deveolping technology that at some point will likely make this extremely efficient.
-
Fact: Google did not steal images. Fact: Getty made a deal with Google for these images. Fact: you were paid $12.00 for their free use. Fact: the artist got shafted. Fact: unless stopped they will do it again and again.
Umm, they have to point me to the paragraph in our agreement where I am agreeing to grant anyone the right to re-distribute my images for free. So no, I haven't been paid $12 for this - I never agreed to this kind of deal to start with. I don't understand how they can claim they didn't break the agreement.
-
Fact: Google did not steal images. Fact: Getty made a deal with Google for these images. Fact: you were paid $12.00 for their free use. Fact: the artist got shafted. Fact: unless stopped they will do it again and again.
Umm, they have to point me to the paragraph in our agreement where I am agreeing to grant anyone the right to re-distribute my images for free. So no, I haven't been paid $12 for this - I never agreed to this kind of deal to start with. I don't understand how they can claim they didn't break the agreement.
They'd probably point to this: "The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content to third parties worldwide and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement. "
They did "collect and remit funds", but I don't think a judge would find the compensation appropriate for the grants of rights sold.
ie., I don't think "Give me a $1 and you can let your users download this work as many times as they like and use it however they like" a valid interpretation of the agreement.
-
I have just seen this on IS forum. Will help searching if your image has been used.
Posted By sjlocke:
I've downloaded all 6923 images available on Google, and should have a page tomorrow, possibly with all the images and exif.
In the meantime, here is a text list so you can search in your browser and see if you find yourself: [url]http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html[/url])
I noticed that there are a lot listed as "n/a"
-
CMicare can say what she thinks - false or true, agreement upheld or broken - but that doesn't make it so.
Lawsuits are frequently about two different interpretations of the same words or set of facts. Photographer says Getty had no right to sell a license to redistribute, making the deal with Google void. Getty argues their view that the weasel words in their ASA permit such a deal - no notification or permission required. Money spent, judge says what things mean, parties return to trying to do business.
Photographers can allege that Google has no right to the images via the takedown notice. Getty might disagree, but in the meantime Google will probably take it down, at least for a while. Even if the images ended up going back after some time, it's still a win for the time being.
On the other hand, if Getty wants to play dirty, don't they have clauses that say we agree to pay any legal expenses of theirs and that they can withhold earnings for any charges against our account? My guess is you'd put all your earnings on the line if you fight with them.
So first they were going to get an answer yesterday. Then they needed more time till today. Then they're whining that today's not over yet so why are we so impatient...
-
Fact: Google did not steal images. Fact: Getty made a deal with Google for these images. Fact: you were paid $12.00 for their free use. Fact: the artist got shafted. Fact: unless stopped they will do it again and again.
Umm, they have to point me to the paragraph in our agreement where I am agreeing to grant anyone the right to re-distribute my images for free. So no, I haven't been paid $12 for this - I never agreed to this kind of deal to start with. I don't understand how they can claim they didn't break the agreement.
They'd probably point to this: "The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content to third parties worldwide and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement. "
They did "collect and remit funds", but I don't think a judge would find the compensation appropriate for the grants of rights sold.
ie., I don't think "Give me a $1 and you can let your users download this work as many times as they like and use it however they like" a valid interpretation of the agreement.
The thing is, all my images used in Google Drive except for 1 (PC) are non-exclusive. Tetra ones are exclusive to them, but they have a wide network of distributors. So the f**ktards are damaging my sales with other companies by allowing my images to be given away for free - they can't do that. Nobody nowhere in any court can say it's ok. The damages are loud and clear.
-
So the f**ktards are damaging my sales with other companies by allowing my images to be given away for free - they can't do that.
This is exactly the issue I've been wondering about. Even if they are convinced that their contract with us allows this type of treatment, what about the loss of sales they are creating for us via other outlets, and the losses that those outlets endure as a direct result? Isn't there anything in that regarding loss of earnings due to unfair competitive practices?
-
Kevin should delete her off topic posts.
-
Sorry but rush to the my last post and you will see they are trying a pay per click option on your images. This is pure trash for the artist!! I mean real trash.
-
Seriously, I can see her taking off her heels and putting on her boots and coat. "One last post and out the ...."
-
This feels like a Dreamstime sell the right license .. except we only get $12 and they get to pick whichever photos they want. They are essentially killing the value of the photos they stuck in this freebie
Isn't that pretty much true for the MS deal, too (for which most didn't even get a penny -- not that $12 is much different from zero, considering the usage)?
-
What a great time it was when I was not iStock contributor. It was possible to skip hundreds of pages of iS threads about outages, F5, commissions cutting, incompetency of management etc. I should have learned something and stay outside of this weird master and slaves game. Instead of working, I've been waiting for CMicare's cock-and-bull stories whole day.
The fact that I don't have any of my images on Google doesn't mean that I'm not affected by this.
I'm furious and tired of it at the same time. All I can do at this moment is to stop uploading and send some money to fund if contributors decide to go to court.
-
I used to work with Debra Montgomery, an IP lawyer in Ontario (different Canadian Province). I could contact her to see about a class action, she should take an initial consult for no charge and either suggest someone or validate that a class action is even an option. But someone would need to give me some guidance on the initial contact and someone else would have to step up as point person. I just don't have the depth of knowledge about what is going on.
I am also not directly affected in this particular matter. But just because this doesn't affect me today does not mean it/or tomorrow's variation of the theme will not affect me tomorrow.
http://www.heydary.com/IP/lawyers.html (http://www.heydary.com/IP/lawyers.html)
-
Another option, is Gary Elsner
http://www.garyelsner.com/ (http://www.garyelsner.com/)
-
Sorry but rush to the my last post and you will see they are trying a pay per click option on your images. This is pure trash for the artist!! I mean real trash.
and 1600 x 1600 is also good for most prints - and that money is completely gone...
-
Sean - thank you for your effort on this. As someone else noted, iStock should be ashamed that you are doing this work and not them.
I doubt this is something that iStock or Getty want made public.
I would encourage anyone who recognizes names on Sean's list to let those people know what is going on if they don't already know.
I copied and pasted into Word and did a search for my name...I lucked out. Thanks Sean for taking the time to do this.
I did notice quite a few of Luis Santos's.
-
I guess Getty response will be "we didn't do anything wrong and everything is legal" so I think we have to collect money and go to the court.
-
I just searched for Luis Santos and counted 80...and I still had many pages to go.
-
What is really scary is that they might overnight decide to do this with my entire portfolio and thus destroy many years of work.
This might be my paranoia, but imagine Getty putting all non exclusive images on google for free overnight. Imagine the blow this would give the whole industry. It is pretty clear now, that they feel they have the right to do it. And that they will if they think they can monetize enough on it and maybe kill competition at the same time. In that scenario iStock will stand stronger most agencies as they have exclusive content.
There are probably big holes in that theory, but it is more clear than ever that "Getty is evil". Needless to say, I will stop my uploads to iStock right now, and probably start deleting soon unless the well awaited explanation surprises me. I will loose a lot of money, but the risk of loosing everything seems closer than ever with Getty infringing my copyrights.
This is truly the time to let them know the hard way that we are the IP owners.
-
I just searched for Luis Santos and counted 80...and I still had many pages to go.
I only see 10 of Luis Santos' images in Sean's list - is there perhaps something repeated in what you pasted?
-
I just searched for Luis Santos and counted 80...and I still had many pages to go.
I only see 10 of Luis Santos' images in Sean's list - is there perhaps something repeated in what you pasted?
Let me check. I'll pull them out and paste in separate doc so numbers can be compared.
-
What is really scary is that they might overnight decide to do this with my entire portfolio and thus destroy many years of work.
This might be my paranoia, but imagine Getty putting all non exclusive images on google for free overnight. Imagine the blow this would give the whole industry.
God, what a horrifying scenario!! :o
Hopefully if something like this happens the other sites will get involved in legal action to stop it. And yes, absolutely I would have to quit Istock and demand, through my attorney, that my images be removed from Istock and all PP sites immediately.
-
What is really scary is that they might overnight decide to do this with my entire portfolio and thus destroy many years of work.
This might be my paranoia, but imagine Getty putting all non exclusive images on google for free overnight. Imagine the blow this would give the whole industry. It is pretty clear now, that they feel they have the right to do it. And that they will if they think they can monetize enough on it and maybe kill competition at the same time. In that scenario iStock will stand stronger most agencies as they have exclusive content.
There are probably big holes in that theory, but it is more clear than ever that "Getty is evil". Needless to say, I will stop my uploads to iStock right now, and probably start deleting soon unless the well awaited explanation surprises me. I will loose a lot of money, but the risk of loosing everything seems closer than ever with Getty infringing my copyrights.
This is truly the time to let them know the hard way that we are the IP owners.
But ... if they damage us and/or our IP ... aren't they also damaging themselves and their business equally, if not far more?
-
But ... if they damage us and/or our IP ... aren't they also damaging themselves and their business equally, if not far more?
Yes, absolutely. But I think the days of assuming that Getty won't do anything to damage itself and its business are long over. Can any of us really have any confidence that they won't shoot themselves and the industry in the foot YET AGAIN for short term gains, at this point?
ETA: Let's not forget that they are owned by another in a succession of vulture venture capital firms whose only intention is to pump and dump them. Long term planning is not part of the equation anymore.
-
Joanne you are correct. Not sure what happened, I don't think I have repeats. 273 pages x about 24 names per page = 6552. I used the same process this time as the last. It highlights them in yellow, then scrolled through. Word for Mac, what can I say.
Yes, only 10 of Luis's. Sorry, hope I didn't Luis a heart attack...10 is bad enough.
-
The idea that Getty would let Google license these images for free for $60 a whack ($48 to them) is so ludicrous for the long term, it's as though they're trying to squeeze every last cent out in a closing down sale.
And what was that SparkRebel thing that was supposed to be getting moved to its own thread? I can't find the new thread.
CMicare:
For those interested in the technology I mentioned around protecting copyright I do have something public I can link to. It explains how, for now, we are using it to monetize views of images people have pinned or "sparked" on SparkRebel.
The link:
http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=476 (http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=476)
A pile of small, dense difficult to read prose, c18 words per line (optimum for readability online is about 12 words per line).
Never heard of SparkRebel; it looks like Pinterest.
-
What is really scary is that they might overnight decide to do this with my entire portfolio and thus destroy many years of work.
This might be my paranoia, but imagine Getty putting all non exclusive images on google for free overnight. Imagine the blow this would give the whole industry. It is pretty clear now, that they feel they have the right to do it. And that they will if they think they can monetize enough on it and maybe kill competition at the same time. In that scenario iStock will stand stronger most agencies as they have exclusive content.
There are probably big holes in that theory, but it is more clear than ever that "Getty is evil". Needless to say, I will stop my uploads to iStock right now, and probably start deleting soon unless the well awaited explanation surprises me. I will loose a lot of money, but the risk of loosing everything seems closer than ever with Getty infringing my copyrights.
This is truly the time to let them know the hard way that we are the IP owners.
But ... if they damage us and/or our IP ... aren't they also damaging themselves and their business equally, if not far more?
Yes, I would assume that, but they just did it with 5000 images (and many in very high quality)...
-
The idea that Getty would let Google license these images for free for $60 a whack ($48 to them) is so ludicrous for the long term, it's as though they're trying to squeeze every last cent out in a closing down sale.
After giving it some more thought, it seems very clear this is what's happening. The Carlyle Group bought Getty and was probably quite surprised at the shambles it was in. They've discovered that the income they expected isn't materializing and it is leveraged to the hilt by the previous owners. Now, similar to what was done with mortgages, our images are being bundled together and sold off in batches for flat one time payments.
The Carlyle Group aren't about long term or saving businesses. They are about squeezing every last bit of capital yet to be wrung out of it and then leaving the bones to be picked over by buzzards. They're going to get whatever money they can from giving away our images, and then write off the losses. Hostess anyone?
-
Joanne you are correct. Not sure what happened, I don't think I have repeats. 273 pages x about 24 names per page = 6552. I used the same process this time as the last. It highlights them in yellow, then scrolled through. Word for Mac, what can I say.
Yes, only 10 of Luis's. Sorry, hope I didn't Luis a heart attack...10 is bad enough.
ahahah I am fine, thanks for digging that out ;D
-
I still think the best way to get away from the istock problems is to leave the site. It takes too much of my time to read about all their problems. They seem to be getting worse. Why don't we all just leave? It might be harder for exclusives but if they had their own site or did a good deal with one of the current sites, I'm sure the buyers would soon find them.
Having seen how legal action has failed before, does anyone really want to try that? It will make money for the lawyers and take up lots more time that could be spent on something more worthwhile, like producing new images.
It's really hard to believe that so many of us are still using istock. I don't think a few people leaving is going to make much difference but an organized exit by most of us would. The exclusives have a reason to stay but isn't it time for the rest of us to get out?
-
Never heard of SparkRebel; it looks like Pinterest.
It appears that way Sue -- here's a link - I saw it in a few places described as a Pinterest for teenage girl's fashion, an on-line mall.
http://sparkrebel.com/about (http://sparkrebel.com/about)
-
I copied and pasted into Word and did a search for my name
For windows users, you can just press ctrl+f to search the web page. Not sure for Mac.
-
...Let's not forget that they are owned by another in a succession of vulture venture capital firms whose only intention is to pump and dump them. Long term planning is not part of the equation anymore.
I would in general not lump venture capital in with private equity. Most of the time, venture capitalists are investing in new businesses and getting out when the company goes public. Most of the time they're investing to build the company - that's how the company can raise funds to grow. In general I see venture capital as on balance good.
Private equity is almost always parasitic and not about growing anything. They try to suck money out of troubled businesses and couldn't care less what state they're in after they leave. They don't invest for the future because they don't want to cut into their profits and they aim for 3 years and out.
H&F and Carlyle - and Bain Capital - are private equity companies. Insight Venture Partners (http://www.insightpartners.com/portfolio/) does both - they own 21% of Shutterstock. Here's (http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/private-equity-vs-venture-capital/) an article about the difference.
I like a quote from this article (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/in-silicon-valley-a-culture-clash-sullies-a-romance/):
"Private equity firms buy companies, and through financial engineering and a dose of operational and management restructuring make investor profits.
There is a real debate over whether private equity firms even create value. It may be that private equity makes money by operating companies more efficiently, but some instead argue that private equity’s success is attributable to the ability to borrow heavily and reap value through leverage and tax deductions. Regardless, private equity is commonly viewed as the world of New York finance.
Venture capital is adamantly not about financial engineering. It is about ideas and creativity, where people build next-generation companies. Sure, venture capital firms are good at finance, but the community is really about creating value from the “new new thing,” as Michael Lewis put it."
-
I copied and pasted into Word and did a search for my name
For windows users, you can just press ctrl+f to search the web page. Not sure for Mac.
It's Command-f on the Mac
-
...Let's not forget that they are owned by another in a succession of vulture venture capital firms whose only intention is to pump and dump them. Long term planning is not part of the equation anymore.
I would in general not lump venture capital in with private equity. Most of the time, venture capitalists are investing in new businesses and getting out when the company goes public. Most of the time they're investing to build the company - that's how the company can raise funds to grow. In general I see venture capital as on balance good.
Private equity is almost always parasitic and not about growing anything. They try to suck money out of troubled businesses and couldn't care less what state they're in after they leave. They don't invest for the future because they don't want to cut into their profits and they aim for 3 years and out.
Thanks JoAnn, for the clarification. So right idea but wrong terminology. :)
-
iStock Update thread. The previous thread is locked. Discussion now is here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1)
-
It's Command-f on the Mac
Makes sense!
Another thing that makes sense (at least to me) is that as soon as I reach payout, I'm done with iStock completely. None of my images are included in this debacle, but I can't in good conscience let them make any more money from my images.
-
Mr_Erin updates at iStock:
Thanks to everyone for your patience while we've learned more about the Google partnership/deal. As I explained briefly in a post yesterday, due to the volume of sales deals that are constantly in progress we in the content team are not always able to learn about them before they are implemented. I agree this communication is currently not working how it should and I'm working with the sales team on a plan to help us stay better informed earlier in the process. We would much rather be able to answer questions quickly or share information proactively with you than have things unfold the way they have this week. This is not intentional and we apologize for the speed at which we've been able to respond.
A few facts:
This is a license deal arranged with Google through Getty Images, this is not a promotional arrangement like the 2007 MS deal also being discussed here recently.
There was an initial pool of several thousand images licensed from Getty and iStock RF collections that are on the Getty Images platform.
No RM content was included in this pool or deal.
Royalties for these images were paid through Getty Images and were processed in October and November of 2012.
Of images licensed, just under 700 are from a group of about 490 iStock contributors.
Just under 100 of those contributors have multiple files within the pool, the rest have a single file.
There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans
License information:
Google licensed these images for use by Google users through the Google Drive platform; Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations, which end uses can be for commercial purposes.
Users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside the context of Google Drive created content.
No rights are granted to Google users to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they’re used.
Google’s license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights. We have specifically given them the right to enable that content to be used by their end users within the confines of the Google programs. They have a bespoke EULA.
Copyright protection:
There have been copyright concerns raised specifically around the right click functionality and lack of embedded metadata within the Google platform, although not ideal from some perspectives this is fairly standard practice for this type of product placement. Lack of attribution has also been mentioned, but this being a license deal rather than a promotional arrangement attribution is not typical or required.
That said, we are very aware that copyright enforcement is vital to the future of our business, Getty Images purchased PicScout and the Image IRC and we continue to develop new methods for copyright protection on behalf of our contributors and partners, many of which could help this platform and others like it improve in this way over time.
Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume.
Again, thanks for your patience while we've pulled together this information. We understand and accept that not everything about this deal is going to make every contributor happy, but we hope this gives some additional context to the scale and intent of this arrangement, and that it gives some sense of what we are aiming to achieve in the longer term through partnerships of this kind.
-
..
-
So to paraphrase: This is a perfectly legal use of your images, there's nothing you can do about it, and we plan to do more of it.
Obviously they think there's nothing affected contributors can or will do about it. I hope to God they're wrong this time.
-
But ... if they damage us and/or our IP ... aren't they also damaging themselves and their business equally, if not far more?
It seems they are slowly abandoning the business of selling images and entering the business of stealing intellectual property. Theft by deception: use of deception to obtain control over other people's property. Exclusives don't have any control over their property, cannot even give it away for free, whereas Getty can do anything with it, can even give it away. The actual owner is now Getty, who achieved this through legal tricks.
One thing about thieves: if you do business with thieves long enough, in the end you may lose everything that you had. I am afraid somethingpretentious is right, with a few mouseclicks they can destroy one's life's work.
-
It appears not to be locked but no one's commenting.
I can't understand the silence.
He has explained details of the deal that should have taken a few hours to put together yesterday (and the images were obtained at the end of October last year, so this isn't just happening). He hasn't explained anything about the tough issues. There's nowhere that I see the license terms as a user of Google Drive. I can and have downloaded some images to my computer - I'm not going to do anything with them but real users might. Other than some general words saying you have to be sure you have the rights to do the things you plan to do with them, how has Google alerted the end user that these images are copyrighted?
And then there's the compensation? $12 royalty for giving up a huge portion of the value of an image?
And how long is this time limited deal for - nothing on that
As I see it Getty wants to make nice with Google and as they consider microstock contributors insignificant, it seemed like a no brainer to curry favor with Google by tossing in iStock files.
No promises that they won't do this sort of thing again. They think they can do this and contributors don't even have to be asked about this "bespoke" deal.
-
The idea that Getty would let Google license these images for free for $60 a whack ($48 to them) is so ludicrous for the long term, it's as though they're trying to squeeze every last cent out in a closing down sale.
After giving it some more thought, it seems very clear this is what's happening. The Carlyle Group bought Getty and was probably quite surprised at the shambles it was in. They've discovered that the income they expected isn't materializing and it is leveraged to the hilt by the previous owners. Now, similar to what was done with mortgages, our images are being bundled together and sold off in batches for flat one time payments.
The Carlyle Group aren't about long term or saving businesses. They are about squeezing every last bit of capital yet to be wrung out of it and then leaving the bones to be picked over by buzzards. They're going to get whatever money they can from giving away our images, and then write off the losses. Hostess anyone?
But that's not strictly true. Carlyle only bought 'just over 50% of Getty Images' or whatever the exact wording was. The other 49%, or thereabouts, was actually stumped up by the Getty family and management including Klein himself. 'Getty management', as I understand from the reports at the time of the sale, are in this one deep __ to the tune of $1.5B+ if valuations are to be accepted. They most definitely have the long term interests of the business to consider. That's why I don't get what has happened.
What's particularly worrying is that this apparently 'stupendous deal' was not only unannounced ... but even 'Contributor Relations' at Getty themsleves didn't know anything about it. It stinks to high heaven this one. There's a lot more to come out.
-
What's particularly worrying is that this apparently 'stupendous deal' was not only unannounced ... but even 'Contributor Relations' at Getty themsleves didn't know anything about it. It stinks to high heaven this one. There's a lot more to come out.
Yep. Tip of the iceberg.
With all the cr@p Getty has pulled, I never seriously thought it would come to something like this. Starting to look like we will have to stop wringing our hands and actually take concrete action.
I am soooo glad I am not exclusive. If I give up Istock and PP I will lose a third of my income, but I am afraid if I don't get my content out of there I will lose ALL my income. Worse yet, as Somethingpretentious suggested, this could destroy the entire industry by ruining the market for paid images.
-
You know the deal that Google did with music (http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/6/3067636/youtube-music-licensing-deal-bmg) and video copyright owners over YouTube videos? I think Getty wants to do that with images - no more pay for the license to use the image, just big deals between the big companies and pass a small fixed fee on to the the copyright holders. See more here (http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/11/youtubes-three-year-copyright-battle-with-german-music-rights-agency-rumbles-on-as-gema-breaks-off-negotiations/) and here (http://www.informationweek.com/development/web/youtubes-automated-copyright-cop-gets-se/240008432)
This sort of approach could make a 20% cut of the sale generous!
-
Keep hoping that that Sean launches his site for other artists.......
-
What's particularly worrying is that this apparently 'stupendous deal' was not only unannounced ... but even 'Contributor Relations' at Getty themsleves didn't know anything about it. It stinks to high heaven this one. There's a lot more to come out.
That's what I'm afraid of. There are already other things coming out that haven't been explained like http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html (http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html) and whatever this SparkRebel thing is. Microsoft and Google promos (or deals, or whatever the term) got discovered in the same week. I'm deactivating as fast as I can. Luckily I don't have a large portfolio, and things have been so crappy for the last few months that I'm not really giving up much $$$.
-
Thanks a lot Sean. That helps in finding the images. One of mine and I'm not impressed.
I was thinking of trying to fill up all my upload slots to iStock this year, not sure I want any more of this.
I have uploaded exactly 0 images to Istock in the last 13 months. I'm concentrating my efforts elsewhere.
-
No promises that they won't do this sort of thing again. They think they can do this and contributors don't even have to be asked about this "bespoke" deal.
Indeed, MrErin said:
"There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans"
That'll be a Yes, then.
>:(
-
"Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors"
- Auch, take your files and run, while they are still worth something!
-
any getty owned content in there?
more deals to come is a major concern even when your own files are not included.
-
I´m getting the felling that this is tipping point in microstock by accepting this we possibly are accepting company's making deals between them self and leaving the the rest of us with small fixed fees, pay per click´s or other great innovative bright ideas, I´m going to bed this is to depressing to cope right now.
-
... I'm deactivating as fast as I can. Luckily I don't have a large portfolio, and things have been so crappy for the last few months that I'm not really giving up much $$$.
I have to stay that's very tempting, but I need to calm down before making such a huge (financial) decision. I'd be dropping a huge chunk of my monthly income (when you include PP + istock) so I need to think my options through.
I notice that there's been no response from the admin who posted the update - a Friday night dump and run as rimglow said it would be.
-
The terms in this deal - Wow - Just Wow. Getty thinks this will work? Thinks the contributor agreement gives them the authority to license our work this way? Thinks people will stick around for this? wow...
-
The terms in this deal - Wow - Just Wow. Getty thinks this will work? Thinks the contributor agreement gives them the authority to license our work this way? Thinks people will stick around for this? wow...
It's beyond belief. If we 'microstockers' think it sucks ... what the heck are the 'traditional' shooters, of which there are many with images included, going to make of it?
-
I have 4 images there. They are from Getty/Flickr collection. Google bought them in 31-Oct-12. They paid $60 and I got $12 for each one.
And in 29-Nov-12, google bought another 2 images (Customer Name: Google: eC
ommerce & Google Dri), but can't find them there. Something different is that they paid only $30 for each one this time. :-\
How do you feel about it? Is it a problem for you? Why isn't this discussed in the Flickr forums? Four pictures are quite a lot if I read the iStock forums there is a lot of outcry even from contributors that aren't affected at all.
I think the price is too low and they will throw more images there.
I don't know why isn't this discussed in the Flickr forums, but I started a new thread there today.
-
Thanks a lot for the page Sean. I find 6 images there from my flickr images now. I hope they will not increase anymore.
-
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all 7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.
-
I doubt if they will provide an opt out -- we asked for one FOR YEARS for that Microsoft deal, and they just ignored the question after awhile and locked the thread. Even if they did -- I would never trust them again. If everyone who wanted to opted out of these things, they'd have no content to deal with.
-
At this point, knowing all their bad deeds, anyone who doesn't delete their account or continues to upload is only enabling them. And letting the rest of the agencies know they can do whatever they want with your content and they don't have to pay you for it. That is the bottom line.
-
Hha, thought this was kind of funny. I was just reading the iS forum on this and getting pissed, so decided to Google about starting a class action lawsuit, clicked the "Ehow" link like a dork, and saw this, right on that page:
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6616/istocksucksass.jpg (http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6616/istocksucksass.jpg)
The ad is right on as well, since as an exclusive I'm a little scared. Pissed mostly, truth be told. Anyway ;D ;D
-
Hha, thought this was kind of funny. I was just reading the iS forum on this and getting pissed, so decided to Google about starting a class action lawsuit, clicked the "Ehow" link like a dork, and saw this, right on that page:
[url]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6616/istocksucksass.jpg[/url] ([url]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6616/istocksucksass.jpg[/url])
The ad is right on as well, since as an exclusive I'm a little scared. Pissed mostly, truth be told. Anyway ;D ;D
Funny with a sharp edge.
-
....anyone who doesn't delete their account or continues to upload is only enabling them. And letting the rest of the agencies know they can do whatever they want with your content...
1000% true! Like some other people, I stopped submitting to iStock long ago. Sure it cost me money, but at some point you have to recognize who the enemy is and stop helping them kill you.
It may look like iStock exclusives are the victims in this latest IS outrage - or even are somehow opposing iStock - but aren't they the ones who are enabling iStockGetty to do what it does? iStock exclusives enjoyed all the benefits - higher commissions, favored acceptance in reviews, and so on - now they are paying the price. Locked in and afraid to leave. But they are also forcing us independents to pay. If Getty floods the market with high quality 'free' images - and on the IS forum they have said that they will continue the deal with Google and even add more images and hinted at making other such deals with other corporations - then what will happen to all of us?
How long before 123RF and DP start making such 'free image' deals with other corporations? And who could really blame them, they have to compete with iStock.
-
Loved this post on Istock forum:
bmcent1
Posted 13 mins ago
Quote
$10,000.
Ten thousand dollars, USD, is what I expect to be compensated per image. That is a number I have quoted out before to inquiries to purchase the copyright to an image of mine. Transferring the copyright is what you needed to do before making representations to Google about usage of my image beyond the bounds of the RF license. You did not and do not have the right to license my image to a 3rd party to sub license (aka give away for free) to an unlimited number of users.
I'll accept a deposit to my Istock account or to my checking account (which you also have for direct Getty Images royalty payments.) If you have any questions or would like to discuss it, you have my phone number.
-
100k would be cool 8)
-
Just deactivated two images. Don't know what I'll do next, and I'm too small a fry to make them wouldn't cry into their soup if I pulled my entire port, but enough is enough.
Although, thank goodness, none of my photos were chosen for this opportunity, who knows what they're next dodgy deal will be.
Well, it was good for a while.
-
How long before 123RF and DP start making such 'free image' deals with other corporations? And who could really blame them, they have to compete with iStock.
iStock continues to be the pioneer of microstock, those dudes know what they are doing LOL
Legen... wait for it... Dary!
-
Although, thank goodness, none of my photos were chosen for this opportunity, who knows what they're next dodgy deal will be.
I would love to know who picked mine because it wasn't iStock, some dude that loves me in a very bad way...
-
iStock continues to be the pioneer of microstock, those dudes know what they are doing LOL
Legen... wait for it... Dary!
Oh yeah there is plenty of room for innovation in the ms business. Loved this idea posted on the new thread at IS:
"Maybe iStock/Getty should just offer our images to Shutterstock. They could get a nice profit for themself and we could get $12 for each image available on the worlds leading provider of subscription microstock images."
Box5
-
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..
-
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..
not that I would make any difference, actually I am losing money BUT I have stopped uploading in March 2012
-
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..
not that I would make any difference, actually I am losing money BUT I have stopped uploading in March 2012
Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?
-
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..
Even though the situation is different this time, the argument that "someone else will just take my iS sales, and I will be the only looser" might still what many contributors feel.
How about a site that monitors the individual iStock contributors file count, where you can sort by, how many files they have deleted or uploaded. If people could easily monitor that others were doing the same, a momentum could maybe be build up.
I hate to think like this, but they are giving away peoples IP for crying out loud!
-
I just came across this on my Twitter feed, it's one of the people I follow -- http://www.photoattorney.com (http://www.photoattorney.com)
Their twitter profile says "Carolyn E. Wright is an attorney who works for photographers." I wonder if it's worth tweeting them a link to this thread? Or to the iStock forum thread?
By the way, this thread was already tweeted today, I don't recall by whom, but I retweeted it.
-
I just came across this on my Twitter feed, it's one of the people I follow -- [url]http://www.photoattorney.com[/url] ([url]http://www.photoattorney.com[/url])
Their twitter profile says "Carolyn E. Wright is an attorney who works for photographers." I wonder if it's worth tweeting them a link to this thread? Or to the iStock forum thread?
By the way, this thread was already tweeted today, I don't recall by whom, but I retweeted it.
I am going to give the bird another go ahah ;D
-
Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?
IMHO KarenH and photoattorney.com or some sort of legal action seems like a real option this time.
It has been posited on the IS forum that their agreement with us does not allow them to assign (sub-license) to another party the right to give our images away for free. If that is true, IS is in breach of contract on a massive scale, and we could conceivably be awarded damages on a per image ($10,000 per image has been mentioned) or per download basis.
For example, if my image was downloaded from Google Drive, say, 200,000 times and a judge decreed that I be paid 200,000 times my normal RPD at other sites (say $1.50), then I could be in for a nice piece of change, and so would a lot of other people, and Getty possibly bankrupted. Some of the 5000 images have been downloaded millions of times.
Such a scenario is not impossible. My cousin and her husband owned a gas station and won a suit against the oil company parent corp about thirty years ago and got enough money to live lives of luxury without working ever since.
-
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all 7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.
I thought our contributor agreement with Istock stated that images remain on site for X months after quitting. You can of course deactivate them first, which means customers can no longer find/download them from Istock anymore, but still, Istock/Getty can still sell them to Google/MS during these 3 months (was it 3 months? and even 6 for photo+ files?).
So quitting Istock or deactivating all images will not protect us during these months. And worse : if Istock/Getty get pissed because of multiple deactivations, why would they not sell your whole portfolio on IS (or "just" your bestsellers) as soon as they notice you're starting to deactivate, or right after your request for account closure?
-
Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?
IMHO KarenH and photoattorney.com or some sort of legal action seems like a real option this time.
It has been posited on the IS forum that their agreement with us does not allow them to assign (sub-license) to another party the right to give our images away for free. If that is true, IS is in breach of contract on a massive scale, and we could conceivably be awarded damages on a per image ($10,000 per image has been mentioned) or per download basis.
For example, if my image was downloaded from Google Drive, say, 200,000 times and a judge decreed that I be paid 200,000 times my normal RPD at other sites (say $1.50), then I could be in for a nice piece of change, and so would a lot of other people, and Getty possibly bankrupted. Some of the 5000 images have been downloaded millions of times.
Such a scenario is not impossible. My cousin and her husband owned a gas station and won a suit against the oil company parent corp about thirty years ago and got enough money to live lives of luxury without working ever since.
I think you could argue that by allowing such a vast volume of free downloads they have effectively reduced the value of the specific images involved to pretty much zero. Damages should be paid to cover the earnings the photographers involved would have earned over the image's remaining lifespan.
IStock must have some duty of care to its contributors surely?
-
With most of the deserved opprobrium being directed to Getty lets not forget the involvement of Google who's potential to disrupt the marketplace must be hovering like a sword of Damocles over the existing players.
-
With most of the deserved opprobrium being directed to Getty lets not forget the involvement of Google who's potential to disrupt the marketplace must be hovering like a sword of Damocles over the existing players.
IMHO Google has always shown scant regard for artists in general. They never even used to pay the people who did those daily illustrations on the Google home page (don't know if this has changed now).
-
message deleted
-
I'm concerned that this move is how Getty sees the future of stock photography. The sheer volume of images out there means we have become unimportant to them. This could be our last chance to make a stand, not just for the sake of IS contributors but the whole industry.
-
Loved this post on Istock forum:
bmcent1
Posted 13 mins ago
Quote
$10,000.
Ten thousand dollars, USD, is what I expect to be compensated per image. That is a number I have quoted out before to inquiries to purchase the copyright to an image of mine. Transferring the copyright is what you needed to do before making representations to Google about usage of my image beyond the bounds of the RF license. You did not and do not have the right to license my image to a 3rd party to sub license (aka give away for free) to an unlimited number of users.
I'll accept a deposit to my Istock account or to my checking account (which you also have for direct Getty Images royalty payments.) If you have any questions or would like to discuss it, you have my phone number.
Oh that's excellent. It hits the nail right on the head. Thanks for posting it.
I can't help feeling that posts by 'istocklawyer' (or whatever they're called) can only properly be responded to by 'contributorlawyer'. I just wish we had a willing copyright lawyer among us who would engage in this battle for the sake of principle. Surely those contracts we signed are too one-sided to hold water if properly tested in the world outside of their imagined empire.
-
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..
Just stopping uploads will make no difference. Most of us will end up continuing to upload again after a while. I stopped uploading for over a year after they cut commissions but most people just carried on as normal and I eventually gave up. The istock owners couldn't care less if a small bunch of contributors stop uploading.
If enough of us leave and we can take buyers with us, we wont lose much money. Istock would become a much less attractive site to buyers. They're already moving to other sites, hopefully this would help accelerate the process.
I'm willing to remove my portfolio if there's enough of us doing it. It will hurt and I can't afford it but it's going to hurt staying and it looks like we'll all lose lots of money anyway. So who else is willing to make a real difference by dumping istock? I'll only do it if there's a nice long list of contributors, there's no point if the majority are going to winge for a few weeks and then go back to uploading again.
-
.... If I give up Istock and PP I will lose a third of my income, but I am afraid if I don't get my content out of there I will lose ALL my income. Worse yet, as Somethingpretentious suggested, this could destroy the entire industry by ruining the market for paid images.
I'm not sure you would lose a third of your income because I think a lot of buyers purchase images from more than one site. It might make more istock buyers look for your images elsewhere. I've seen some people that have left istock mention that they have managed to make up the loss, I'm sure it's not easy but that's encouraging.
I'm going to see who else is willing to dump istock and make my decision on February 1st. I think a lot of us leaving is the only way to make the other sites see that we can only be pushed so far, otherwise all the big sites will carry on bleeding us dry.
-
My feeling is that Getty is in freefall and they are interpreting that as being because the industry is finished, rather than due to their own incompetence. They think the only way to make cash now is by admitting defeat and selling out anyway they can. They can't accept other agencies are doing just fine. Another agency did the same on a much smaller scale (pocketstock)
-
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all 7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.
My response to iStock. Wow.. just wow.
I totally agree with you Elena. This is the first time I'm really considering deleting my portfolio from a site. Something like that really needs to be considered and it is worth while to give iStock some time to reconsider, but as it loos now, they are happy with their deal and are going to stick to it.
The question we have to ask ourselves is... If a new site came on the scene, people were reporting great sales but the site only offered between 15-20% and negotiated deals where they gave our images away for free through Google and Microsoft as they pleased.. would you upload there? I wouldn't.
-
No promises that they won't do this sort of thing again. They think they can do this and contributors don't even have to be asked about this "bespoke" deal.
I'd say they are promising quite the oppposite. They say they have 'many more "innovative" deals in the workss'. Quite frankly, I've had enough of their innovative deals.
Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6817897 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6817897)
----
and just a note. When you quote someone on the iStock board or elsewhere, please provide a link to the original text.
-
In my mind I see someone on the sales team making this deal and punching the air with the thrill of the extra commission they'll make and how proud the bosses will be. No other consideration than that.
I had hoped that a period of introspection after the fall-out from this would lead them to question whether the sales team should be reprimanded for making decisions that seem to fly in the face of the whole concept of copyright and artist ownership... but sadly not.
If Microbius is right, then surely those other agencies who could have their business wrecked by such behaviours will have a case against Getty/iStock.
I'm sure none of us could give a toss what Getty do with their wholly-owned content, but they have to have some conscience and sense of ethics when it comes to risking the livelihoods of their contributors. I'd like to know which planet you have to live on to think for one second that this action can possible be 'a good thing'.
-
The question we have to ask ourselves is... If a new site came on the scene, people were reporting great sales but the site only offered between 15-20% and negotiated deals where they gave our images away for free through Google and Microsoft as they pleased.. would you upload there? I wouldn't.
Well, imagine an agency came along, would cut industry-standard royalties from 50 to 20%, gave away images with an umlimited (what they call "royalty free") license to use. Would you imagine people would upload there?
Apparently Getty has survived all of this with photographers still keen to upload - which I can totally understand in a way because not uploading to the Getty empire means denying they own half the world market. Not by growing the market but by buying the market share.
I'd think there is a shift in powers nowadays with contributors being able to talk to each other. Still I have doubts this will change things. I studied economics and this could be a case of what was taught to us as "prisoner's dilemma". You have to take a personal decision because you can't trust others to do what would be smartest for the whole group. And as an individual it's hard to say "no" to the biggest market place.
-
They are strongly implying that this is also about building a relationship. If so then they have leveraged user content in order to bring something to that relationship. They would say that this is about building the business. We would have assumed until now that the business would be funded out of the 80% + cut which they already take.
So we can now see that they can use the content in other ways apart from just selling it. They can offer it up cheap as a part payment for the cost of doing business. I wonder what other ways they will find of leveraging content almost as if it were intellectual capital. Clever bankers. You could fund all sorts in this manner.
The fee seems almost nominal.
-
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..
That's exactly what I started doing 13 months ago.
-
Useful info for those affected...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement)
-
Useful info for those affected...
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url])
Its useful but what I read there has me thinking.
The same provision of copyright law that allows for the takedown notice also allows the alleged infringer to file a counter notice. After sending your takedown notice to the ISP, the ISP will notify the alleged infringer of the notice. The infringer then can send a counter notice to the ISP declaring that the infringer “has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled” and other requirements of Section 512 (g). At that point, the ISP is caught in the middle. By law, the ISP must repost the infringing material to its original location.
Unfortunately, the only option then to stop the infringement is to file a lawsuit asking the court to enter an injunction stopping the use of the copyright material. Since the infringer can easily move the use of the copyrighted material to another ISP, it’s best to include a copyright infringement claim in the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are expensive and significant damages usually can only be recovered if your image is registered. Fortunately, most infringers don’t take the time to file a counter notice. But be sure to register the copyrights to your photos so that you have all of the tools necessary to fight copyright infringement.
That will give all power to Google, and they will probably put a team of agents on the case and send out counter notifications to the ISPs in a much faster rate and larger scale then all the affected photographers can do.
Also, I do not get why an image needs to be registered. Copyright is copyright in my opinion, registered or not.
-
Useful info for those affected...
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url])
Its useful but what I read there has me thinking.
The same provision of copyright law that allows for the takedown notice also allows the alleged infringer to file a counter notice. After sending your takedown notice to the ISP, the ISP will notify the alleged infringer of the notice. The infringer then can send a counter notice to the ISP declaring that the infringer “has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled” and other requirements of Section 512 (g). At that point, the ISP is caught in the middle. By law, the ISP must repost the infringing material to its original location.
Unfortunately, the only option then to stop the infringement is to file a lawsuit asking the court to enter an injunction stopping the use of the copyright material. Since the infringer can easily move the use of the copyrighted material to another ISP, it’s best to include a copyright infringement claim in the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are expensive and significant damages usually can only be recovered if your image is registered. Fortunately, most infringers don’t take the time to file a counter notice. But be sure to register the copyrights to your photos so that you have all of the tools necessary to fight copyright infringement.
That will give all power to Google, and they will probably put a team of agents on the case and send out counter notifications to the ISPs in a much faster rate and larger scale then all the affected photographers can do.
Also, I do not get why an image needs to be registered. Copyright is copyright in my opinion, registered or not.
Google is not infringing anybody's copyright in this, so the whole idea is nonsense. You authorised iStock to license it and iStock licensed it via Getty to Google, which is - apparently - complying with whatever terms there were in the special unrevealed license. So any dispute would be with the distributors - iStock and Getty - over whether they have violated the terms of the distrubution agreement you have with them. Until you prove that they have violated the terms, Google is in the clear.
At least, that is how I see it.
-
Useful info for those affected...
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url])
Be very careful about what you are doing.
Since Google's and Getty's laywers think they are in the right, they likely will not take kindly to a DMCA request.
I you do that, be prepared to go down the route to a full-fledged lawsuit.
-
Useful info for those affected...
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url])
Its useful but what I read there has me thinking.
The same provision of copyright law that allows for the takedown notice also allows the alleged infringer to file a counter notice. After sending your takedown notice to the ISP, the ISP will notify the alleged infringer of the notice. The infringer then can send a counter notice to the ISP declaring that the infringer “has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled” and other requirements of Section 512 (g). At that point, the ISP is caught in the middle. By law, the ISP must repost the infringing material to its original location.
Unfortunately, the only option then to stop the infringement is to file a lawsuit asking the court to enter an injunction stopping the use of the copyright material. Since the infringer can easily move the use of the copyrighted material to another ISP, it’s best to include a copyright infringement claim in the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are expensive and significant damages usually can only be recovered if your image is registered. Fortunately, most infringers don’t take the time to file a counter notice. But be sure to register the copyrights to your photos so that you have all of the tools necessary to fight copyright infringement.
That will give all power to Google, and they will probably put a team of agents on the case and send out counter notifications to the ISPs in a much faster rate and larger scale then all the affected photographers can do.
Also, I do not get why an image needs to be registered. Copyright is copyright in my opinion, registered or not.
Google is not infringing anybody's copyright in this, so the whole idea is nonsense. You authorised iStock to license it and iStock licensed it via Getty to Google, which is - apparently - complying with whatever terms there were in the special unrevealed license. So any dispute would be with the distributors - iStock and Getty - over whether they have violated the terms of the distrubution agreement you have with them. Until you prove that they have violated the terms, Google is in the clear.
At least, that is how I see it.
I am afraid you are correct.
-
Useful info for those affected...
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url])
Be very careful about what you are doing.
Since Google's and Getty's laywers think they are in the right, they likely will not take kindly to a DMCA request.
I you do that, be prepared to go down the route to a full-fledged lawsuit.
Thats my thought as well.
-
Google may-be is in the clear for the redistribution of the images, but were they allowed to strip all copyright info/metadata, so that the images' artists cannot be traced anymore?
-
I'm not sure if Getty's lawyers are still absolutely sure that they are right.
But iS is pretty sure that after few days or weeks of screaming and shouting on forums contributors will calm down again and nothing will happen. Few contributors will leave, few will stop uploading and show goes on…
-
Echoing above. People are going to get themselves into a stupid mess if they start pretending to be lawyers and firing off half-cocked. All talk of legal action is also silly. Take a deep breath and let the dust settle.
-
But iS is pretty sure that after few days or weeks of screaming and shouting on forums contributors will calm down again and nothing will happen. Few contributors will leave, few will stop uploading and show goes on…
No __ I think this will prove to be a game-changer, for both Getty and Istock, and it will have significant long-term detrimental consequences for both.
Remember the RC fiasco in September 2011? That was massive then and it still is today (as RR found out when she tried to give us all a little pep-talk recently). Overnight the RC announcement completely changed the relationship between Istock and it's content providers and, if anything, that relationship has worsened not healed over time. You can also directly relate the steady fall in sales at Istock from Sept 2010. Don't forget they actually had to adjust the original 'RC targets' because Q4/2010 sales dropped so rapidly and unexpectedly.
This is not just affecting Istock contributors either. What about all the Getty photographers, agencies and other major players within the industry who are (hopefully) just waking up to the fact that Getty has sold their valuable assets to Google for a tiny fraction of their worth? How are they going to react? Oh no, trust me __ this one has LEGS.
-
All talk of legal action is also silly.
I'd say it is silly for it to be ruled out of consideration without examining the possibility.
The idea that distributors are so big and powerful that they can do anything they like with whatever we upload, with complete disregard for the wishes of the copyright owners is atrocious. It would be very positive for the industry if the relationship between contributor and distributor was rebalanced - and it's pretty clear that only a successful legal action will achieve that.
At the very least there are issues surrounding this latest move that might reward an initial investigation.
-
What about all the Getty photographers, agencies and other major players within the industry who are (hopefully) just waking up to the fact that Getty has sold their valuable assets to Google for a tiny fraction of their worth? How are they going to react? Oh no, trust me __ this one has LEGS.
Yet another insightful post.
But Twitter is not talking about this and the moment is already passing. Nodody created a #tag or wrote an influential blog post. This topic simply is not trending in the world of arty tech. It is not on the internet's radar.
Remember that most of the influential blogs and opinion makers are already essentially anti copyright (including nearly all of the influential photographer bloggers who give their work away for free and argue that it is a business model).
And don't all the little affiliate agencies need Getty more than Getty needs them ? Are they really going to kick up a fuss or move their content to another aggregator ?
Not arguing with you - just trying to be realistic.
-
I'm not sure if Getty's lawyers are still absolutely sure that they are right.
But iS is pretty sure that after few days or weeks of screaming and shouting on forums contributors will calm down again and nothing will happen. Few contributors will leave, few will stop uploading and show goes on…
Last night I noticed that the queue was down about 4000 on the previous night. I've noticed some new inspector badges recently, but I don't know whether any older-established ones have left - so I didn't know if the decrease was 'real' or the result of new inspectors.
However, this morning I see the queue has gone up by 1000. Again, have no idea how the flow of inspections is over the last few days, but people are still uploading.
The ONLY thing that might give them pause is if the biggest contributors totally pulled their ports. But they have the most to lose, so who could blame them if they didn't.
-
The question we have to ask ourselves is... If a new site came on the scene, people were reporting great sales but the site only offered between 15-20% and negotiated deals where they gave our images away for free through Google and Microsoft as they pleased.. would you upload there? I wouldn't.
And it's not as though many iStock contributors are even reporting great sales.
Au contraire, in fact.
-
How will the customers, the designers react?
Imagine designing a brochure, giving it to your client who then looks at you in disbelief and says - but why did you use Google Clip Art?
Wouldn´t´the customers need a clear labeling of the content that has been included in redistribution deals?
I mean, it somehow negates the whole reason for exclusive content if hundreds of millions of people are using it.
In the istock forums is a new thread about the risk to models and our liability as photographers. I usually don´t work with models but have an interesting shot coming up with a friend in 2 weeks. I am very unsure how to proceed. people images and localized content is what the agency has been asking for. And I still have huge amount of files from my last trip to Switzerland (lenklypse) that need processing and uploading.
But I would really appreciate if someone with better legal background could explain to me my risk if models find themselves in a sensitive use situation and the file came from google docs.
My 24 images in the MS Deal have over 1.3 Million downloads by unregistered users. To me it feels like they have been transferred into the public domain.
So I have good personal reason to be scared of the new google deal.
-
Issuing a Takedown notice may not go anywhere, but if it was done en masse by those affected it would be embarrassing for Google and Getty. It may also gain traction and piqué the interest of journalists who may see a story in this.
I'd rather do something than watch my distributor gain complete and total control over my work to do with what they please.
Getty have already said there are plans to sell more of the library under this licence.
-
But Twitter is not talking about this and the moment is already passing. Nodody created a #tag or wrote an influential blog post. This topic simply is not trending in the world of arty tech. It is not on the internet's radar.
Remember that most of the influential blogs and opinion makers are already essentially anti copyright (including nearly all of the influential photographer bloggers who give their work away for free and argue that it is a business model).
And don't all the little affiliate agencies need Getty more than Getty needs them ? Are they really going to kick up a fuss or move their content to another aggregator ?
Not arguing with you - just trying to be realistic.
Good points but I don't think this is 'out there' just yet. Personally I don't do Twitter (and FB as little as possible), so I can't claim any expertise on social media, however I suspect that this issue is way too complex and technical to be encapsulated in 140 characters. It's never going to have the necessary mass public appeal either because, as you point out, the public likes free stuff on the internet.
I still think that there are potentially influential figures out there, like Tom Grill and John Lund for example, who have yet to speak on this issue ... but I'm sure they soon will. Pull up a chair, grab some popcorn and watch how this all develops.
-
I'm not sure if Getty's lawyers are still absolutely sure that they are right.
But iS is pretty sure that after few days or weeks of screaming and shouting on forums contributors will calm down again and nothing will happen. Few contributors will leave, few will stop uploading and show goes on…
I hope that gostwyck is right and this proves to be a game changer, but i think jm is closer to the truth. Already there are bargainings from contributors..."what if we all just stop uploading"...there have been so many backstabbings in the past and so many warnings that these people are ruthless and have no respect for contributors, and people keep doing business with them. You cant stop a giant without giving up something yourself.
Some contributors constantly rip SS for giving away sub images...istockgetty has now driven the game to $0.
-
But iS is pretty sure that after few days or weeks of screaming and shouting on forums contributors will calm down again and nothing will happen. Few contributors will leave, few will stop uploading and show goes on…
No __ I think this will prove to be a game-changer, for both Getty and Istock, and it will have significant long-term detrimental consequences for both.
Remember the RC fiasco in September 2011? That was massive then and it still is today (as RR found out when she tried to give us all a little pep-talk recently). Overnight the RC announcement completely changed the relationship between Istock and it's content providers and, if anything, that relationship has worsened not healed over time. You can also directly relate the steady fall in sales at Istock from Sept 2010. Don't forget they actually had to adjust the original 'RC targets' because Q4/2010 sales dropped so rapidly and unexpectedly.
This is not just affecting Istock contributors either. What about all the Getty photographers, agencies and other major players within the industry who are (hopefully) just waking up to the fact that Getty has sold their valuable assets to Google for a tiny fraction of their worth? How are they going to react? Oh no, trust me __ this one has LEGS.
----------------------------------------
Totally agree this one is a game changer. I dropped my crown, something I never thought I'd do, because of what happened in Sept 2010. Many others have done the same, and clearly this and the negative publicity hurt Istock.
This is another in that same universe. If they stick with this very long, I don't see how I can stick around. Got to figure others will make the same decision. And again the negative publicity is going to kill Istock, even if it takes a little while for the momentum to build.
-
Good points but I don't think this is 'out there' just yet. Personally I don't do Twitter (and FB as little as possible), so I can't claim any expertise on social media, however I suspect that this issue is way too complex and technical to be encapsulated in 140 characters.
It certainly is not "out there" yet, at least not on forums, blogs etc. Can't find anything about it anywhere, except big praise (from users' point of view) about the quality of the donated stock photos on Google drive. Yes : "donated". I found several sites announcing that the stock photos were donated, not bought. Donated by kind Google-drive-users.
-
Already there are bargainings from contributors..."what if we all just stop uploading"... there have been so many backstabbings in the past and so many warnings that these people are ruthless and have no respect for contributors, and people keep doing business with them. You cant stop a giant without giving up something yourself.
Now that really is something that we can all do. I'm in.
Starving IS of new content is a comparatively low-cost action for both independent and exclusive contributors. Let's face it, new stuff hardly sells well at IS anymore anyway. Even exclusives can continue to produce new stuff but simply hold back on uploading. Unless we get this issue resolved, to the satisfaction of most, I can't imagine that many contributors will be wearing a crown for much longer anyway. I'm virtually certain that such an action would see results within weeks, not months.
-
I'm not sure if Getty's lawyers are still absolutely sure that they are right.
But iS is pretty sure that after few days or weeks of screaming and shouting on forums contributors will calm down again and nothing will happen. Few contributors will leave, few will stop uploading and show goes on…
I hope that gostwyck is right and this proves to be a game changer, but i think jm is closer to the truth. Already there are bargainings from contributors..."what if we all just stop uploading"...there have been so many backstabbings in the past and so many warnings that these people are ruthless and have no respect for contributors, and people keep doing business with them. You cant stop a giant without giving up something yourself.
Some contributors constantly rip SS for giving away sub images...istockgetty has now driven the game to $0.
I also hope that gostwyck is right. But lemmings (no offence - I'm one of them) indispensably need their leader. I wish Sean feels like playing this role.
-
.
-
Already there are bargainings from contributors..."what if we all just stop uploading"... there have been so many backstabbings in the past and so many warnings that these people are ruthless and have no respect for contributors, and people keep doing business with them. You cant stop a giant without giving up something yourself.
Now that really is something that we can all do. I'm in.
We've been here before and in the end it doesn't amount to much. A handful will completely stop for a year or more, some more will stop for weeks or months but most will just carry on as usual.
Right now I'm holding back on uploading because I'm pretty disgusted by what's happened but I'm not making any promises about how long that will last.
***
I wonder if those who may close their accounts would actually be in a much stronger legal position becuase it would be clear evidence that iStock/Getty's behaviour was literally intolerable and had forced them to forego future earnings. If it was determined that what iS had done actually did violate its obligations then that would surely have to be a significant factor in assessing damages - but we don't know yet if it is a violation.
-
In my mind I see someone on the sales team making this deal and punching the air with the thrill of the extra commission they'll make and how proud the bosses will be. No other consideration than that.
Yup!
Short-term thinking during the Closing-down Sale.
-
Changing user icons to a common protest version has worked in the past.
-
Informing influential photo blogs is a good idea too - places like Photo District News etc. are always looking for ways to generate traffic.
-
Names of photographers whose work has been orphaned in the Google Giveaway, as listed by Sean, snipped:
17 for John Lund.
Very interested to see what he does with this.
-
Already there are bargainings from contributors..."what if we all just stop uploading"... there have been so many backstabbings in the past and so many warnings that these people are ruthless and have no respect for contributors, and people keep doing business with them. You cant stop a giant without giving up something yourself.
Now that really is something that we can all do. I'm in.
Starving IS of new content is a comparatively low-cost action for both independent and exclusive contributors. Let's face it, new stuff hardly sells well at IS anymore anyway. Even exclusives can continue to produce new stuff but simply hold back on uploading. Unless we get this issue resolved, to the satisfaction of most, I can't imagine that many contributors will be wearing a crown for much longer anyway. I'm virtually certain that such an action would see results within weeks, not months.
Lots of us stopped uploading new images when they cut commissions but that didn't seem to make any difference. Why would that change now? Not uploading new images might of worked years ago but they now have a huge collection. I don't think they will do anything, as they know we have buckled before. I think the only power we have is if a lot of us leave, make a big noise about it and persuade buyers to look for images elsewhere. What's it going to take before that happens?
-
I can't imagine that many contributors will be wearing a crown for much longer anyway.
Many people are probably waiting to see whether E+ at GI is going to make up for the dramatic reduction of income which many have experienced at IS since what ever changed in September. That obviously depends upon them getting the content moved there this month as promised. I do not believe that Getty gives a * whether people give up exclusivity or not. If they cared even slightly about communications or what anyone thinks they would be employing better communicators and would be in over this weekend to manage this ****storm.
As for the issue of model releases. People should really be asking themselves whether RF is the right route in general in many cases. Not just apropos IS. Nothing which could ever be considered sensitive or personal should ever be placed in a collection which is neither curated nor managed. Most models are told by their agencies not to do RF.
-
Informing influential photo blogs is a good idea too - places like Photo District News etc. are always looking for ways to generate traffic.
Nonsense, you would only be driving traffic to Google Images. Also some smaller agencies might pick up the idea and this would become standard. I am afraid evacuation from the Getty ship is the only option, otherwise they may kill your life's work with a few mouseclicks. If you deal with thieves in the end you may lose everything. You are no longer the real owner of the photos that you submitted to Getty.
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1)
'Mr Erin':
"There have been copyright concerns raised specifically around the right click functionality and lack of embedded metadata within the Google platform, although not ideal from some perspectives this is fairly standard practice for this type of product placement. "
So in a huge deal of this sort, Getty couldn't have made some demands in return for such a selling of the family silver? I don't believe that for one minute. They probably didn't even think of it until it came up on the forum.
"Lack of attribution has also been mentioned, but this being a license deal rather than a promotional arrangement attribution is not typical or required."
Wrong. The iStock end user agreement states that any images used editorially (which presumably some of these google giveaways will be) must be attributed to the artist and the agency.
Despite the fact that most of my found in-uses used editorially are not attributed, it is in the ASA that they should be attributed, so he's lying.
-
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all 7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought for those like Elena with affected files and who are considering closing your accounts anyway, you are in a pretty unique situation - you have standing for a lawsuit against Getty about this (that most of us don't) and you feel you might have little to lose if there was retaliation by Getty against you for a lawsuit (IE they close your account for you).
Just a thought, but if you do decide you are ready to walk away from Getty and/or file a lawsuit, you might consider sending out a DMCA to Google about your images. If I recall correctly, Istock has threatened in the past to close accounts of people who do this for "legitimately licensed Istock content." If there is a lawsuit and Getty looses, voluntarily closing your account might count against you for damages vs having Getty close your account for trying to protect your images.
Very good advice.
I can't tell those affected what to do, of course, but I would suggest that if you have images that are affected, and you have a problem with that, now would be a good time to consult a copyright attorney. Most of them will probably give you an initial consultation for free.
Best to proceed armed with knowledge of how to protect your legal position.
Let me reiterate, if a group of affected individuals gets together and proceeds with a lawsuit, you can count on me for a sizable donation.
Also, count me in on refusing to upload anymore until this is resolved satisfactorily. And if it isn't resolved, either by a reversal/opt-out from Getty or by a lawsuit, I will have no choice but to remove my images rather than risk their being given away for free. The first time I find one of my images given away in this or a similar deal, I WILL be hiring an attorney (already have on who has assisted me with cases of misuse in the past).
-
We've been here before and in the end it doesn't amount to much. A handful will completely stop for a year or more, some more will stop for weeks or months but most will just carry on as usual.
Right now I'm holding back on uploading because I'm pretty disgusted by what's happened but I'm not making any promises about how long that will last.
That was then and this is now. For most independent contributors Istock today is much less important to their overall earnings than they were 2-3 years ago. In my case for example they've slipped from their peak of around 40% to only 18-20% nowadays. Judging by the trend I'd expect them to be below 15% by the end of this year. Whereas once Istock were the 'engine' of an independent contributor's earnings, that role has now been taken by SS and Istock are becoming less relevant with every month that passes.
I have about 70 new images that I've been holding off uploading to Istock, waiting for sales to improve later this month, but now I'm not going to for the foreseeable future. It's entirely possible that Istock could self-implode and sales reduce to such a trickle that the incentive to upload could disappear altogether anyway.
-
http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html (http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html)
-
[url]http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html[/url])
Is it only me? Whenever I try to scroll down that page, two annoying black things ('archive' and 'subscribe') cover the scroller and prevent me from accessing it.
-
[url]http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html[/url])
Is it only me? Whenever I try to scroll down that page, two annoying black things ('archive' and 'subscribe') cover the scroller and prevent me from accessing it.
Didn't happen to me. Windows /firefox
-
http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html (http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html) this one actually have some negative posts
-
In my mind I see someone on the sales team making this deal and punching the air with the thrill of the extra commission they'll make and how proud the bosses will be. No other consideration than that.
Yup!
Short-term thinking during the Closing-down Sale.
Closing down sale, that's exactly how I read this.
My sales are 50% of what they were 6 months ago and it's still falling. Their operating costs must be closing in fast on the profit they make.
They're becoming increasingly reckless and desperate, god knows what will happen in the next 6 months.
-
Matt, I really liked your suggestion in the Istock thread here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818333 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818333)
About affected contributors deactivating the images that are being used in the program right away and sending take down notices to google.
This seems like a really smart first step, and a relatively painless one since most contributors have only a few images in the program.
-
In the istock forums is a new thread about the risk to models and our liability as photographers. I usually don´t work with models but have an interesting shot coming up with a friend in 2 weeks. I am very unsure how to proceed. people images and localized content is what the agency has been asking for. And I still have huge amount of files from my last trip to Switzerland (lenklypse) that need processing and uploading.
But I would really appreciate if someone with better legal background could explain to me my risk if models find themselves in a sensitive use situation and the file came from google docs.
I deleted all my people pictures from Istock during the RC-chaos. That was a relief now. It would be annoying if a "spoon on white" was given away, but I would not like to completely loose controll over my model released shots.
-
Unfortunatly, istock has not yet given me a list of files that are in the Microsoft deal. And without Sean and his hard work (again thank you), we wouldn´t know if we are affected by the new Google free redistribution deal.
I have tried to find as many images as possible from the MS site, so here is a lightbox with my files. There seems to be a bug with displaying light boxes (yup another istock bug), so feel free to take a screenshot if you do get the files to load.
I have counted so far 1.3 Million downloads from Microsoft. One of these images, the red bauble with German text has over 655 000 free downloads, but ZERO sales on istock. Basically, these files and their downloads give you real life statistical data of how it affects sales on istock. Obviously - it does not improve them.
1.3 Million downloads is a large enough sample, even if you just have 25 files.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/13103721 (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/13103721)
Again, there may be more files, I am still waiting for my business partner to give me a full list. especially since the official company lawyer has said that I as a photographer have to watch the internet for a potential abuse of my files.
And for the supposed theoretical new "digital super software" they claim to be developing for following our files for infringement claims - they cannot even get the site to work properly, there are bugs everywhere.
So how are they going to make me believe they have the technological expertise to handle new untested software?
-
Another excellent post from the Istock thread, from 2ndlookgraphics:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818509 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818509)
This and other recent schemes make me think of an unsavory farmer planning his exit strategy from farming. First for fast cash, clear cut all timber on the land, sell gas and mineral rights, Next to save money, don't vaccinate your cattle or apply fertilizer to your fields or maintain your equipment. Finally, set fire to your buildings and collect insurance. What, if anything, is left it is picked up by the vultures.
Is that what is happening here?
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a word? Yes.
-
I think iStock will continue on imploding..but this time at a faster rate. Who want to risk having their images given away for free by such powerhouse as Google and Microsoft? At a minimum, feeling of disgust and anger will prevent many iStock members from clicking the upload button and buyers from clicking the buy button, many will abandon their crown, some will remove their images and "would be" new members will turn away. Who want to continue on or even start a relationship with such a vision?
-
I think iStock will continue on imploding..but this time at a faster rate.
Totally agree. But unfortunately, they seem intent on taking down the entire stock photography industry with them.
-
Again, there may be more files, I am still waiting for my business partner to give me a full list. especially since the official company lawyer has said that I as a photographer have to watch the internet for a potential abuse of my files.
And even if you do, they won't care.
I have an editorial photo being used as a virtual album cover on iTunes and notified to them first in late 2011 (eleven, that's not a typo), and three times since and it's still up there.
And another editorial photo with an iStock watermark on it on an eBay seller's site, also notified to them in late 2011 (eleven, sic) which is still live.
As well as several notified to them during 2012.
You get a cookie cutter email which says:
"Hi (yourname),
Thanks for the email.
Please know that our Compliance team takes this matter seriously and we will proceed with an investigation into this.
We appreciate you taking the time to send this our way.
Kind Regards,
xx (name)
Compliance Enforcement
iStockphoto LP"
Maybe they then send the offender some sort of email, if that, then they don't bother to check up / follow up.
So their promises about being better able to protect your interests if you are exclusive are totally hollow - just like their other 'promises'.
-
Changing user icons to a common protest version has worked in the past.
Only temporarily.
They moved the goalposts in the end anyway.
-
I think iStock will continue on imploding..but this time at a faster rate.
Totally agree. But unfortunately, they seem intent on taking down the entire stock photography industry with them.
Well..hopefully, they will implode or be taken to court before that happened. I don't think a few thousands images represent the entire industry, however, it needs to be addressed quickly before it is too late. I am hoping for a quick natural implosion first, than be taken to court for whatever they have left..
-
Can't we do one of these http://www.ipetitions.com/start-petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/start-petition) and present it to istock, I'd fill it in myself but I think it needs to be done collectively so nothing is left out.
-
Thanks God! Lobo can't moderate here!!!
-
Something that I sent to one of my distributors... they don't think there is a copyright problem with Getty-Google deal.
Here:
" Thank you - I have seen Istock forum update. I would like to point out that this situation is fundamentally different from Getty's usual "premium access" program. The difference is in the fact that in essence, in this deal with Google Getty acted like a copyright holder of the images, which they are not. Why it is so? Consider this: anyone in the world can create a Google account absolutely for free, sign up and download stock images from Google Drive absolutely for free. Getty is well aware of these "licensing terms" since they are claiming Google is not violating the license. So, Getty in effect gave Google rights to re-distribute images in this deal FOR FREE. As far as I know, only the copyright holder can decide if they want to sell their intellectual property or give it away for free. And copyright holders were not consulted or even informed that this is happening. I do not see how this is not considered a copyright infringement.
I hope I made my point in a clear and logical way. I understand most of <agency> sales come from Getty, but I would also like you to see the events for what they are. Lawyers can cover it up in official talk but the fact remains - my (and many others') images are available for free to absolutely anyone who would want them, and this was done without my agreement.
The only way I can be happy with this arrangement is if Getty purchases the right to these images for appropriate sum. If this is not provided, I will be requesting the removal of all my images from Getty. ..."
-
Thanks God! Lobo can't moderate here!!!
Has he been cutting over there? I've missed any cuts.
I thought they were just going to let this burn itself out, which is their alternative method of controlling the plebs.
I'm sure Kelvin and Pink must be a bit torn about this as they are also contributors.
Lobo can't even contribute, so couldn't care less what they do.
-
Getty allowing Google to redistribute contributor images for free is profoundly wrong. Well crafted legal worm holes do not change the fact that this action is a deceitful betrayal of their contributors. Forcing contributors into this without pre-notification and an opt out is completely unacceptable. My images are not currently included. If they were I would deactivate them and request immediate removal from all Getty and Google distribution platforms. I hope all effected contributors do this. Maybe they'll get the message or at least provide an opt out.
If this is indicative of Getty's new ownership management style we might be wise to deactivate our istock/getty accounts entirely. It's something I'm considering. I hope they come to their senses.
-
People are talking about stopping uploading as way of punishing Istock but what would be far more effective would if everyone used their full upload allocation to submit images that would get rejected (for one flaw or another). Istock would still have to pay their inspectors for the work but would gain no benefit whatsoever. In fact it would cost them quite a bit if it was done on a large enough scale.
-
^^ I like that idea! Submit cell phone photo.
-
^^ I like that idea! Submit cell phone photo.
ditto...haven't uploaded in over a year but will start uploading to the limits photos of my feet (not very pretty), ants, carpet stains, etc...
Contacted yesterday the 4 clients that insist on using Dirtstock, and enlightened them to what's happening. They were all quietly scratching their heads but agreed that the potential for trouble was certainly present. 2 committed to purchasing elsewhere, the other 2 - not sure what they'll do...
Will likely delete my current 900 image port this weekend but like the idea of flooding the que with garbage (which is still X2 better than most of the Getty crap).
Sorry to be so negative (only found 4 of my images, but 4 too many) but anyone dumb enuff to leave their ports there deserves what's coming. Forget lawsuits and threats, grab a lifevest and hit the water...unbelievable in spite of who it is.
-
If Getty (or Google) loses whatever lawsuit might come from this, this may end up being a situation where those who have registered the images' copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office will get a much bigger payout - actual plus statutory damages. Have you registered your images?
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3555 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3555)
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3627 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3627)
http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0 (http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0)
-
People are talking about stopping uploading as way of punishing Istock but what would be far more effective would if everyone used their full upload allocation to submit images that would get rejected (for one flaw or another). Istock would still have to pay their inspectors for the work but would gain no benefit whatsoever. In fact it would cost them quite a bit if it was done on a large enough scale.
LOL!
-
You're invited to leave your comments here: http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html (http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html)
-
If Getty (or Google) loses whatever lawsuit might come from this, this may end up being a situation where those who have registered the images' copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office will get a much bigger payout - actual plus statutory damages. Have you registered your images?
[url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3555[/url] ([url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3555[/url])
[url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3627[/url] ([url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3627[/url])
[url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0[/url] ([url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0[/url])
Copyright registration is, more or less, a scam. Copyright is an automatic international right under the Berne Convention.
Your agency upload date should provide more than enough evidence for verification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration)
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Copyright%20registration%2005%2010%2004.htm (http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Copyright%20registration%2005%2010%2004.htm)
-
People are talking about stopping uploading as way of punishing Istock but what would be far more effective would if everyone used their full upload allocation to submit images that would get rejected (for one flaw or another). Istock would still have to pay their inspectors for the work but would gain no benefit whatsoever. In fact it would cost them quite a bit if it was done on a large enough scale.
LOL!
Love it! Not only would we give Istock useless work, but for the first time in years uploading to istock would be easy and painless : no disambiguation needed! Forget about MR's! We wouldn't even have to read the rejection reasons!
-
I hate to be all gloom-and-doomy about this business, but I don't believe anything we do will have any effect at all on iStock. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt there's a case, much less one that will ever get to the point of a verdict or a settlement. I also think some of the tactics discussed are more likely to make trouble for our side, like DMCA takedown notices. That's likely abuse of a legal instrument, something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Courts don't take kindly to such things, and Getty can afford lawyers a lot better than we can.
I'm lucky, first because none of my photos were considered worth taking for either of these programs, and second because I started pulling my work from iStock back when they cut royalties. I've gone from over 3000 to just 545 images on iStock, plus the stuff I'm slowly removing from StockXpert. I'm willing to accept the small risk they'll abuse me further as I take whatever income I can get from my aging and not terribly impressive content there. So as much as I'm horrified by each new outrage, I'm sticking with my plan.
And that's it really. If you're angry and can afford to walk away, walk away. If you can't walk away, make as big a stink as you can but do it legally and professionally. Anything else just makes it easier for iStock to see us as whiners who can safely be ignored. Which is what they'll do in any event, if past experience is any guide.
-
When is that nice woman from iStock going to post again, in hurt tones, about how we seem to think they've lost all respect for their contributors?
-
You're invited to leave your comments here: [url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url])
Done. This one's me:
I would be very hesitant to use these images for any commercial purpose. They were obtained without the knowledge or consent of the artists who hold the copyrights. Ultimately they will probably be the subject of a lawsuit, so using these "free" images may well cost thousands in legal fees.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1[/url])
'Mr Erin':
"There have been copyright concerns raised specifically around the right click functionality and lack of embedded metadata within the Google platform, although not ideal from some perspectives this is fairly standard practice for this type of product placement. "
So in a huge deal of this sort, Getty couldn't have made some demands in return for such a selling of the family silver? I don't believe that for one minute. They probably didn't even think of it until it came up on the forum.
Someone in the iStock thread pointed out that the DMCA makes it a separate and specific violation to remove the copyright information from an image and provided a link to a lawyer's web site (http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html) talking about this
So I don't know why Mr. Erin thinks it's standard, but it isn't. I do believe that some agencies (123rf, I think) strip all the metadata from the images as part of trying to compress them as much as possible. I know they used to - when I signed up in 2005 I was concerned about how small the JPEGs were and asked for a sample to look at. They provided me with 5 of my images and from a quality point of view they looked reasonable.
I'm not sending current work to iStock anyway - not wanting to give Thinkstock current files to ensure that SS and other sites got first crack at them. Holding off a while longer doesn't hurt me and I will.
In mulling over the longer term, I considered waiting until the first of my images shows up in one of these deals and then deleting my portfolio entirely. The chances are I'd only lose control of one or two images that way and possibly with a DMCA takedown notice might be able to salvage those.
I wonder what the threat to SS is from Google making images free - Getty's idea might be that this is a better way to beat SS than by making their own subscription site to compete with them. Businesses stop buying subscriptions because they get free images with Google Docs/Drive - and businesses pay Google for the use of that (http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/pricing.html) even though it's free to end users.
Given that thought about what Getty's up to, it makes the threat to our business outside of iStock more pressing - render it hard for other places to sell image subscriptions and through their control of supply, "force" contributors to accept a tiny share of the money Getty is making when it licenses these deals.
I can personally consider the option of foregoing the income by leaving iStock as I'm not dependent on my stock earnings to eat. I just need to think about whether that move will make any difference before cutting off so much of my income...
-
If Getty (or Google) loses whatever lawsuit might come from this, this may end up being a situation where those who have registered the images' copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office will get a much bigger payout - actual plus statutory damages. Have you registered your images?
[url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3555[/url] ([url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3555[/url])
[url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3627[/url] ([url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=3627[/url])
[url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0[/url] ([url]http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0[/url])
Copyright registration is, more or less, a scam. Copyright is an automatic international right under the Berne Convention.
Your agency upload date should provide more than enough evidence for verification.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration[/url])
[url]http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Copyright%20registration%2005%2010%2004.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Copyright%20registration%2005%2010%2004.htm[/url])
-----------------------------
Upload date will show ownership of course, but for whatever reason, U.S. law gives an additional level of compensation for violation of "registered copyrights". Lot's more money. Not defending the why here, just sharing the fact that there is such a thing as "registered copyright" for those that might not know about this.
-
You're invited to leave your comments here: [url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url])
Have done so.
-
JoAnn, great points above.
I believe the DMCA notices are important. I also believe that it is essential to make as big a stink as possible about this publicly. Once buyers get the idea these "free" images may cost them thousands in legal fees for unauthorized use, it should have a chilling effect.
-
People are talking about stopping uploading as way of punishing Istock but what would be far more effective would if everyone used their full upload allocation to submit images that would get rejected (for one flaw or another). Istock would still have to pay their inspectors for the work but would gain no benefit whatsoever. In fact it would cost them quite a bit if it was done on a large enough scale.
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?
-
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?
Great idea. No need for photoshop. Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload. Simple :)
-
You're invited to leave your comments here: [url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url])
I added my comments:
"This cozy little deal between Getty and Google may well not hold up as none of the copyright holders agreed to this virtual giveaway of their work.
Users of Google Drive want to think very carefully about whether they want to risk using these images commercially. Getty can blather all they want about how they think they have the right to enrich themselves with an invalid contract with Google - "Don't be evil"?? Really? - but that doesn't make it the case.
Copyright owners are not going to allow theft to be reclassified as a valid licensing deal - Google Drive end users really wouldn't want to get caught up in this legal wrangling, especially when there are plenty of legally safe ways to license stock images."
-
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?
Great idea. No need for photoshop. Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload. Simple :)
Don't do that Lisa : I just checked Istock, and the best dog poop pile image has more than 10 downloads, so they might accept your photo! May-be if you shot it out of focus, with dark shadows and a logo on it?
-
You're invited to leave your comments here: [url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url])
I added my comments:
"This cozy little deal between Getty and Google may well not hold up as none of the copyright holders agreed to this virtual giveaway of their work.
Users of Google Drive want to think very carefully about whether they want to risk using these images commercially. Getty can blather all they want about how they think they have the right to enrich themselves with an invalid contract with Google - "Don't be evil"?? Really? - but that doesn't make it the case.
Copyright owners are not going to allow theft to be reclassified as a valid licensing deal - Google Drive end users really wouldn't want to get caught up in this legal wrangling, especially when there are plenty of legally safe ways to license stock images."
I will save this google blog page once in a while in case it gets deleted. Maybe some of you could do the same as well.
-
The ONLY thing that might give them pause is if the biggest contributors totally pulled their ports. But they have the most to lose, so who could blame them if they didn't.
On the flip side, they also have the most to loose if iS/Getty continue with this strategy. Particularly if it is expanded (as they have said they are considering) and if the "new" ideas they say they are developing also include giving away even more images.
I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but given Getty's total disregard for contributors, particularly their disdain for MS independents, I would not be at all surprised that this is a deliberate strategy to weaken all competition and ultimately position IS back in a number one role. It's not beyond the possibility that they would dump all of their independent contributor's work into this freebie scheme. Although that would seemingly hurt IS, they have the resources to tide IS over for a few years while other agencies struggle against a flood of free images. That's not an uncommon business strategy for some division of a major corporation trying to break into a new market that is already dominated by one or two strong competitors. They price their product so cheap that the competition cannot match their prices and slowly loose market share or, as has happened before. go entirely out of business. At this point the company begins to raise their prices back to levels necessary to show and maintain a reasonable profit level. How many companies can you think of who have gone out of business because they have been unable to compete because of price competition. That's a normal part of free enterprise capitalism, but the way Getty is going about it somehow doesn't seem to make it morally right.
-
Very good advice.
I can't tell those affected what to do, of course, but I would suggest that if you have images that are affected, and you have a problem with that, now would be a good time to consult a copyright attorney. Most of them will probably give you an initial consultation for free.
Best to proceed armed with knowledge of how to protect your legal position.
Let me reiterate, if a group of affected individuals gets together and proceeds with a lawsuit, you can count on me for a sizable donation.
Also, count me in on refusing to upload anymore until this is resolved satisfactorily. And if it isn't resolved, either by a reversal/opt-out from Getty or by a lawsuit, I will have no choice but to remove my images rather than risk their being given away for free. The first time I find one of my images given away in this or a similar deal, I WILL be hiring an attorney (already have on who has assisted me with cases of misuse in the past).
Same here. I will be happy to donate to the cause. This low blow affects all of microstock, not just contributors at istockgetty.
-
Very good advice.
I can't tell those affected what to do, of course, but I would suggest that if you have images that are affected, and you have a problem with that, now would be a good time to consult a copyright attorney. Most of them will probably give you an initial consultation for free.
Best to proceed armed with knowledge of how to protect your legal position.
Let me reiterate, if a group of affected individuals gets together and proceeds with a lawsuit, you can count on me for a sizable donation.
Also, count me in on refusing to upload anymore until this is resolved satisfactorily. And if it isn't resolved, either by a reversal/opt-out from Getty or by a lawsuit, I will have no choice but to remove my images rather than risk their being given away for free. The first time I find one of my images given away in this or a similar deal, I WILL be hiring an attorney (already have on who has assisted me with cases of misuse in the past).
Same here. I will be happy to donate to the cause. This low blow affects all of microstock, not just contributors at istockgetty.
I would donate to the cause as well
-
FWIW, here's a portion of the letter I am sending to relevant media outlets:
Okay, now I've taken it down so nobody can accuse me of libeling anyone or continue to split hairs. Guess we should all go back to cowering in fear and wringing our hands lest the baddies come after us. ::)
Anyone who likes can feel free to PM me and I will share the text with you.
-
I've gone from over 3000 to just 545 images on iStock, plus the stuff I'm slowly removing from StockXpert.
Images I selectively "deleted" from StockXpert over a year ago... as a test... are still being sold there. You may want to search Thinkstock for your "deleted" shots. I think the only way to edit a StockXpert port is to close the account entirely.
-
Everyone is angry but I do suggest that you be careful about what you post in public forums, especially the Google forum. Allegations of illegal actions against a major company on the forums of one of its major partner companies could be very problematic indeed. I really doubt that anybody here is able to say with certainty that Getty has done anything outright illegal.
On the other hand, believing the spin put out by istocklawyer could be almost as big a mistake. His mandate is to produce opinions that shut down any legal problems for Getty/istock (or, if that isn't his brief, I would be very surprised).
Don't libel istock and don't swallow the garbage they are feeding you. That is my, unlawyerly, advice.
-
I've gone from over 3000 to just 545 images on iStock, plus the stuff I'm slowly removing from StockXpert.
Images I selectively "deleted" from StockXpert over a year ago... as a test... are still being sold there. You may want to search Thinkstock for your "deleted" shots. I think the only way to edit a StockXpert port is to close the account entirely.
This is good advice. I had a similar experience with an iStock image I deactivated; two months later it was still on ThinkStock and Photos.com. To their credit, iStock Contributor Relations removed it when I approached them (I had to provide PP site image numbers). If you plan to close your iStock account, I suggest you first deactivate all your images, and verify that they're no longer on the PP sites, and only then close the account itself.
Regards
-
I just sent a tweet to Jon Oringer pointing to this thread:
@jonoringer You see the furor over Getty's deal with GoogleDrive for free stock? Bad news IMO http://bit.ly/W0AhD4 (http://bit.ly/W0AhD4)
I think they might take the wrong route and try to do the same as Getty, but it's not as if info about this fiasco is currently private, so if he were so inclined he'd figure this out on his own anyway. We need some sort of heavyweight to help fight back.
-
http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google)
-
WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE ARTISTS.
You might want to check your facts. $12 is no much but it's not nothing as well.
-
WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE ARTISTS.
You might want to check your facts. $12 is no much but it's not nothing as well.
Apparently not everybody has received the $12 ... yet anyway.
-
WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE ARTISTS.
You might want to check your facts. $12 is no much but it's not nothing as well.
Apparently not everybody has received the $12 ... yet anyway.
Michael, reread my letter. You have quoted me out of context. If you reinsert that quote back into the paragraph you got it from, you will see it refers to Google members being able to download the images from the google docs site with no compensation to the artists for any of those usages. That hasn't changed has it?
The $12 paid to SOME artists when the deal started is compensation, however pitiful, but it has nothing to do with the zero that is paid to artists when the image is used from google docs.
ETA: Nevermind. I have removed the letter because apparently picking it apart is considered, by some, to be a better use of their time than actually doing something about this situation.
-
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue. Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.
-
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue. Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.
Well, the letter has already gone out, but I changed the wording to make it less confusing for anyone reading the forum. Removed the letter altogether as its wording is a distraction from the more important issue of doing something to get this situation some public attention.
I would urge anyone interested to contact the media with whatever wording you feel is appropriate.
-
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue. Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.
I think the removal of copyright metadata from these 6000+ images are the real transgression here!
-
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue. Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.
I think the removal of copyright metadata from these 6000+ images are the real transgression here!
Yes, I think you may well be right. It negates the advice by Google to its users to check the usage rights and requires a deliberate decision to strip the data. Therefore it would seem that someone has deliberatly orphaned the images and possibly done it for commercial gain.
-
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?
-
ETA: Nevermind. I have removed the letter because apparently picking it apart is considered, by some, to be a better use of their time than actually doing something about this situation.
I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.
I wasn't wasting my time picking your letter apart. I was just pointing out that something (actually there were others) in your letter were factually wrong. If that's okay for you for the sake of getting a point across, you can go ahead. But I'd think providing pure facts would sound bad enough, it doesn't need any effort or unfortunate wording to make it look worse.
-
Everyone is angry but I do suggest that you be careful about what you post in public forums, especially the Google forum. Allegations of illegal actions against a major company on the forums of one of its major partner companies could be very problematic indeed. I really doubt that anybody here is able to say with certainty that Getty has done anything outright illegal.
On the other hand, believing the spin put out by istocklawyer could be almost as big a mistake. His mandate is to produce opinions that shut down any legal problems for Getty/istock (or, if that isn't his brief, I would be very surprised).
Don't libel istock and don't swallow the garbage they are feeding you. That is my, unlawyerly, advice.
There is such a thing as being too careful. And I think it's time we stop doing that. After all the discussions and meaningless lawyers official talk here are just 2 solid facts: 1) My images are being given away for free to general public 2) I as a copyright holder did not consent to that, and was not even notified.
That's illegal. Let them prove it to me otherwise.
-
Useful info for those affected...
[url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url] ([url]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement[/url])
Its useful but what I read there has me thinking.
The same provision of copyright law that allows for the takedown notice also allows the alleged infringer to file a counter notice. After sending your takedown notice to the ISP, the ISP will notify the alleged infringer of the notice. The infringer then can send a counter notice to the ISP declaring that the infringer “has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled” and other requirements of Section 512 (g). At that point, the ISP is caught in the middle. By law, the ISP must repost the infringing material to its original location.
Unfortunately, the only option then to stop the infringement is to file a lawsuit asking the court to enter an injunction stopping the use of the copyright material. Since the infringer can easily move the use of the copyrighted material to another ISP, it’s best to include a copyright infringement claim in the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are expensive and significant damages usually can only be recovered if your image is registered. Fortunately, most infringers don’t take the time to file a counter notice. But be sure to register the copyrights to your photos so that you have all of the tools necessary to fight copyright infringement.
That will give all power to Google, and they will probably put a team of agents on the case and send out counter notifications to the ISPs in a much faster rate and larger scale then all the affected photographers can do.
Also, I do not get why an image needs to be registered. Copyright is copyright in my opinion, registered or not.
Google is not infringing anybody's copyright in this, so the whole idea is nonsense. You authorised iStock to license it and iStock licensed it via Getty to Google, which is - apparently - complying with whatever terms there were in the special unrevealed license. So any dispute would be with the distributors - iStock and Getty - over whether they have violated the terms of the distrubution agreement you have with them. Until you prove that they have violated the terms, Google is in the clear.
At least, that is how I see it.
-----------------------------------------------
Not sure that I agree that Google is off the hook. Think of this 1) Contributor sends Google a DCMA notice asserting that Google does not have the right to use the image the way Google is using it. 2) Google refuses to take it down saying they have a valid license. 3) Istock/Getty lose a court case brought by the contributor and are found to have licensed content outside the scope of the contributor agreement, meaning in part they infringed the copyright of the contributor. 4) Google can say "well we thought we had a valid license", but they A) still failed to comply with a legitimate DCMA notice and are still on the hook for that failure and B) distributed infringing material after being told by the owner that Google did not have a valid license. Google's recourse is to go after Istock/Getty for misrepresenting their ability to license the images the way they did.
-
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?
Great idea. No need for photoshop. Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload. Simple :)
Don't do that Lisa : I just checked Istock, and the best dog poop pile image has more than 10 downloads, so they might accept your photo! May-be if you shot it out of focus, with dark shadows and a logo on it?
Haha, with a GOOGLE logo on it!
-
Not sure that I agree that Google is off the hook. Think of this 1) Contributor sends Google a DCMA notice asserting that Google does not have the right to use the image the way Google is using it. 2) Google refuses to take it down saying they have a valid license. 3) Istock/Getty lose a court case brought by the contributor and are found to have licensed content outside the scope of the contributor agreement, meaning in part they infringed the copyright of the contributor. 4) Google can say "well we thought we had a valid license", but they A) still failed to comply with a legitimate DCMA notice and are still on the hook for that failure and B) distributed infringing material after being told by the owner that Google did not have a valid license. Google's recourse is to go after Istock/Getty for misrepresenting their ability to license the images the way they did.
Ideal scenario would be to convince Google that >Istock/Getty misrepresented their ability to license the images the way they did< and make them to go over to contributors side.
Well - I know that it sounds too fancy but it may not be impossible.
-
[url]http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google[/url] ([url]http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google[/url])
I like Todd Klassy's comments, including this one:
We need an industry wide revolution; something that is strong enough to lure all photographers away from existing stock photo companies, grab attention, and establish sound legislation and business practices that bring an end to the things that have been crippling the industry for the past 10 years; image theft, the vultures stealing profits in stock photography companies, and educating amateurs that their photos are worth money.
The first thing I would do would be to hire in-house counsel, including possible a intellectual property attorney that either works for or worked for the RIAA, and a former sales & marketing executive at Getty, Shutterstock, etc. Followed by an intensive membership drive. Tell me that wouldn't shake things up in the photo industry.
But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.
-
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?
read this topic, I had 10 as independent, 12$!!!!!!!
-
[url]http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google[/url] ([url]http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google[/url])
I like Todd Klassy's comments, including this one:
We need an industry wide revolution; something that is strong enough to lure all photographers away from existing stock photo companies, grab attention, and establish sound legislation and business practices that bring an end to the things that have been crippling the industry for the past 10 years; image theft, the vultures stealing profits in stock photography companies, and educating amateurs that their photos are worth money.
The first thing I would do would be to hire in-house counsel, including possible a intellectual property attorney that either works for or worked for the RIAA, and a former sales & marketing executive at Getty, Shutterstock, etc. Followed by an intensive membership drive. Tell me that wouldn't shake things up in the photo industry.
But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.
I'd join and pay union fees, or whatever organization that would be. We just need a leader.... Sean Locke? ;-)
-
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?
Great idea. No need for photoshop. Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload. Simple :)
Perfect. My back yard is full of it (105 pound yellow lab on a high fiber diet).
-
https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject
Luis - you knew it and didn't warn us! :)
-
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?
Great idea. No need for photoshop. Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload. Simple :)
Perfect. My back yard is full of it (105 pound yellow lab on a high fiber diet).
Got three Golden Retrievers :o ;D ::)
-
ETA: Nevermind. I have removed the letter because apparently picking it apart is considered, by some, to be a better use of their time than actually doing something about this situation.
I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.
I wasn't wasting my time picking your letter apart. I was just pointing out that something (actually there were others) in your letter were factually wrong. If that's okay for you for the sake of getting a point across, you can go ahead. But I'd think providing pure facts would sound bad enough, it doesn't need any effort or unfortunate wording to make it look worse.
Good for you for removing images. I hope that turns out to be more effective than it was when others did it in the past. I don't see that and getting media attention as mutually exclusive.
Once more, I was trying to give a brief overview. Having worked doing intake at the ACLU years ago, I know that these organizations get a lot of letters and it is important to be brief and concise to capture their interest, otherwise you risk being filed in the circular filing cabinet. I also linked to all relevant facts, blogs, and discussions in case they want to do further reading. Nothing was misrepresented, as I have now explained twice and at length.
If you still don't agree, then we will just have to agree to disagree and turn our respective efforts to more constructive pursuits than bickering over semantics :)
-
But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.
The queue is up c2000 again since lunchtime GMT
I have no idea if that means that people are stil uploading like crazy or if the inspectors are on a go-slow.
-
Not sure if someone already posted this and I missed it - I've only just found it. They were discussing the Google Drive deal back in August 2012 on the Alamy forum:
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=182438 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=182438)
-
I remember a few old conversations alluding to free images. It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the current situation.
Yuri
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money- (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money-)!/msg137814/#msg137814
"Well there is a point to my plans and you are getting closer to it. You will see in 6-8 months from now. Your observations are more knowledgeable than I think most people here will realize. Free you say.... and yes... the concept of free is very interesting in my eyes. "
ellenboughn
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money- (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money-)!/msg138005/#msg138005
"PS "Free" actually will have excellent financial rewards to market leaders in the future and it won't have anything to do with selling ancillary products or links. I predict that it will drive all models from RM to micro. I'm not prepared to reveal what that might be as it is in its infancy and not worth getting all riled up about. And NO I won't be making money because of it or promoting it or anything. "
-
Gosh. Yes. Now you mention it.... I remember both those statements at the time they appeared. It all seemed curious then - and still is to me (until I can figure out how on earth these deals benefit photographers).
Of course - if they'll only benefit 'the market leaders' then perhaps the rest of us are meant to be left eternally in the dark. ::)
-
Hypothetically ... could a stock agency charge a client a fee for putting together a deal - like a contract fee ? ie separately billed from the actual licensing fees ?
That's a question not a supposition or conjecture.
-
Hypothetically ... could a stock agency charge a client a fee for putting together a deal - like a contract fee ? ie separately billed from the actual licensing fees ?
That's a question not a supposition or conjecture.
I'm sure they absolutely could.
-
If you read my post late Friday then you must know Getty is steering towards a pay per click for your images. I said it then that it is garbage and I will say it again. You won't make a living off of Ad Sense! Now we must not let this die because they have numbers to play with and little risk unless we act fast and furious. They could care less about the artist, they are only focused on how to earn money for themselves with the content! I will be pulling my crown by the end of the month and most likely my images as well! People say asking Google to take down images won't work. Just Dot It! People say raising a stink on social media won't work. Just Do It! People said I would never make it as a stock video producer. I Did It! This affects all content not just photos. Do something and stop being a VICTUM. I am truly DISGUSTED!
-
But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.
The queue is up c2000 again since lunchtime GMT
I have no idea if that means that people are stil uploading like crazy or if the inspectors are on a go-slow.
Some people might not be aware of what's going on. Istock has contributors from around the world, not everyone reads forums. If every time they try to upload an image a warning would pop up - "By uploading this image you're giving Getty rights to give your images away for free" - I bet the queue wouldn't be that long:)
-
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?
No, not me
-
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?
read this topic, I had 10 as independent, 12$!!!!!!!
Sorry, confused by your answer.
Do you mean you had ten files chosen for $12 a piece, ten files chosen for $12 total, or ...?
-
BTW, if RR wants to see how iStock has affected contributors, on the extreme off-chance she gives one iota, she should read latest posts in the Race threads over there and compare them to almost any random earlier threads. Previously they were always upbeat without being too woo-way; now they're mostly as dismayed and disillusioned as the rest of us.
-
.. you must know Getty is steering towards a pay per click for your images. ... You won't make a living off of Ad Sense!
But they'll all be doing that, eventually, simply because they can. The subscription model is already erasing any notion of a "commission" on a "sale"; the payment we receive for a download is an arbitrary, token amount. People who are portraying SS as the good guys, and IS as the bad guys, are going to be disillusioned in the long run.
We still think of these companies as agents; they probably want to recast themselves as publishers; actually they are neither. They're just sellers of images, who have gotten possession of our material under terms of a hopelessly vague agreement which they can modify, unilaterally, at any time.
All this was inevitable once "inventory" became obsolete. We give these people not a product that we produce, but the molds and tooling to duplicate that product endlessly. We really have no way of knowing what quantities they sell or at what price; we rely on their ethics - which are now, obviously, obsolete as well.
Things could be different only if images were digitally signed and we gave agencies the right to sell a specific number of copies.
-
I don't recall seeing this link to the iStock forum regarding model released images being caught up in this fiasco. If I missed it, forgive me for the double post link.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350501&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350501&page=1)
Looks like a lot of IS contributors are deleting their MR images, particularly those of friends and families.
-
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?
read this topic, I had 10 as independent, 12$!!!!!!!
Sorry, confused by your answer.
Do you mean you had ten files chosen for $12 a piece, ten files chosen for $12 total, or ...?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/msg289486/#msg289486 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/msg289486/#msg289486)
-
https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject
Luis - you knew it and didn't warn us! :)
not the only one there that is active in this forum, I believe I had in mind posting it here but I was thinking that idea wouldn't take place... I have forgotten it pretty quickly :-\
-
I don't recall seeing this link to the iStock forum regarding model released images being caught up in this fiasco. If I missed it, forgive me for the double post link.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350501&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350501&page=1[/url])
Looks like a lot of IS contributors are deleting their MR images, particularly those of friends and families.
Just deactivated all of mine with model released humans and will put a fork in the rest of my port still left on Istock Photo.
I won't even leave the few photos I had left on this disgusting site as place holders should they ever find ethical high ground. The place is run by a box of sociopaths with nary a concern for it's contributors or the models it just tossed into the pit without protection.
-
[url]https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject[/url] ([url]https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject[/url])
Luis - you knew it and didn't warn us! :)
not the only one there that is active in this forum, I believe I had in mind posting it here but I was thinking that idea wouldn't take place... I have forgotten it pretty quickly :-\
A few of us commented coming from the link on msg ;) and were generally pessimistic but didnt know the details
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/has-anyone-seen-this-google-is-curating-their-own-stock-photo-library/msg267148/#msg267148 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/has-anyone-seen-this-google-is-curating-their-own-stock-photo-library/msg267148/#msg267148)
half my port is gone, wow it is boring especially on a slow hotel connection. They should make the deactivate screen more interesting ;)
* censorship, putting *'s in when I say *. *, *, * ;D
-
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to comment about this issue as it truly upsets me. I want to step away from being a stock site owner and speak from a (former) contributor point of view. It is very disturbing to hear that deals are made without the consent or proper compensation of the contributor. Stock agencies do not own the images...you do.
When you join an agency, you are trusting them to sell your images safely and securely on their site...not to be distributed to unknown partner sites or in undisclosed deals.
This free image fiasco not only hurts contributors, but it is also damaging to the whole stock image industry. If the Google deal continues, then there will be no reason for people to buy images...anywhere.
My sympathies go out to all contributors involved.
-
This free image fiasco not only hurts contributors, but it is also damaging to the whole stock image industry. If the Google deal continues, then there will be no reason for people to buy images...anywhere.
hope you've got a very large welcoming mat Kelly, and lots of technical hires and new servers waiting in the wings ;-)
-
Thanks for the words of support Kelly!
-
[url]https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject[/url] ([url]https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject[/url])
Luis - you knew it and didn't warn us! :)
not the only one there that is active in this forum, I believe I had in mind posting it here but I was thinking that idea wouldn't take place... I have forgotten it pretty quickly :-\
A few of us commented coming from the link on msg ;) and were generally pessimistic but didnt know the details
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/has-anyone-seen-this-google-is-curating-their-own-stock-photo-library/msg267148/#msg267148[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/has-anyone-seen-this-google-is-curating-their-own-stock-photo-library/msg267148/#msg267148[/url])
half my port is gone, wow it is boring especially on a slow hotel connection. They should make the deactivate screen more interesting ;)
* censorship, putting *'s in when I say *. *, *, * ;D
yep a topic open by Dan, gotta be people from GL, thanks Kelly too!
-
It is very disturbing to hear that f the Google deal continues, then there will be no reason for people to buy images...anywhere.
we've all thought the past few months were the beginning of the end; it's like witnessing a train crash and we can't do a thing about it. can we?
-
Everyone is angry but I do suggest that you be careful about what you post in public forums, especially the Google forum. Allegations of illegal actions against a major company on the forums of one of its major partner companies could be very problematic indeed. I really doubt that anybody here is able to say with certainty that Getty has done anything outright illegal.
On the other hand, believing the spin put out by istocklawyer could be almost as big a mistake. His mandate is to produce opinions that shut down any legal problems for Getty/istock (or, if that isn't his brief, I would be very surprised).
Don't libel istock and don't swallow the garbage they are feeding you. That is my, unlawyerly, advice.
There is such a thing as being too careful. And I think it's time we stop doing that. After all the discussions and meaningless lawyers official talk here are just 2 solid facts: 1) My images are being given away for free to general public 2) I as a copyright holder did not consent to that, and was not even notified.
That's illegal. Let them prove it to me otherwise.
They've already delivered their "proof" in the form of the assertions in the lawyer's statement. Now the ball is in our court. If you want them to try to prove they are right (and give you the chance to prove they are wrong) there is one, and only one, way to do it: sue them. Unless you are planning to do that then bold demands for proof are meaningless.
-
Google is not infringing anybody's copyright in this, so the whole idea is nonsense. You authorised iStock to license it and iStock licensed it via Getty to Google, which is - apparently - complying with whatever terms there were in the special unrevealed license. So any dispute would be with the distributors - iStock and Getty - over whether they have violated the terms of the distrubution agreement you have with them. Until you prove that they have violated the terms, Google is in the clear.
At least, that is how I see it.
-----------------------------------------------
Not sure that I agree that Google is off the hook. Think of this 1) Contributor sends Google a DCMA notice asserting that Google does not have the right to use the image the way Google is using it. 2) Google refuses to take it down saying they have a valid license. 3) Istock/Getty lose a court case brought by the contributor and are found to have licensed content outside the scope of the contributor agreement, meaning in part they infringed the copyright of the contributor. 4) Google can say "well we thought we had a valid license", but they A) still failed to comply with a legitimate DCMA notice and are still on the hook for that failure and B) distributed infringing material after being told by the owner that Google did not have a valid license. Google's recourse is to go after Istock/Getty for misrepresenting their ability to license the images the way they did.
OK, I agree with that. So all those who are sure enough of their ground to sue istock and have the cash to do it should go ahead with the take-down notices.
Those who aren't ready to sue should bear in mind that iS might close your account if they consider you are harrassing "an important partner" with legal notices, which might or might not matter to you.
-
Vannphoto:
When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.
How many potential customers have been lost because they can now access large, unwatermarked images at no charge? Where is the incentive?
All of the agencies on the right directly compete for the same thing...image buyers. If the free image offering continues then the impact could be industry wide. I feel as helpless as you.
-
OK, I agree with that. So all those who are sure enough of their ground to sue istock and have the cash to do it should go ahead with the take-down notices.
Those who aren't ready to sue should bear in mind that iS might close your account if they consider you are harrassing "an important partner" with legal notices, which might or might not matter to you.
A DMCA Takedown is a good faith declaration that you don't believe the infringer has the right to display the work. If you genuinely are the copyright holder and believe the content is displayed without your permission (i.e. it goes against the terms of your contract with IStock) then as far as I can work out there is no reason not to send a DMCA. Of course IStock could close your account, but I don't think they can (successfully) sue if it is not done maliciously, but because you genuinely believe your work is being infringed. That's what I take from the wording of most DMCA takedowns in any case. The one photoattorney recommends includes these words:
http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html (http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html)
"I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder."
Of course Google will probably then just give a counter-notice (if they think they are in the right) and then you will have to sue or drop the case.
Anyway, it could at least let them know that as the copyright holder you don't believe they have the right to give your work away
I'm not a lawyer or anything. this is all just my opinion!
-
Vannphoto:
When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.
I think you meant to sat "largest and most VILLIFIED stock agency..." I see no respect for Getty from anyone.
-
Vannphoto:
When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.
I think you meant to sat "largest and most VILLIFIED stock agency..." I see no respect for Getty from anyone.
Beat me to it! largest, but not respected for a long time!
-
Are these images only Istock/TS? Or do they include other micro site images? One of mine is in there but that image has been deactivated on Istock years ago.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818717 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818717)
This is another thing that I'm afraid of. I deactivated some of the MR images on iS site but I really can't be sure that it means that they can't appear on Google Drive in near future yet from TS or photos.com - as mentioned also in this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/account-closed-over-1yr-ago-still-selling-images-with-no-payment/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/account-closed-over-1yr-ago-still-selling-images-with-no-payment/)
-
Are these images only Istock/TS? Or do they include other micro site images? One of mine is in there but that image has been deactivated on Istock years ago.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818717[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818717[/url])
This is another thing that I'm afraid of. I deactivated some of the MR images on iS site but I really can't be sure that it means that they can't appear on Google Drive in near future yet from TS or photos.com - as mentioned also in this thread:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/account-closed-over-1yr-ago-still-selling-images-with-no-payment/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/account-closed-over-1yr-ago-still-selling-images-with-no-payment/[/url])
Before we knew we were getting screwed and we put up with it. Unfortunately its only now we have discovered that it was unprotected and it is only luck or time before catching something ;)
-
Vannphoto:
When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.
How many potential customers have been lost because they can now access large, unwatermarked images at no charge? Where is the incentive?
All of the agencies on the right directly compete for the same thing...image buyers. If the free image offering continues then the impact could be industry wide. I feel as helpless as you.
I wish there were more agencies like GL out there, can't sing your praises enough. Thanks for your support.
-
Vannphoto:
When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us.
again we are trapped. at the moment this scandal is still just known within the stock community, do we dare let it go wider? will that help? will we look like greedy, spoilt brats? (despite the fact we get 25c per sub dl, most ppl think we earn much more) the music industry beat this (to a degree) but they didn't have an army of amateur musicians willing to upload free content.
-
Thank you so much for joining the discussion Kelly. I have been wondering how agency owners are feeling about this move and it is very good to hear your views. I wish the other agency owners would step in and show support for contributors and the industry as you have. This whole industry works better when we're all on the same side with the same objective, and unfortunately in many cases it's turned into a 'them and us' scenario.
I would love to see the agency owners actually work together in some way and create an association to defend the industry against unfair practices. It would then be clear to all of us that those who didn't sign up to it were too self-serving to do so. It would be great to see something positive for all of us come out of this.
-
From laughingmango on the istock forum "contact PACA about this matter. from what I can see Istock is not a member, but Getty Images is.
PACA Code Of Ethics
The Picture Archive Council of America, through its worldwide membership, vigorously supports a standard of business practice that sustains the highest degree of honesty, integrity and fair play with clients, contributing artists, other stock agencies and vendors. PACA has a commitment to the protection of intellectual property and represents the highest quality of images, service and membership support.
http://www.pacaoffice.org/ (http://www.pacaoffice.org/)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=14#post6819085 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=14#post6819085)
-
Oh wow Sue. I'm speechless.
-
This link works
http://www.pacaoffice.org/about.shtml (http://www.pacaoffice.org/about.shtml)
Picture Archive Council of America
-
Thank Redzaal!
-
Very interesting looking at the Officers and Staff of PACA. Getty are not just members. Vice President and the Education & Communications Officer are both from Getty
-
Just astounding. How on earth did we end up here, when they're there?
-
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.
-
Interesting piece on JK on this page (scroll down a bit to fifth article):
http://www.pacaoffice.org/whatsnewnow.shtml (http://www.pacaoffice.org/whatsnewnow.shtml)
From the article:
"Because Getty Images' business is based both on copyright and collaboration, the company believes strongly that its relationships with contributors depend upon the ability to protect intellectual property and the livelihood of the contributors. Protecting photographer's and contributing artist's work is of the utmost importance to Getty Images. Contributing photographers look to Getty Images to ensure that they are paid whenever their work is used for a commercial purpose and the company actively tracks where their work has been used without a license."
-
I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.
Good for you for removing images. I hope that turns out to be more effective than it was when others did it in the past. I don't see that and getting media attention as mutually exclusive.
It wasn't meant to be mutually exclusive, it was a response that people are taking more time to pick apart your planned statement - I did spend time to make a remark but I did spend more time on other stuff. ;-)
I have no hopes that this will be "more effective" with regards to iStock/Getty regretting their decisions. As I stated in a post above, I believe that more people will keep uploading at iStock than people removing stuff as there are still enough reasons to do so.
And even if all falls apart, Getty still has about 20 million images they can move to iStock to replace the missing content...
-
Just looking through their member list, the only purely microstock agency I can see on the list is Shutterstock. I wonder why the others haven't signed up?
ETA: Oops! Just noticed DT and DP are on the list too. (I'm not completely awake yet).
-
Oh, and I forgot - If any of you do send the letter, please ask the lawyer if it could be made an open letter, and post it here. The lawyer might advise against it, but if not, it would help the community to see it.
-
I haven't read all this thread so apologies if this has been said before,
A solution to this problem is for artists to get together and form some sort of co-op, starting a new library run fairly and for everyones benefit, once people saw this working, content would migrate across because of the better royalty split, and we could get these vultures off our backs, I would get on board such a venture, there is still a great living to be made from stock, its getting the money flowing to the creators of the content thats the problem.
-
I haven't read all this thread so apologies if this has been said before,
A solution to this problem is for artists to get together and form some sort of co-op, starting a new library run fairly and for everyones benefit, once people saw this working, content would migrate across because of the better royalty split, and we could get these vultures off our backs, I would get on board such a venture, there is still a great living to be made from stock, its getting the money flowing to the creators of the content thats the problem.
People have been talking about that for years. I don't think we will ever have a site run by us that could rival the big 4. I think what we should do now is leave istock and use sites that pay 50% commission or more like GLStockImages and Pond5. But that's been suggested before and also falls on deaf ears.
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
-
Very interesting looking at the Officers and Staff of PACA. Getty are not just members. Vice President and the Education & Communications Officer are both from Getty
So you already know how they will react to your complaint ;)
-
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.
How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive? I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal? We'll return the 60$ of course".
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
-
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.
How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive? I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal? We'll return the 60$ of course".
They would do it because the alternative would potentially cost them a lot more than a fistful of dollars. That is assuming they wouldn't scupper the deal altogether. If they receive a good number of legal demands, that is a possibility.
-
From laughingmango on the istock forum "contact PACA about this matter. from what I can see Istock is not a member, but Getty Images is.
PACA Code Of Ethics
The Picture Archive Council of America, through its worldwide membership, vigorously supports a standard of business practice that sustains the highest degree of honesty, integrity and fair play with clients, contributing artists, other stock agencies and vendors. PACA has a commitment to the protection of intellectual property and represents the highest quality of images, service and membership support.
[url]http://www.pacaoffice.org/[/url] ([url]http://www.pacaoffice.org/[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=14#post6819085[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=14#post6819085[/url])
Yes, if definitely looks as though contacting PACA would be the most important first move.
-
Has anyone else highlighted this paragraph in MrErin's post?
"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume."
As for the condition of use that the photos must be used within the Google products, how could they ever police that?
-
Wow, funny how times changes eh? a few years ago, everyone was praising istock and now everyone wants to sue them :)
Ive only got small port with only a few photos and mostly video, but if they were to pull the same trick with video i would be extremely mad and the worrying thing is down the line they could even be considering it.
-
Very interesting looking at the Officers and Staff of PACA. Getty are not just members. Vice President and the Education & Communications Officer are both from Getty
Thanks for that laugh! :-)
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"? Of course I know that a few individuals like me leaving isn't going to make a difference. That's why I used the word "we". It needs to be the majority of big portfolio contributors. I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most. If they carry on doing deals like this Google one, they're not going to be making that for long. They only have people by the balls because they haven't got the guts to do something about it.
I can't really afford to leave but if there was enough of us, it would be worth giving it a try. At the moment I'm starting to think it's just not worth bothering with microstock anymore or reading istock threads in this forum. The only ideas people are coming up with are stopping uploading, that's failed before and legal action, that's failed before. I hope attitudes change, or it looks like it's not going to be possible for anyone to make much selling microstock soon.
If there's a big group of us willing to leave istock, I'm in, otherwise I'll just concentrate on making money from photography other than microstock.
-
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.
How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive? I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal? We'll return the 60$ of course".
I don't think so either. But they could do it and they should do it. And every affected photographer need to do something like this to show that they view this deal as illegal and unethical. Doing nothing and giving up in advance is what Getty is hoping for.
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"? Of course I know that a few individuals like me leaving isn't going to make a difference. That's why I used the word "we". It needs to be the majority of big portfolio contributors. I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most. If they carry on doing deals like this Google one, they're not going to be making that for long. They only have people by the balls because they haven't got the guts to do something about it.
I can't really afford to leave but if there was enough of us, it would be worth giving it a try. At the moment I'm starting to think it's just not worth bothering with microstock anymore or reading istock threads in this forum. The only ideas people are coming up with are stopping uploading, that's failed before and legal action, that's failed before. I hope attitudes change, or it looks like it's not going to be possible for anyone to make much selling microstock soon.
If there's a big group of us willing to leave istock, I'm in, otherwise I'll just concentrate on making money from photography other than microstock.
I agree, I've deleted 2/3rds of my portfolio so far and maybe half a dozen others have said they are leaving but unless a large of people do it, it doesnt mean a lot. I dont think legal action or asking getty to be nice will work.
-
Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"?
I didn't realise you meant 'we' as in everybody at iStock, rather than 'we', as in the 40 or 50 people who might read your post. Whichever 'we' you meant, they were both unrealistic expectations.
"I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most."
They are the least likely to leave though ( and I am in that group). That is the problem. The hobbyists and amateurs may kick up a stink, shout a lot, maybe deactivate some images, no one cares, to be blunt. The ones who might, en masse, make a difference ( and there would have to be lots of them doing it, not just 10 or 20), are too reliant on the income.
-
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet and pointed to a new blog post of his (http://jonoringer.com/2013/01/13/why-going-exclusive-as-a-microstock-photographer-doesnt-work/). See my reply - I picked one of Andres Rodriguez' images to make the point that I think this hurts Shutterstock, not just exclusive photographers. I'm not sure he realized that this was a shot across his bow (IMO) not just Getty exclusives getting scr3wed
-
Nice work Jo Ann. I think Oringer's blog deserves a discussion thread of it's own, if you don't mind me nicking it from your post.
-
Yes, thank you so much for doing this Jo Ann, and thanks for perservering. It'll be very interesting to see how he responds when the penny drops.
-
Valued customer, thank you for purchasing one of my photos. It is the one that is an image of-------------. Selling images is how I feed my family and customers like you who pay to legally license my images enables me to do so. Recently it has come to my attention that this image is one that is included in a "promotional package agreement" that Getty images has made with google. The result of this "agreement" is that this image is now being given away without any sort of appropriate compensation to me the copyright holder. Up until now I have trusted the agency to protect my image rights and the integrity of the image you paid to license. Now I believe that protection falls on me alone. I am currently in the process of tracking down all legal uses of this image as well as all illegal uses of this image. I have instructed my lawyer to seek damages for every single unauthorized use we can find. You can be assured that I take my profession seriously and protecting paying customers like you is a priority. Thank you for your time. Sincerely -------
This is what I will send to everyone using any images of mine associated with this deal or any other similar deal.
-
Nice work Jo Ann. I think Oringer's blog deserves a discussion thread of it's own, if you don't mind me nicking it from your post.
I believe in the Shutterstock long term view - this is about trying to get this crap stopped if we can. No proprietary feelings about any part I can play in it - nick away!
-
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet
On a weekend ? Working ? What an unusual approach to communications.
-
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet
On a weekend ? Working ? What an unusual approach to communications.
RR did that too once. It was such an extraordinary event that she felt the need to tell us all about it!
-
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet
On a weekend ? Working ? What an unusual approach to communications.
RR did that too once. It was such an extraordinary event that she felt the need to tell us all about it!
She probably got one of her skivvies to fax it in from the yacht.
-
RR did that too once. It was such an extraordinary event that she felt the need to tell us all about it!
ROFL!
-
Valued customer, thank you for purchasing one of my photos. It is the one that is an image of-------------. Selling images is how I feed my family and customers like you who pay to legally license my images enables me to do so. Recently it has come to my attention that this image is one that is included in a "promotional package agreement" that Getty images has made with google. The result of this "agreement" is that this image is now being given away without any sort of appropriate compensation to me the copyright holder. Up until now I have trusted the agency to protect my image rights and the integrity of the image you paid to license. Now I believe that protection falls on me alone. I am currently in the process of tracking down all legal uses of this image as well as all illegal uses of this image. I have instructed my lawyer to seek damages for every single unauthorized use we can find. You can be assured that I take my profession seriously and protecting paying customers like you is a priority. Thank you for your time. Sincerely -------
This is what I will send to everyone using any images of mine associated with this deal or any other similar deal.
I think your initiative is great, and you are obviously a very articulate letter writer. I worry, though, that alerting the paying customers to the fact the same image can be had for free elsewhere will hasten the devaluation of your image. Not to mention resulting in a refund before they go and download it from Google for free.
What effect are you hoping this will have on the buyer?
-
Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"?
I didn't realise you meant 'we' as in everybody at iStock, rather than 'we', as in the 40 or 50 people who might read your post. Whichever 'we' you meant, they were both unrealistic expectations.
"I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most."
They are the least likely to leave though ( and I am in that group). That is the problem. The hobbyists and amateurs may kick up a stink, shout a lot, maybe deactivate some images, no one cares, to be blunt. The ones who might, en masse, make a difference ( and there would have to be lots of them doing it, not just 10 or 20), are too reliant on the income.
They're reliant on an income that istock/Getty seem to be determined to destroy. Isn't getting out of istock going to do more to protect their income? It might not cost them as much as they think in the short term, as I'm sure buyers are using other sites and lots of those that aren't could be persuaded to. Independents making thousands a month with istock will also be earning thousands from other sites and they should be able to survive for a few months without their istock earnings. I know it wont happen though, so I might as well stop going on about it.
-
ETA: Nevermind. I have removed the letter because apparently picking it apart is considered, by some, to be a better use of their time than actually doing something about this situation.
I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.
I wasn't wasting my time picking your letter apart. I was just pointing out that something (actually there were others) in your letter were factually wrong. If that's okay for you for the sake of getting a point across, you can go ahead. But I'd think providing pure facts would sound bad enough, it doesn't need any effort or unfortunate wording to make it look worse.
With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.
But even in that case Getty still has the last word. They can bring all of their own RF stuff (stockbyte, etc.) to IS and convert IS to Thinkstock, which is their longterm goal I think.
-
Lizafx, I don't intend to send this to paying customers. I intend to send it to the people who didn't pay. I just don't want to offend them if they did. Here is the idea. If I got this email and knew I had paid for it I would probably forget about it or respond that I paid for it and where. However, if I didn't pay for it I might wonder if I could be in for some trouble. I might delete the image or I might ignore the situation. Regardless of what the person does I have created some level of doubt in his mind about free images. Probably some time in the next couple of days he/she is having coffee or lunch and mentions the email. Now I have created doubt in two people. 2 people times 3 letters times 6000 images is 36000 people talking about this issue that weren't even aware it was a problem.
This is about perception not reality. Getty knows this and so does Google. They are counting on it. However, We can make a difference because if enough people are under the impression that this is not ok or even have some level of doubt it will not matter what the lawyers say.
-
Lizafx, I don't intend to send this to paying customers. I intend to send it to the people who didn't pay. I just don't want to offend them if they did. Here is the idea. If I got this email and knew I had paid for it I would probably forget about it or respond that I paid for it and where. However, if I didn't pay for it I might wonder if I could be in for some trouble. I might delete the image or I might ignore the situation. Regardless of what the person does I have created some level of doubt in his mind about free images. Probably some time in the next couple of days he/she is having coffee or lunch and mentions the email. Now I have created doubt in two people. 2 people times 3 letters times 6000 images is 36000 people talking about this issue that weren't even aware it was a problem.
This is about perception not reality. Getty knows this and so does Google. They are counting on it. However, We can make a difference because if enough people are under the impression that this is not ok or even have some level of doubt it will not matter what the lawyers say.
Ah, I didn't understand you were sending this to non-payers. I think it is very clever then. Creating doubt about the legitimacy of these free images is extremely important and we should all be doing it every chance or way we can.
-
With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.
I was thinking something similar. If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate. Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.
I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here. If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.
-
With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.
I was thinking something similar. If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate. Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.
I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here. If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.
Yes, probably some of these contributors earnings (thus, their bread) are dependent on IS, so they may have some hesitation. But I think in the long run they will lose if they stay on IS. It seems to me that this website doesn't have any serious future prospect.
-
With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.
I was thinking something similar. If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate. Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.
I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here. If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement. So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's not about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.
-
With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.
I was thinking something similar. If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate. Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.
I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here. If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.
Seems to me that Yuri would be in a prime position to lead such a thing. He's got his site up and running and if he was ever thinking about expanding it to others the time is ripe. I imagine it would make some news in the industry if he were to grab the top dozen IS photographers and migrate them to his site. He's got the staffing and PR in place to promote it and gain a lot of attention.
-
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.
On IS, I am the smallest of fish. But I agree. If this doesn't get rolled back, with a full apology, within a week or two - I'll get out, completely. I won't passively support this sort of cr@p, and we need to do what we can to protect our income from other agencies.
However, I doubt they will - or can - back out of this deal. Google has huge legal and lobbying power and has no doubt held out even bigger deals in the future, if IS plays along. This initial giveaway collection is probably deliberately small and just a 'pilot project'.
-
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement. So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's now about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.
I completely agree with everything you say. I was just agreeing with the suggestion that if a number of us make the individual decision to walk out, it might have more impact if those of us who are leaving do it together on a specific date.
ETA: From my perspective, I think the lawsuit route would be most effective and send the loudest message to others in the industry who may be considering the same types of deals. Pretty sure two weeks is not enough time to put together a lawsuit. But OTOH, some of the affected artists will have had time to consult attorneys.
-
I think people are being very naive here. iStock are happy with their side of this deal, they have said so in the forums......
"Google licensed these images for use by Google users through the Google Drive platform; Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations, which end uses can be for commercial purposes.
Users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside the context of Google Drive created content.
No rights are granted to Google users to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they’re used.
Google’s license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights. We have specifically given them the right to enable that content to be used by their end users within the confines of the Google programs. They have a bespoke EULA."
Do you really think they are going to apologise? That would admit some error on their part which they deny. If anyone is to blame, they would argue, it is Google.
-
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.
I don't trust their statements at all. Their statements have no value to me. Even if they cancel the deal with Google (which probably can't happen), who knows if there are no other scams running or in the pipeline?
They create some loopholes in the contract in order to pull off a scam some time later.
We have 2 choices now:
1. Legal measures
2. Deactivating images and portfolios
Going to the media and whining is useless, it is just providing free entertainment to Getty.
Also the general public wants free stuff, they may even see Getty as "the good guys".
I started deactivating images yesterday.
I suppose Getty might have financial problems and they needed cash really fast. Google is one of the few companies who could pay such a sum at once with no problems. Judging by the facts that we have, the deal is really stupid, it also hurts Getty. They might have been forced to do it.
-
I think people are being very naive here. iStock are happy with their side of this deal, they have said so in the forums......
How old are you? 10? 15?
No company would ever say that they are not happy with a deal that they just made, especially in a public forum. ;D ;D ;D That's ridiculous, they would admit that they are a bunch of complete losers (which they probably are).
And WOW, you believe what iStock say in the forums ;D ;D ;D
-
We have 2 choices now:
1. Legal measures
2. Deactivating images and portfolios
Going to the media and whining is useless, it is just providing free entertainment to Getty.
Also the general public wants free stuff, they may even see Getty as "the good guys".
Those two options should both be pursued together, not either one or the other.
I disagree that alerting the media is a waste of time. Look what just happened with Instagram. People didn't think giving their stuff away for free was so great at all. And this coming so quickly on the heels of that disaster will seem like more of the same sort of abuse.
I keep reading posts that compare different responses to this and want to discuss which one is best. They should ALL be done together to be most effective.
-
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement. So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's now about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.
I completely agree with everything you say. I was just agreeing with the suggestion that if a number of us make the individual decision to walk out, it might have more impact if those of us who are leaving do it together on a specific date.
ETA: From my perspective, I think the lawsuit route would be most effective and send the loudest message to others in the industry who may be considering the same types of deals. Pretty sure two weeks is not enough time to put together a lawsuit. But OTOH, some of the affected artists will have had time to consult attorneys.
Unfortunately, lawsuits take years and are emotionally and financially draining. In addition, collecting on any judgement won is the second battle. It is an inherent problem with the legal system in the United States. That being said, I do think it should be strongly considered as a small part of a larger plan.
While I submitted to drop my crown in late December, I am currently debating taking a further step and deactivating my entire portfolio. I would do so not to make a statement, but rather to protect the integrity of my copyrights and the trust of my models. I am waiting for further details and will act to do so if need be.
It is a sad and frightening time for all stock artists.
ETA: I should clarify that I would deactivate my entire portfolio as part of a group initiative.
-
We have 2 choices now:
1. Legal measures
2. Deactivating images and portfolios
Going to the media and whining is useless, it is just providing free entertainment to Getty.
Also the general public wants free stuff, they may even see Getty as "the good guys".
Those two options should both be pursued together, not either one or the other.
I disagree that alerting the media is a waste of time. Look what just happened with Instagram. People didn't think giving their stuff away for free was so great at all. And this coming so quickly on the heels of that disaster will seem like more of the same sort of abuse.
Yes, I mean one option doesn't exclude the other.
Instagram case is different. It is a different business model, the number of their users is huge. I don't use Instagram and don't know how exactly they make money, but probably the size of their user base is their main asset and they cannot afford to lose too many. Getty doesn't care about individual contributors and there is a an oversupply of images. Compared to the Instagram case, the Getty scam affects a very small, specialized group of people. And Getty provides free stuff to the general public. Using media is wasting time and only informs the people that free stuff is available.
-
This is also something that does not only affect the iStock contributor, but the whole microstock industry. Every logical image buyer without a contract with an agency will obviously look out now for free (high quality professionally approved) content, before they go to their favorite stock site (SS, FT, DT or whoever) to buy an image.
-
I think people are being very naive here. iStock are happy with their side of this deal, they have said so in the forums......
"Google licensed these images for use by Google users through the Google Drive platform; Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations, which end uses can be for commercial purposes.
Users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside the context of Google Drive created content.
No rights are granted to Google users to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they’re used.
Google’s license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights. We have specifically given them the right to enable that content to be used by their end users within the confines of the Google programs. They have a bespoke EULA."
Do you really think they are going to apologise? That would admit some error on their part which they deny. If anyone is to blame, they would argue, it is Google.
Google’s license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights
You got it, Google license rights are not the same as RF....but wait a minute, I though I signed up for selling under the RF license. ...uh.what you're saying is.. all I have to do is to buy a bunch of photos under the RF license and redistribute them for free as long as I create a license that says it is ok.....wow...are you serious
-
Instead of the media, I was thinking about something else.
I am not from the US, but a very significant number of contributors are and Getty is a major US corporation. The number of US contributors doing stock full-time or part-time must be quite a few thousands. AFAIK the current situation on the job market in the US is not rosy. Stock royalties must be an important source of supplemental income for thousands of American families in tough times. For some it is the sole income. This source of income can be very seriously endangered in mid-term.
Also, many other agencies are based in the US and this and similar deals create unfair competition.
The losses to the American economy may be significant.
How about asking a congressman to look into this?
I presume this would create a really big stink and there would be no legal costs for the contributors, right?
I think it would be good to investigate if there was some additional payment from Google for this deal, apart from the image royalties. Should this be the case, should it be shared among the affected contributors or not?
-
Snufkin, with an approval rating around 10%, plus Congress cannot get anything done as it is, I would have more faith in asking Getty directly. IMO.
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
-
ETA: I should clarify that I would deactivate my entire portfolio as part of a group initiative.
Lets hope the top artists can work something out. A strong worded letter would be a good start. Deactivation is an option. Sean has modified his script to make it easier to do I believe. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805)
-
This doesn't solve the root of the trouble but wouldn't it be possible to use way described in this thread as well?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/everyone-with-a-complaint-about-istock-this-worked/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/everyone-with-a-complaint-about-istock-this-worked/)
-
Why do you guys keep talking about lawsuits, as if all you wanted is to have your day in court?
The objective is to remove your files from this deal. All it takes is one person succeeding, and the whole thing will most likely collapse. Start small, get a lawyer to send a take-down demand, and you may be pleasantly surprised (see my previous post).
And those of you who do have files in this, be careful. Timing matters. You need to act soon because the longer you delay the more likely will your inaction be used against you.
-
Snufkin, with an approval rating around 10%, plus Congress cannot get anything done as it is, I would have more faith in asking Getty directly. IMO.
Cmannphoto, I didn't mean the whole Congress, I thought maybe there is a congressman or a few particularly interested in IP laws. I suppose such a congressman would have at least the resources to check if this deal was legal at all.
The contributors would not have to pay for the legal expenses. Also the contributors would not have to sue Getty directly, so Getty could not retaliate.
-
This is also something that does not only affect the iStock contributor, but the whole microstock industry. Every logical image buyer without a contract with an agency will obviously look out now for free (high quality professionally approved) content, before they go to their favorite stock site (SS, FT, DT or whoever) to buy an image.
Welcome back Charl !!!! :D
-
Ooops - I just found out that there are also 20 images from Zoonar. I wonder if Zoonar.com has been informed about this deal.
-
Ooops - I just found out that there are also 20 images from Zoonar. I wonder if Zoonar.com has been informed about this deal.
--------------------------------------------
which images? How do you know they came from Zoonar?
-
I've set Groundog Day (Feb 2) as my personal iQuit date. 2 weeks is more than enough time for IS to back off from this insanity. Like I said, I'm peanuts in this game. But this deal is so bad that I feel I have nothing to lose - if IS continues down this road, stock is ending anyway.
-
I've set Groundog Day (Feb 2) as my personal iQuit date.
Is that so you can keep reliving it over and over again? Might be kind of fun.
-
Ooops - I just found out that there are also 20 images from Zoonar. I wonder if Zoonar.com has been informed about this deal.
--------------------------------------------
which images? How do you know they came from Zoonar?
From Sean's list http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages/ (http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages/)
Find their numbers in TS - they are from Zoonar collection.
126410102
126498001
126808112
126860118
126891940
126897562
126915928
126929991
126939031
126940621
126952939
126970160
127003653
127008971
127030183
127035462
127041189
127049718
127057325
-
What is really sad is that people are discussing which files to deactivate on the istock forums and no admin gets in there to just say "please wait everyone, we have another update coming on Monday(Tuesday)".
:(
-
Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Nobody is saying or thinking that, everyone I know has exit plans in place. You, I believe, have been in the business for a few months and probably earn comparatively little. You don't support a family, pay a large mortgage, put your kids through university, all from your iStock earnings, so with all respect, it's pretty easy to suggest to people they leave exclusivity, take big drops in income, even bigger than they have had already, without really considering or understanding what that means in real terms.
-
What is really sad is that people are discussing which files to deactivate on the istock forums and no admin gets in there to just say "please wait everyone, we have another update coming on Monday(Tuesday)".
:(
At most, there will be a carefully weasel-worded statement that translates as "take it or leave it" plus the usual drivel about better communication in the future. The boys in the expensive suits inked a deal with Google, and what we see so far is very possibly just the first phase. They're not going to revisit this decision unless there's a massive exit of major contributors. And maybe not even then.
-
Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Nobody is saying or thinking that, everyone I know has exit plans in place. You, I believe, have been in the business for a few months and probably earn comparatively little. You don't support a family, pay a large mortgage, put your kids through university, all from your iStock earnings, so with all respect, it's pretty easy to suggest to people they leave exclusivity, take big drops in income, even bigger than they have had already, without really considering or understanding what that means in real terms.
Who are you quoting? Without the name of the OP included, and therefore the context, your post doesn't make sense.
-
poncke, top of the page
-
Looking at the images that were selected, they all look extremely commercial to me. E.g. I'd only have been able to use a very few of these as a teacher, where I had an insatiable need for images. They are far too stocky for educational use.
-
What is really sad is that people are discussing which files to deactivate on the istock forums and no admin gets in there to just say "please wait everyone, we have another update coming on Monday(Tuesday)".
:(
At most, there will be a carefully weasel-worded statement that translates as "take it or leave it" plus the usual drivel about better communication in the future. The boys in the expensive suits inked a deal with Google, and what we see so far is very possibly just the first phase. They're not going to revisit this decision unless there's a massive exit of major contributors. And maybe not even then.
I highly doubt it will be "take or leave it"... that would be business suicide for them, now when this is getting all the publicity - and publicity is a very powerful tool, don't under-estimate it. I never really considered leaving Istock before, but this time it's real. I'll cost me 1/4 of my income, but I refuse just sitting and watching my images being given away.
They have a few choices on the matter:
1) Buy out the rights for these images for reasonable amount
2) Try to modify the deal with Google somehow
3) Ask Google nicely to implement some restrictions on image use, like disabling right-click save or reducing the images sizes
Option #1 is the only reasonable one, so I doubt they'd go for it: even though it would save the situation it'd cost them a lot of money and they are too greedy for that. #2 is probably not a viable option since Google's lawyers have every right to say - how it is our business that you misrepresented your contributors? Most likely they'd try #3 or something along those lines.
Let see what happens.... Feb 2 sounds dandy for me for sending the request to take images down - give them just enough time to get their s**t together. And, by the way, I won't be just leaving Istock - I will be taking down my images from Getty's PC collection and the ones that are there through other distributors.
-
Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Nobody is saying or thinking that, everyone I know has exit plans in place. You, I believe, have been in the business for a few months and probably earn comparatively little. You don't support a family, pay a large mortgage, put your kids through university, all from your iStock earnings, so with all respect, it's pretty easy to suggest to people they leave exclusivity, take big drops in income, even bigger than they have had already, without really considering or understanding what that means in real terms.
Its got nothing to do with microstock experience. Its about running a business or having a job and getting paid. I have been working for 22 years so Im as experienced in life as you. I am going to be devils advocate here but are you saying that its not hard for a single person with a leased house? Are those people free of bills and taxes and dont they need a home and eat? And that I dont understand how hard it is? Life is more than microstock. And secondly, didnt I say it wasnt easy? I am not saying you need to cancel your port today and have no income tomorrow. I am only saying no one is having you by the balls. How can you even think that. Man, go out and find other work, you know how to take good photos, so find something else to do with your camera. Execute your exit plan. And if IS was going to fall over in 2013, which is a reality, you have no choice anyway. Better start working on a way out instead of telling me I dont know what I am talking about ;)
-
iStock decided on a magical $12 for this deal, but where did that come from. Couldn't it have been $5 or $1
According to this deal and what they say they have the right to do, nothing is stopping them from them giving our ENTIRE portfolio to google for $1.00/image (even at the already precedented $12 it is horrifying) and letting google give away all those images for free. What if they decided to do that with all independent images. According to them, they have the right to do so... and if the recent past is any indication they aren't above doing so. :( :( :(
We could then remove all images from iStock in retaliation, but the license would have already been sold to Google. Google would still have the 'right' to give away those images.... according to iStock.
I feel this clip applies
"I was saying Boo-urns" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up4LTKxe0PA#)
-
Let see what the Google+ community has to say about this. I made a Google+ post about this here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/109513121513434251684/posts/QT6hhvUcxxY
-
That's why I think, if I had any images on Google drive, I'd be taking my stuff down TOUT SUITE to minimize damage. Otherwise, the rest of your ports are going to end up somewhere for free, then for sure you will be scr3wed!
And this means if I find any of my images from SS or BigStock on a place like this, giving them away for free, they are coming down. I sincerely hope the other sites don't think this is the route to go.
-
With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.
I was thinking something similar. If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate. Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.
I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here. If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.
I'm small potatoes, but I would be up for an agreed upon deactivation for maximum impact. I'll be deactivating anyway, so might as well add some punch.
-
I just wrote to VStock (http://www.vstockimages.com/) about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway. The file numbers are the Getty image numbers. I'm hoping that they won't be happy and will complain to Getty - the more unhappy entities the better as far as I can see.
102491432, 102491433, 102491439, 102756630, 103924141, 103924150, 103924196, 116363798, 116363800, 116363980, 116363981, 129309148, 129309150, 129309151, 129309153, 129309155, 129309157, 129309180, 129309181, 129309182, 129309184, 129309186, 129309188, 129309189, 129309191, 129309234, 129309238, 129309310, 129309317, 136597459, 136597461, 136597465, 140196828, 144564151, 144564255, 144564307, 144564310, 149264332, 149264366, 149264388, 95468599, 95468665, 95468672, 95468717
You can plug these in at Getty (http://www.gettyimages.com/) to see the images or in the Google Drive dialog to see them there
-
Has something happened on the Google Drive announcement page, I see it has 138 comments but I cannot see any of them.
-
Has something happened on the Google Drive announcement page, I see it has 138 comments but I cannot see any of them.
They are still there but I had to reload page several times in Safari. In Chrome they appeared immediately.
-
We could then remove all images from iStock in retaliation, but the license would have already been sold to Google. Google would still have the 'right' to give away those images.... according to iStock.
This is the biggest issue in my mind, Those ck suckers at Google have my top selling image of my 3k port...giving it away for free. From TS. What if I as the copyright owner wanted to sell the rights to that image or put it in RM? I'd be fkd just due to what Leaf posted above. It's not just about the use of our images for free, but it chokes our ability to do what I mentioned. If MS crashes and I want to put my images in RM and my best sellers are on Google, what recourse do I have? Nada.
-
Has something happened on the Google Drive announcement page, I see it has 138 comments but I cannot see any of them.
Click on comments and they will appear. Click on comments and the list is hidden.
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Ponke,
Read my post above. If any of what I say is true, yes, they do have our sacks in a vice to some extent. It doesn't really matter if I pull my port, I still lose. I am not an attorney but I have to believe that Google holds the reins unless some court determines the agreement was illegal.
-
I am seriously considering pulling out all my images >:( I know I am a small fish but this is driving me nuts
-
I am seriously considering pulling out all my images >:( I know I am a small fish but this is driving me nuts
Me too. I'm hoping for a miracle in the next days but I'm preparing to leave. If I do this final decision I won't let my files end up on TS with the same option to be given away for free.
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Ponke,
Read my post above. If any of what I say is true, yes, they do have our sacks in a vice to some extent. It doesn't really matter if I pull my port, I still lose. I am not an attorney but I have to believe that Google holds the reins unless some court determines the agreement was illegal.
I agree, but thats a different discussion then the one about having an income from stock imo. I am sure the next one will say its not. ;)
-
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted. That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message. It would start a move in the right direction, show iStock we are serious while at the same time give iStock a time to come up with something better.
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Ponke,
Read my post above. If any of what I say is true, yes, they do have our sacks in a vice to some extent. It doesn't really matter if I pull my port, I still lose. I am not an attorney but I have to believe that Google holds the reins unless some court determines the agreement was illegal.
I agree, but thats a different discussion then the one about having an income from stock imo. I am sure the next one will say its not. ;)
I guess it depends on what income means to us individually. Some don't rely on stock income while others do, so you're right about the varying opinions. But let's take Ellenthewise as a quick example. I suspect that's what she does for a living full time. If she chooses to shift her port all to RM, it is an issue of income if her best sellers are on Google for free. That's what I was referring to as I am sure you are aware. ::)
-
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted. That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message. It would start a move in the right direction, show iStock we are serious while at the same time give iStock a time to come up with something better.
Something better in my mind is first to undo the mess they've created. I'm sure that's about as realistic as replacing the johnson rod in my car :-\
-
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it. I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.
Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Vlad maybe you are happy to let them get a firm strangle hold on your balls, however I am out for good and hanging free!
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
-
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community
I've asked this before in this thread, but didn't get an answer: How is this deal different from the Microsoft deal that has been known about for several years? Other than the fact that many or most contributors got nothing (not even a measly $12), and that AFAIK there weren't any Vetta or Agency files included in the MS deal. (Just as with the Google deal, MS files also seem to have had their EXIF data stripped.)
Note that I'm not saying this isn't a big deal, I'm just wondering why people didn't get similarly upset about the MS deal when it was revealed a few years ago.
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
I didn't know that either. I think I'll be deactivating my port very very soon. Perhaps tomorrow I create a script to automatically deactivate my port so I don't have to do it manually one image at a time.
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
That's an excellent strategy...sort of a safety net...in case they mend some broken fences.
-
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted. That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message. It would start a move in the right direction, show iStock we are serious while at the same time give iStock a time to come up with something better.
I doubt they'll notice or care. I stopped uploading and began deleting 5 a day each from iStock, StockXpert, and Fotolia after the September, 2011 royalty outrage. If anyone at either agency was concerned, they certainly didn't say anything. Judging by the continuing outrages at iStock, my small effort didn't have the canary in a coalmine effect I might have hoped for. And, although it would have made it easier for me to return if they changed their tactics, that was a forlorn hope as well.
(Oh, and for what it's worth, every image I removed from iStock I tagged with "To quote Popeye, 'I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more.'" Which was true but had no effect other than to make me feel better.)
If you're going to withdraw your work, just do it. Do it a little at a time to maximize your revenues, but don't expect them to care.
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
I didn't know that either. I think I'll be deactivating my port very very soon. Perhaps tomorrow I create a script to automatically deactivate my port so I don't have to do it manually one image at a time.
Sean already created some script. But it seems that I can't make it work.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805)
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
If your deactivated files were uploaded before a certain date (someone will remember when it is), they will need to be reinspected.
That may not affect you, jm, but it might affect others, who might find that old, still-selling files may not pass current inspection. I know some/many of my old slide scans probably wouldn't, but no-one has asked for a refund, and some still sell (and some never did).
-
Should we start a separate thread with all the people that are leaving or deactivating images? I'm tempted to deactivate all the good stuff and leave my worst images there. They deserve all my images that haven't sold for years :)
-
I have contacted Image Source (http://www.imagesource.com/) - they have 117 images in the Google Drive/Getty giveaway. Given the prices these images sell for on Getty, I figured they have potentially a lot to lose; if they didn't know about it now they do and can start complaining.
Here are the image numbers (work on Getty (http://www.gettyimages.com/) and Google Drive)
102285694, 102286165, 103060007, 103060278, 105776876, 107908345, 107908365, 108349487, 109434652, 117183973, 117183975, 117184150, 121331317, 121331437, 122343441, 122343756, 122343769, 122343772, 130112180, 134574147, 134574158, 137088243, 139266642, 139266646, 139266647, 141467758, 141467772, 141467803, 141467806, 141467808, 141467811, 141467814, 141467999, 141468154, 142025611, 142025614, 142025619, 142025779, 142025825, 142025853, 142025864, 142742103, 142742210, 142742273, 145073112, 145073294, 145073356, 145073547, 145073565, 145073567, 145073568, 145073602, 145073783, 145073788, 145073991, 146271718, 146272075, 146272103, 149272149, 149272158, 149272175, 149272176, 149272178, 149272334, 149272420, 149272433, 149272441, 149272444, 149272462, 149272470, 149272498, 149272521, 149272550, 149272570, 149272657, 149272658, 149272681, 151327369, 151327376, 151327531, 151328107, 151329184, 56181219, 56294175, 57158999, 71273395, 71916966, 72421179, 73213606, 80488216, 80488244, 80488246, 84492509, 84492950, 85213588, 85257483, 85536824, 85537158, 87298015, 87306026, 87307437, 87312800, 87319271, 87329573, 87332375, 87333949, 87333953, 87333988, 88297759, 88622507, 88623908, 88624310, 88624453, 88624699, 88625028, 96161682, 96161692
-
Based on the reply from mr_erin it looks to me like they do have prior deals in place which we do not know about and they have no qualms about making many more in the future. I for think it is important to know what these current deals entail.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1)
Lets break it down
"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations.
Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time-
to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors.
This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume."
-
Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.
Nobody is saying or thinking that, everyone I know has exit plans in place. You, I believe, have been in the business for a few months and probably earn comparatively little. You don't support a family, pay a large mortgage, put your kids through university, all from your iStock earnings, so with all respect, it's pretty easy to suggest to people they leave exclusivity, take big drops in income, even bigger than they have had already, without really considering or understanding what that means in real terms.
If they've got you by the balls, you haven't got an exit strategy. You need to get yourself into a position where you can walk away, that's having an exit strategy.
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
If your deactivated files were uploaded before a certain date (someone will remember when it is), they will need to be reinspected.
That may not affect you, jm, but it might affect others, who might find that old, still-selling files may not pass current inspection. I know some/many of my old slide scans probably wouldn't, but no-one has asked for a refund, and some still sell (and some never did).
Thanks for info.
I hope that court case will be short. :-)
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
I didn't know that either. I think I'll be deactivating my port very very soon. Perhaps tomorrow I create a script to automatically deactivate my port so I don't have to do it manually one image at a time.
Sean already created some script. But it seems that I can't make it work.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805[/url])
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. He's always one step ahead!
-
It would be interesting if any of the images involved with this had already been deactivated. It seems to take a long time to get them off of Thinkstock, I've seen people complaining about that before.
If they have any more plans to do this, it might be worth keeping a record of the date images were deactivated.
-
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted. That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message.
Yesterday I deactivated around 20 images. I will continue to do so because the risk is too high.
I don't want to wake up one day and find out that my complete portfolio is suddenly worthless.
I don't think they can be trusted anymore.
The earnings at iStock are shrinking fast anyway. The potential of future earnings doesn't outweigh the risk of losing everything.
Recently I was invited to contribute to the Getty-Flickr collection, they were interested to have more than 10% of the images in my photostream. I didn't sign the Getty contract yet, but now I know that they are fishing for idiots.
-
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted. That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message.
Yesterday I deactivated around 20 images. I will continue to do so because the risk is too high.
I don't want to wake up one day and find out that my complete portfolio is suddenly worthless.
I don't think they can be trusted anymore.
I think that sums up my thoughts as well.
I simply don't trust iStock with my images anymore.
-
Has something happened on the Google Drive announcement page, I see it has 138 comments but I cannot see any of them.
They are still there but I had to reload page several times in Safari. In Chrome they appeared immediately.
I tried to leave a reply to the first comment and it said it was posted but it's not appearing. Perhaps someone else could try adding a reply to that first post expressing the outrage. Many may not bother to read down too far to find all the angry comments and the initial few posts make it sound like a good thing.
-
I just deactivated some 15 more. Reducing portfolio size reduces the risk of having images in the next scam.
-
I tried to leave a reply to the first comment and it said it was posted but it's not appearing. Perhaps someone else could try adding a reply to that first post expressing the outrage. Many may not bother to read down too far to find all the angry comments and the initial few posts make it sound like a good thing.
I've tried two times 20 minutes ago, the comment never shown too.
-
Last night I deactivated 242 images from my account. Mostly model released images of people other than me.
I am also all in on any organized image deletion and will help support any action against this kind of behavior by google and any stock agency.
-
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community
I've asked this before in this thread, but didn't get an answer: How is this deal different from the Microsoft deal that has been known about for several years? Other than the fact that many or most contributors got nothing (not even a measly $12), and that AFAIK there weren't any Vetta or Agency files included in the MS deal. (Just as with the Google deal, MS files also seem to have had their EXIF data stripped.)
Note that I'm not saying this isn't a big deal, I'm just wondering why people didn't get similarly upset about the MS deal when it was revealed a few years ago.
Couple of points - first, as far as know MS was a "promo" deal which we agreed to in our contributor agreement. I don't know exact details, but I assume images were available only to MS users. Last time I checked MS didn't give away their software for free. Second is the fact that it's Google Drive, just think about the scale of this: anyone, anywhere, in time it takes to create a Google account, which is seconds, can have access to premium stock images absolutely for free. When my images are used in some templates or within some software or product that is for sale, that's one thing. When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.
-
ms makes these files freely available to anyone on the internet. you do not have to register, sign up or otherwise prove you have ms office:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=telephone&ex=1#ai:MP900438702%7C (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=telephone&ex=1#ai:MP900438702%7C)
all you have to do is click the download button.
my files were downloaded over 1.3 million times.
there is no copyright name, there is no visible user lkicense. the original announcement on istock was that promotional use of this kind would be limited to personal use only, they would only chose companies who would strictly oversee usage and all files would have names and backlinks to our portfolios.
-
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community
I've asked this before in this thread, but didn't get an answer: How is this deal different from the Microsoft deal that has been known about for several years? Other than the fact that many or most contributors got nothing (not even a measly $12), and that AFAIK there weren't any Vetta or Agency files included in the MS deal. (Just as with the Google deal, MS files also seem to have had their EXIF data stripped.)
Note that I'm not saying this isn't a big deal, I'm just wondering why people didn't get similarly upset about the MS deal when it was revealed a few years ago.
Couple of points - first, as far as know MS was a "promo" deal which we agreed to in our contributor agreement. I don't know exact details, but I assume images were available only to MS users. Last time I checked MS didn't give away their software for free. Second is the fact that it's Google Drive, just think about the scale of this: anyone, anywhere, in time it takes to create a Google account, which is seconds, can have access to premium stock images absolutely for free. When my images are used in some templates or within some software or product that is for sale, that's one thing. When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.
I assume the Google deal wouldn't be any more palatable if it were referred to as a "promo" deal and contributors weren't paid anything?
Anyone can go to the MS link and DL as they like. It doesn't even require registration, let alone owning Office. But you're quite right, it doesn't have the visibility of Google Drive.
When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.
So I'd guess you'd agree with me that the MS deal isn't actually fundamentally different. And who knows how many other, similar deals have already been made?
-
ms makes these files freely available to anyone on the internet. you do not have to register, sign up or otherwise prove you have ms office:
[url]http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=telephone&ex=1#ai:MP900438702%7C[/url] ([url]http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=telephone&ex=1#ai:MP900438702%7C[/url])
all you have to do is click the download button.
my files were downloaded over 1.3 million times.
Ok - didn't know about availability without registering, but it also says right next to it:
Provided by
iStockphoto
Microsoft Partner
For more variety, visit the iStockphoto site.
Hence the "promo" deal - it's in agreement, most agencies put in their agreements that they can use your images in their promotion campaigns... doesn't make this one any good, but at least they stuck to the form.
However, let's not get derailed here.
-
the problem is not promotional or even 12 dollar deals themselves, the problem is nobody asked us and that they choose whatever files they want including my bestsellers.
even if they just do 3 "deals/promotions" a year, very soon your portfolio could be all over the internet. in the MS deal they took 25 of my files, in the google doc deal they also chose several files from contributors.
we have no control over what they take, nobody has to ask us first.tehy treat our ip as if they own it.
and if they allow "the public" to nominate files or just allow the editor to choose different content every time, you might be losing control over a huge amount of your best content.
I know I can´t afford that.
-
the problem is not promotional or even 12 dollar deals themselves, the problem is nobody asked us and that they choose whatever files they want including my bestsellers.
even if they just do 3 "deals/promotions" a year, very soon your portfolio could be all over the internet. in the MS deal they took 25 of my files, in the google doc deal they also chose several files from contributors.
we have no control over what they take, nobody has to ask us first.tehy treat our ip as if they own it.
and if they allow "the public" to nominate files or just allow the editor to choose different content every time, you might be losing control over a huge amount of your best content.
I know I can´t afford that.
I am extremely sympathetic to your concerns Jasmin ... but isn't 'exclusivity', which you defend strongly in another thread, a major part of the problem? It's only agencies with large numbers of exclusive contributors (which they know they have by the bollocks) that would even dream of pulling stunts like this and the MS deal.
When you voluntarily give that much power to an agency, especially one with a reputation like Getty, I don't understand why you are surprised that they abuse it? That's what Getty does __ thinking up new and innovative ways of abusing their content providers is pretty much their day-job. It's a much easier route to higher profits than actually selling more of our content.
-
the problem is not promotional or even 12 dollar deals themselves, the problem is nobody asked us and that they choose whatever files they want including my bestsellers.
even if they just do 3 "deals/promotions" a year, very soon your portfolio could be all over the internet. in the MS deal they took 25 of my files, in the google doc deal they also chose several files from contributors.
we have no control over what they take, nobody has to ask us first.tehy treat our ip as if they own it.
and if they allow "the public" to nominate files or just allow the editor to choose different content every time, you might be losing control over a huge amount of your best content.
I know I can´t afford that.
I am extremely sympathetic to your concerns Jasmin ... but isn't 'exclusivity', which you defend strongly in another thread, a major part of the problem? It's only agencies with large numbers of exclusive contributors (which they know they have by the bollocks) that would even dream of pulling stunts like this and the MS deal.
When you voluntarily give that much power to an agency, especially one with a reputation like Getty, I don't understand why you are surprised that they abuse it? That's what Getty does __ thinking up new and innovative ways of abusing their content providers is pretty much their day-job. It's a much easier route to higher profits than actually selling more of our content.
It's hit plenty of non-exclusives, too. Including me.
-
I am extremely sympathetic to your concerns Jasmin ... but isn't 'exclusivity', which you defend strongly in another thread, a major part of the problem? It's only agencies with large numbers of exclusive contributors (which they know they have by the bollocks) that would even dream of pulling stunts like this and the MS deal.
When you voluntarily give that much power to an agency, especially one with a reputation like Getty, I don't understand why you are surprised that they abuse it? That's what Getty does __ thinking up new and innovative ways of abusing their content providers is pretty much their day-job. It's a much easier route to higher profits than actually selling more of our content.
If you look at the agencies that place their images with Getty and which have in some cases hundreds of images included in this abusive collection, I don't think the issue is exclusivity but Getty's gorilla status in the image licensing business. Klein and Getty started this because they wanted a business where they could control the market and they bought up whatever they could get their hands on so they were the big dog. Now they're throwing their weight around.
Getty has agencies that are virtual floosies in terms of how many places their images appear and they still pulled this crap. They want to get in bed with Google and they're using their heft in the market to just grab what they want.
Getty needs more competition and has very little. That's the only thing that will rein them in.
-
I have begun to deactivate my files on istockphoto. Reason: Boycot
Starting with the good ones, and after next payout Im out of there.
I hope someone takes them to court.
-
I was exclusive with an agency that only sold files from their own site.
This has nothing to do with istock. Gettyimages is a huge white label distribution network and apparently operates with a different idea of what they can do with my IP.
-
Count me in for deactivation of files on February 2nd.
-
Count me as another former IS contributor. The heaps of abuse have piled up to the point where it no longer makes any sense to place images there. Deactivated 236 so far, and counting down.
A sad sad day, when you remember the glory days of Istock not too long ago.
-
When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.
So I'd guess you'd agree with me that the MS deal isn't actually fundamentally different. And who knows how many other, similar deals have already been made?
1. When the MS deal was started, it was about "including images in the MS clipart gallery" which meant as part of the Office products. I wasn't aware there was a website that anyone can go to and download the images. I am not sure that this was there when the deal started.
2. The deal was promotional in that next to the image it says "iStock" with a link and - at the time back then - included a referral code and a link to the image on iStock. So in case someone wanted a larger version of the image, he could get it. And for anyone signing up at iStock from clicking on the link at one of my images I would make $10 for the referral. Nowadays it doesn't work anymore since most of the links are broken and the old referral program was discontinued anyways...
I don't say any of this would have provided more money to the contributor in general. But given the three images they have chosen from my portfolio, I would certainly agree today to a deal with those conditions.
With the Google deal there is no promotion, there is no linking back, there is no way to find the image if I want it larger. So there is not even an option that you can add some earnings in addition to the $12 you got now.
Also it only includes images that are available on Getty and this - by definition - means from the perspective of an iStock contributor we are talking about the "premium content", Vetta and Agency. So it's not just a random file that would go away for a dollar or five dollars if sold. When the MS deal was made, most downloads would only make 30 or 80 cents. Given the odds how many of my files got more than 20 downloads at that time, I would have thought a guaranteed $12 plus the option to make more would have been acceptable.
This time it's about files that make 15 or 30 dollars for each single download on iStock. In comparison $12 for unlimited redistribution appears quite few money.
I think that does make a difference in the deal.
-
The more I think about it the more I think a solution will come from the Google side rather than Getty. Not being "evil" means not making deals with the devil, this is probably not a big deal for Google. The damage to their rep from negative publicity could make them rethink. I am sure as far as they were concerned this was all just Getty content, educating them to the facts could help.
-
Deal with Microsoft is another disaster. Doesn't exist something like as we call it "this agreement is against good manners?"
I must say that facing system of American law that I know only from TV series seems to be painful experience. I don't have excessive confidence in European law but I think that even if biggest local publishing house would misuse my images I would just hire average lawyer and I'd have a very good chance to win. Most probably it would end up with some out-of-court settlement. I'm so naive that I believe that truth may be twisted (that's why lawyers exist) but it can't be reversed upside down thanks to higher number of more expensive lawyers. It seems to be very unlikely that poor man can win lawsuit in US unless some famous lawyer wants to work for free because he wants to gain publicity.
-
The more I think about it the more I think a solution will come from the Google side rather than Getty. Not being "evil" means not making deals with the devil, this is probably not a big deal for Google. The damage to their rep from negative publicity could make them rethink. I am sure as far as they were concerned this was all just Getty content, educating them to the facts could help.
I hope you're right but I think Google will be pleased with this deal and will be looking for more. If they were trying to not be "evil", why would they do this deal in the first place? They could of at least had a link to the original images.
-
The more I think about it the more I think a solution will come from the Google side rather than Getty. Not being "evil" means not making deals with the devil, this is probably not a big deal for Google. The damage to their rep from negative publicity could make them rethink. I am sure as far as they were concerned this was all just Getty content, educating them to the facts could help.
I hope you're right but I think Google will be pleased with this deal and will be looking for more. If they were trying to not be "evil", why would they do this deal in the first place? They could of at least had a link to the original images.
I would think that Getty was selling the deal as giving them access to Getty's images, without any reference to fact that Getty isn't the copyright holder and may not have the right to sign up our work to such a sweeping deal (it is so far outside of what contributors could reasonably expect when they signed up for IStock).
In any case I'm talking about how Google would like to be perceived, not how they really are.
What should have happened is that Getty offered up a load of it's wholly owned content, and that's what they should do in future. They can do what they like with that.
-
Is anyone still following the comments here? Someone called Jason has failed to understand the situation (you'll have to click 'load more' twice to reach the last few comments):
http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html (http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html)
-
Is anyone still following the comments here? Someone called Jason has failed to understand the situation (you'll have to click 'load more' twice to reach the last few comments):
[url]http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url])
I added two posts to the thread, but now I can't see a link to click to see the thread.
I'll try again later.
-
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.
-
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one.
If you think that is universally true, you are either extremely young and uninformed, extremely naive, you live in a country which does not have a very high unemployment rate, somehow sheltered from the reality of the world at large,k or you have been suckered in by all the women's magazine 'live your dream' rubbish.
-
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.
It sounds like paranoid theory but it doesn't mean it can't be true. Who would believe few days ago that Getty will give their (our) images to Google for free.
I hope that explanation that they are "lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring" is right one.
-
I added two posts to the thread, but now I can't see a link to click to see the thread.
I'll try again later.
Thanks ShadySue :) Yeah it's a pain that site isn't it? Surprisingly awkward to get things to respond as they should.
@ Microbius - I would love to be a fly on the wall at the other agency HQs to hear how they are reacting to this latest development. Thanks to Kelly at GL we've at least heard one very concerned voice.
-
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.
It sounds like paranoid theory but it doesn't mean it can't be true. Who would believe few days ago that Getty will give their (our) images to Google for free.
I hope that explanation that they are "lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring" is right one.
Yeah I'm getting into tin foil hat territory, but if you told me a few months ago that Getty would be offering unlimited numbers commercial licenses for our images for $12 and SS would be reinstating contributors' portfolios after they had been caught blatantly stealing other contributor's work several times I would have thought you were paranoid too!
-
Certainly, the way things are going, the tin foil hat could become 'very 2013'.
-
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the other agency HQs to hear how they are reacting to this latest development.
Probably amazed that the idiotic Istock Getty team have clumsily managed to make themselves seem even more untrustworthy. But it seems so obviously dumb and poorly handled that they are probably wondering whether it is some kind of clever trick.
The stupid stupid stupid thing is that they could have done a deal not so amazingly different and there would have been support and agreement.
-
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.
Very plausible theory. Also very worrisome. I don't want to do anything rash and I want to give Istock a chance to make things right. If there's no improvement in the situation by this weekend, I'll start the process of deactivating. Really sad what Istock has become.
-
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one?
Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post.
I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.
-
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one?
Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post.
I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.
If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.
-
I am going to alert a few other photographers who may not have heard about this.
-
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one?
Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post.
I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.
If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.
It was too much for me, LOL. Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D.
I will try and old off until Feb 2 to do the rest, or at least my best sellers...
They really had better watch out though. Deleting them starts to get sort of addictive...
-
Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one?
Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post.
I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.
If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.
It was too much for me, LOL. Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D.
I will try and old off until Feb 2 to do the rest, or at least my best sellers...
They really had better watch out though. Deleting them starts to get sort of addictive...
Wow! Sounds like fun. Looking forward to Feb. 2nd now. A deactivating orgy.
-
They say "There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans" but it's kind of hard to trust them. I won't wait that long. I don't want to see ten or more thousand images added till Feb 2nd. I'm waiting for their announcement to see which way we go (I hope that some will appear today) and decide in two days.
-
Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.
While that theory sounds possible, it doesn't seem to fully fit to the issue discussed here, as - IIRC - a high number of exclusive files (even from their higher priced collections) is included in the free giveaways...
-
Bear with me whilst I summarise this thread, and also bring in a few others on the board at the moment....
I can access Google Drive and download - for free - thousands of high quality stock images which are best sellers for many contributors? These free images are big enough to be accepted by "most" stock agencies as above minimum file size requirements? The Google Drive deal allows me to use these images for commercial usage? I can blur these images and use them as a background and claim they are derivative works and I can then upload all thousands of these images to stock sites, knowing they won't be taken down for copyright infringement by the agencies because they will be bringing in too much money for the agencies? I can then continue accessing Google Drive for possibly more content to be added in the future?
And I can do all of this AT NO COST other than my time?
What a fantastic industry we work in !!!!!
-
They say "There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans" but it's kind of hard to trust them.
Especially when in the very same post, MrErin said:
"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume."
As Private Eye would say: "Just fancy that!"
-
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. They might have other, possibly even bigger scams in the pipeline, and might speed them up. I am continuing to deactivate.
There is no statement they could make that would impress me. They would have to compensate the scammed artists with $ 5.000-20.000 per image, which will not happen.
This is nothing else but a scam, contributors are made to believe something but in the end they lose their property which is grabbed by the other party.
-
Hope you folk don't mind, but I consider it worth repeating something I mentioned earlier, because of the length of this thread: If you have images in the PP, it is going to take some time to get them deactivated. If you are deactivating files, I suggest you monitor the PP sites, and e-mail contributor relations with PP image numbers to get them taken down before you close your account (if that's what you decide to do). I deactivated an image 2012/10/28, and it was still active in the PP two months later. To their credit, contributor relations removed the images when I contacted them.
Regards
-
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. They might have other, possibly even bigger scams in the pipeline, and might speed them up. I am continuing to deactivate.
Fortunately, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want. Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message. You are of course free to do what pleases you. :)
-
It was too much for me, LOL. Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D.
L,
where is Sean's script?...This is taking forever..
-
It was too much for me, LOL. Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images ;D.
L,
where is Sean's script?...This is taking forever..
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805)
-
IME, sales have ground to such an all-time low that I'd hardly be losing anything if I deactivated everything.
I just haven't worked out what to do with the files that have sold. Don't fancy any of the other micros.
-
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. They might have other, possibly even bigger scams in the pipeline, and might speed them up. I am continuing to deactivate.
Fortunately, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want. Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message. You are of course free to do what pleases you. :)
We need a community owned "co-op" Sean lead with large input from leading contributors. Why Sean, he is smarter than istock lawyer for starters. Now that istock was gutted there is no reason to be exclusive anymore. But the other sites are not a good option for low payout. Many istock exclusives are not producing images for the greedy losers at getty.
I know of a few top exclusives who would be interested. A co-op would eliminate the bruce, jon, getty selling the whole thing in five years and only them getting rich of others work. It would make selling images worth more than selling the website.
The contributors who build the site need to be protected. This is the only real way!!
-
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. [...]
Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message. You are of course free to do what pleases you. :)
IMHO a sudden attack sends a more powerful message. Surprise and fear are very powerful weapons. 2 weeks gives them plenty time to come up with some mischievous plan. They should have no time, they should act under pressure. They always drop bombs on us without any warning.
Giving 2 weeks time, is something that is done in diplomacy to achieve a goal. But these people are no diplomats, they are ruthless crooks that take advantage of any weakness that the other party shows. To be successful with this kind of people one must play really hard and show no weaknesses.
-
"iStockphoto wants to be your exclusive online, royalty-free, stock media agent. We don't want you to eat and we will beat you daily. Every day more iStockers take the plunge into the Getty sewer never to return"
Posted this below the real statement but figured it would have a very short life on the iStock forum.
-
I am afraid Feb 2nd is quite late. [...]
Personally, I think a coordinated effort sends more of a message. You are of course free to do what pleases you. :)
IMHO a sudden attack sends a more powerful message. Surprise and fear are very powerful weapons. 2 weeks gives them plenty time to come up with some mischievous plan. They should have no time, they should act under pressure. They always drop bombs on us without any warning.
Right. You've made your feelings and plans abundantly clear Snufkin. Good for you.
-
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
I didn't know that either. I think I'll be deactivating my port very very soon. Perhaps tomorrow I create a script to automatically deactivate my port so I don't have to do it manually one image at a time.
When I wanted to reactivate a file I was told I couldn't because files that had been deactivated more than 18 months ago had to be resubmitted. So they can adjust the rules as they wish.
-
What's the bet our lawyer friend is drafting up a 90 day notice clause as we speak?
-
Posted By Somogyvari:
http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html (http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html)
And the "welcome" text is exactly the same as Google Docs!!! Look:
After a few weeks of hard work, we are soooo excited to introduce the new GetResponse Image Gallery, where you’ll find 1000+ email-ready, high-quality pics and graphics, organized into 23 popular categories for easy access right from your Multimedia account. And they’re completely free, courtesy of our new partnership with online image leader iStock.
-
Can someone give me a link to the Feb 2 event re istock - sorry - haven't logged in for awhile and am not up to date - seems like something is happening in response to this latest crap re google etc.
also question - how do i cancel my exclusive with istock and what are the consequences for doing so?
i read the istock forums on occasion and contributors have been very unhappy for a long time now (year plus) so i'm rethinking what to do - i do know the company that took over istock, the carlyle group, is a private equity firm whose motto is "buy it, flip it" they're not interested in the company - just their worth. so if there is some collected response from contributors directed to istock in response to their opportunistic behavior toward their food crop i might like to join up. best regards
-
Posted By Somogyvari:
[url]http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html[/url] ([url]http://blog.getresponse.com/1000-free-istock-images-in-getresponse.html[/url])
And the "welcome" text is exactly the same as Google Docs!!! Look:
After a few weeks of hard work, we are soooo excited to introduce the new GetResponse Image Gallery, where you’ll find 1000+ email-ready, high-quality pics and graphics, organized into 23 popular categories for easy access right from your Multimedia account. And they’re completely free, courtesy of our new partnership with online image leader iStock.
this is just unbelievable, who knows how many more "deals' like this. I will not wait for any longer then, starting to deactivate my port now. leave images on istock is now asking for trouble.
-
Will the site crash if we all deactivate on the same day :) Not sure I can resist for that long.
-
Do you think it's useful to send a message on the Istock facebook wall??
https://www.facebook.com/istock?ref=ts&fref=ts (https://www.facebook.com/istock?ref=ts&fref=ts)
-
Give it a go..... not sure if it´s going to stay up for long.
-
As i'm not good in English, maybe just paste and copy the original istock forum link discussion ??
Facebook is a powerful media.
-
.
-
The owners of other agencies should really think about working out some sweet incentives to lure Istock royalty to their sites. Could you imagine what it would be worth to them to get Lise or Sean? If I was Jon or Serban I would offer them a sweet signing bonus and a personal assistant to help get their portfolios online.
-
Maybe worth contact google senior management? Imagine the might be sensitive to potential controversy regarding their behavior. Maybe/maybe not, but worth a shot.
[url]http://investor.google.com/corporate/message.html[/url] ([url]http://investor.google.com/corporate/message.html[/url])
[url]http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/[/url])
[email protected]
Email sent:
Are the directors aware of the outrage expressed in these threads?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/)
Have you read the comments on the Google Drive Blog Dec. 6?
http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html (http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html)
As a photo contributor, this deal represents a dark day for anyone concerned about copyright protection.
-
Maybe worth contact google senior management? Imagine the might be sensitive to potential controversy regarding their behavior. Maybe/maybe not, but worth a shot.
[url]http://investor.google.com/corporate/message.html[/url] ([url]http://investor.google.com/corporate/message.html[/url])
[url]http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/[/url])
[email protected]
Email sent:
Are the directors aware of the outrage expressed in these threads?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/[/url])
Have you read the comments on the Google Drive Blog Dec. 6?
[url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url] ([url]http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html[/url])
As a photo contributor, this deal represents a dark day for anyone concerned about copyright protection.
Great!!!
-
I can't believe they haven't even responded. I've deleted all my pending files and this may be my next upload, what it lacks in image quality it more than makes up for in it's conceptual appeal ::)
-
I can't believe they haven't even responded.
They responded last Friday.
-
What's up with this kind of talk? I am positively stunned at the sentiments expressed in this post. He's actually suggesting that not having your IP stolen and redistributed should now be offered as an "exclusive perk". ::) ::) ::) Hopefully this is not a widespread view at this point.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6820125 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6820125)
Posted By cbarnesphotography:
1) iStock makes the case that they want contributors to be exclusive with them because it gives them unique content. That makes sense. On deals like this (and even the microsoft deal) - use only images from non-exclusives. There are some very talented non-exclusives and since their images are scattered across various sites, it's the price that they have to pay for being a part of iStock.
(snip)
This deal already happened so there is not much more that can be done. I am making a suggestion for future deals. I am suggesting that no exclusive images be a part of any deal like this in the future unless agreed to on a case-by-case basis with individual exclusive contributors.
As an added benefit - such deals would be great ways to financially reward top exclusive contributors while further bringing their interests and the company's interests into better alignment.
-
The last time I made comments here about this same iStock contributor, leaf removed several critical posts, including mine. I have no higher opinion of him as a result of his latest verbal barf
-
Is this guy a complete moron?
Oh, funny, I just SMd you on that very topic.
Yes, either a total eejit or a troll.
-
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.
Well I was almost right.
-
Ah, thanks guys. I wasn't familiar with this person. So then these posts are in keeping with his usual level of discussion then. Someone said they wished IS forums had an ignore button and I enthusiastically agree :)
-
Might be worth editing your post now that the issue is settled. Leaf doesn't like us referencing individuals specifically.
:)
heart heart unicorn etc
-
Might be worth editing your post now that the issue is settled. Leaf doesn't like us referencing individuals specifically.
:)
heart heart unicorn etc
Done.
-
.. rainbow
-
I just wrote to VStock ([url]http://www.vstockimages.com/[/url]) about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway...
I heard back this morning from Greg Vote at VStock asking for whatever information I can share. He said the subject came up on his forum and "... we are all disgusted by Getty's ridiculous actions."
I sent him e-mail with links to everything I could think would be useful.
-
I'm not really a Twitter user even though I have an account and very occasionally use it.
I think it might be an idea to have a hashtag for opposition to the Getty/Google giveaway to make finding posts on the subject easier. I was trying to see what has been tweeted about the availability of stock on Google Drive (https://twitter.com/search?q=Google%20Drive%20stock&src=typd) - seeing places where perhaps we could post comments saying that people needed to know that the copyright holders were not consulted on this deal and were contesting its validity
It's unpleasant to see many people blogging about how to get these great free photos :( here (http://www.dragonblogger.com/google-free-stock-images-2/), here (http://fecktv.com/how-to-search-free-stock-images-using-google-drive/) and here (http://www.quickonlinetips.com/archives/2012/12/google-drive-free-stock-images/), for example. It was nice to see a blog for teachers (http://www.freetech4teachers.com/2012/12/5000-stock-images-for-google-drive-users.html#.UPRVzqF2G-M) had comments where they lamented that they couldn't find a source to add as a credit to whatever document they created.
The hashtag needs to be short (given the limit on tweet length) so #Getty-GoogleImageGiveaway or #GettyGoogleImageHeist probably aren't useful. Anyone else good at catchy hashtags?
-
I just wrote to VStock ([url]http://www.vstockimages.com/[/url]) about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway...
I heard back this morning from Greg Vote at VStock asking for whatever information I can share. He said the subject came up on his forum and "... we are all disgusted by Getty's ridiculous actions."
I sent him e-mail with links to everything I could think would be useful.
Jo-Ann, please, may I ask you to send similar mail also to Michael from Zoonar [email protected]
Numbers of images from Zoonar Collection on Thinkstock are: 126410102, 126498001, 126808112, 126860118, 126891940, 126897562, 126915928, 126929991, 126939031, 126940621, 126952939, 126970160, 127003653, 127008971, 127030183, 127035462, 127041189, 127049718, 127057325
It would take me one hour to write something meaningful with my English...
Thank you.
-
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one.
If you think that is universally true, you are either extremely young and uninformed, extremely naive, you live in a country which does not have a very high unemployment rate, somehow sheltered from the reality of the world at large,k or you have been suckered in by all the women's magazine 'live your dream' rubbish.
Been living in a bubble all my life, smoking weed and svcking on a teet or two.
-
I just wrote to VStock ([url]http://www.vstockimages.com/[/url]) about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway...
I heard back this morning from Greg Vote at VStock asking for whatever information I can share. He said the subject came up on his forum and "... we are all disgusted by Getty's ridiculous actions."
I sent him e-mail with links to everything I could think would be useful.
Jo-Ann, please, may I ask you to send similar mail also to Michael from Zoonar [email protected]
Numbers of images from Zoonar Collection on Thinkstock are: 126410102, 126498001, 126808112, 126860118, 126891940, 126897562, 126915928, 126929991, 126939031, 126940621, 126952939, 126970160, 127003653, 127008971, 127030183, 127035462, 127041189, 127049718, 127057325
It would take me one hour to write something meaningful with my English...
Thank you.
I am happy to.
-
I just wrote to VStock ([url]http://www.vstockimages.com/[/url]) about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway...
I heard back this morning from Greg Vote at VStock asking for whatever information I can share. He said the subject came up on his forum and "... we are all disgusted by Getty's ridiculous actions."
I sent him e-mail with links to everything I could think would be useful.
Jo-Ann, please, may I ask you to send similar mail also to Michael from Zoonar [email protected]
Numbers of images from Zoonar Collection on Thinkstock are: 126410102, 126498001, 126808112, 126860118, 126891940, 126897562, 126915928, 126929991, 126939031, 126940621, 126952939, 126970160, 127003653, 127008971, 127030183, 127035462, 127041189, 127049718, 127057325
It would take me one hour to write something meaningful with my English...
Thank you.
I am happy to.
Thank you.
-
I've created a new discussion board with the intent of gathering stock contributors together to look into these issues further. This is not anonymous - you will need to supply a portfolio link when registering. It would help if people would be active on the threads where I've asked for input.
http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php (http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php)
-
.
-
#igotgettied
-
THANK YOU FOR SETTING THAT UP SEAN! An offsite place to discuss plans and somewhat out of the view of iStock/Getty because of the portfolio requirement.
JoAnne - How about #gDriveFiasco or #gDriveFail? Google may have been somewhat blindsided by Getty snake oil. It might speed up action on Google's part and serve as a warning to other businesses that consider doing business with Getty to deeply investigate what they are actually getting into.
-
I've created a new discussion board with the intent of gathering stock contributors together to look into these issues further. This is not anonymous - you will need to supply a portfolio link when registering. It would help if people would be active on the threads where I've asked for input.
[url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url] ([url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url])
Sean,
The portfolio link box isn't long enough to accept the URL of an SS portfolio.
-
I've created a new discussion board with the intent of gathering stock contributors together to look into these issues further. This is not anonymous - you will need to supply a portfolio link when registering. It would help if people would be active on the threads where I've asked for input.
[url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url] ([url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url])
Sean,
The portfolio link box isn't long enough to accept the URL of an SS portfolio.
Im thinking it needs to be an IS port
-
I've created a new discussion board with the intent of gathering stock contributors together to look into these issues further. This is not anonymous - you will need to supply a portfolio link when registering. It would help if people would be active on the threads where I've asked for input.
[url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url] ([url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url])
Sean,
The portfolio link box isn't long enough to accept the URL of an SS portfolio.
you can use the one at your SS homepage, next to the followers and views
-
Many/most of the inspectors are also contributors.
It would have some sort of effect if many/most of them stopped inspecting, together with any other tactics the rest of us use.
-
I like including Fail in a hashtag. I wonder if #GoogleDriveFail might be most straightforward - although it leaves out images or stock.
It's less about hating Getty or them selling us down the river than getting the word out that something's amiss with Google Drive's stock images
-
I've created a new discussion board with the intent of gathering stock contributors together to look into these issues further. This is not anonymous - you will need to supply a portfolio link when registering. It would help if people would be active on the threads where I've asked for input.
[url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url] ([url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url])
Sean,
The portfolio link box isn't long enough to accept the URL of an SS portfolio.
Thanks - I've made it longer....
-
Sean, so do we or did we have to ave a portfolio at istock or can it be from other sites? I am happy to participate. My istock account has remained open though i pulled my images with the RC debacle.
-
Sean, so do we or did we have to ave a portfolio at istock or can it be from other sites? I am happy to participate. My istock account has remained open though i pulled my images with the RC debacle.
I used my SS portfolio - I have one at IS but who knows for how much longer - and it worked fine
-
Sean, so do we or did we have to ave a portfolio at istock or can it be from other sites? I am happy to participate. My istock account has remained open though i pulled my images with the RC debacle.
This isn't iStock specific, so, anywhere.
-
Cool, i will check it out when i get home in a bit.
-
I've created a new discussion board with the intent of gathering stock contributors together to look into these issues further. This is not anonymous - you will need to supply a portfolio link when registering. It would help if people would be active on the threads where I've asked for input.
[url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url] ([url]http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php[/url])
Just registered... gave SS link to my portfolio since I don't know how long my IS one will be valid for.
-
I don't use Twitter, so I may be off the mark here - but what about Hashtag: don't be evil?
-
Revisiting the interview with JK when Carlyle took over - where he talks about 'the next phase'. Perhaps someone brighter than me can extract more from it. Lots of passionate (historical) comments underneath it:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2199115/-nothing-will-change-for-our-contributors-says-getty-images-ceo (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2199115/-nothing-will-change-for-our-contributors-says-getty-images-ceo)
-
This is the type of story that the consumerist (http://consumerist.com/) might be interested in.
-
Admittedly my English sucks, but if someone could draft a short to the point teaser I´m more then willing to spread it to any news,media,social platform that could have an interest in this story.
-
...and here's an article on the Connect API:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century (http://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century)
-
...and here's an article on the Connect API:
[url]http://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century[/url] ([url]http://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century[/url])
Here's an interesting line pulled out of that article:
We're talking about services where creative commons licenses permit sites like Fast Company to use images, perhaps user-submitted ones, to illustrate or decorate their content.
I wonder who will get to decide what those licenses will be...Getty, or the copyright holder? Rhetorical question, I think I know the answer.
-
It doesn't appear that GI is deactivating our PP images, as in Thinkstock, even if the IS files are deactivated. How do we get those deactivated as well?
-
It doesn't appear that GI is deactivating our PP images, as in Thinkstock, even if the IS files are deactivated. How do we get those deactivated as well?
You might have to provide CR with the numbers.
I've heard it can take weeks or even months.
They used to say they'd do it inside two weeks, but that promise didn't hold good for long, and now they say:
"You can add or remove a file from the Partner Program at any time, though it can take up to 30 days to take effect."
(from the PP page accessed via Contributor tools, left hand column, or the SiteMap.)
-
I don't use Twitter, so I may be off the mark here - but what about Hashtag: don't be evil?
No one's using #dontbeevil as far as I can tell, but I think it'd be best to have something that shows up in the dropdown list if people are starting a search for something else. So there are #googlefail #googledrive already, but no #getty. If we had #googledrivefail or #googleimagefail the drop down list would show those below the #google entries as people type. In addition to getting some specific posts organized, it might bring attention from a broader audience.
Any great headline writers with a suggestion along the above lines?
On a slightly different topic, I sent a tweet to Dad Havlik who writes the PDNpulse blog (http://pdnpulse.com/) to be sure he knows about it. He's written about photographer-Getty clashes in the past.
-
Someone mentioned unfair practice. I do believe that literally IS/Getty contrat would win in court. However, not notifying people of what they are doing to their images, future plans to give more away, etc. would qualify. There a many, many precedents in the archives about all the information and a lot could be gathered to demonstrate that thinking we would/should be notified, that our files and copyrights and model releases would be protecteced is not an unreasabke assumption and IS/Getty was negligent in not doing so.
I think the biggest chance for a successful lawsuit concerns the flagrant disregard for the model releases that ups our liability enormously as well as making innocent people vulnerable to misuse.
-
I like #googleimagefail. Not everyone has heard of google drive yet, but everyone has heard of google image. They might be more likely to click on that.
Great work all around, btw, JoAnn!
-
It doesn't appear that GI is deactivating our PP images, as in Thinkstock, even if the IS files are deactivated. How do we get those deactivated as well?
You might have to provide CR with the numbers.
I've heard it can take weeks or even months.
They used to say they'd do it inside two weeks, but that promise didn't hold good for long, and now they say:
"You can add or remove a file from the Partner Program at any time, though it can take up to 30 days to take effect."
(from the PP page accessed via Contributor tools, left hand column, or the SiteMap.)
Sorry I didn't specify, but I was talking about non-exclusives.
-
It doesn't appear that GI is deactivating our PP images, as in Thinkstock, even if the IS files are deactivated. How do we get those deactivated as well?
You might have to provide CR with the numbers.
I've heard it can take weeks or even months.
They used to say they'd do it inside two weeks, but that promise didn't hold good for long, and now they say:
"You can add or remove a file from the Partner Program at any time, though it can take up to 30 days to take effect."
(from the PP page accessed via Contributor tools, left hand column, or the SiteMap.)
Sorry I didn't specify, but I was talking about non-exclusives.
I can't see any specificity about the PP page for exclusives.
What does the non-exclusive PP page say?
-
It doesn't appear that GI is deactivating our PP images, as in Thinkstock, even if the IS files are deactivated. How do we get those deactivated as well?
You might have to provide CR with the numbers.
I've heard it can take weeks or even months.
They used to say they'd do it inside two weeks, but that promise didn't hold good for long, and now they say:
"You can add or remove a file from the Partner Program at any time, though it can take up to 30 days to take effect."
(from the PP page accessed via Contributor tools, left hand column, or the SiteMap.)
Sorry I didn't specify, but I was talking about non-exclusives.
I can't see any specificity about the PP page for exclusives.
What does the non-exclusive PP page say?
Nothing
Edit:
Partner Program
The links for your uploads that used to be here have been moved to the left navigation at the bottom of the page.The iStockphoto Partner Program makes your files available to Getty Images partner sites, such as Thinkstock and Photos.com.
About the Partner Program
As a non-exclusive contributor to iStock, your entire portfolio will be made available for distribution through our partner sites.
-
It doesn't appear that GI is deactivating our PP images, as in Thinkstock, even if the IS files are deactivated. How do we get those deactivated as well?
You might have to provide CR with the numbers.
I've heard it can take weeks or even months.
They used to say they'd do it inside two weeks, but that promise didn't hold good for long, and now they say:
"You can add or remove a file from the Partner Program at any time, though it can take up to 30 days to take effect."
(from the PP page accessed via Contributor tools, left hand column, or the SiteMap.)
Sorry I didn't specify, but I was talking about non-exclusives.
I can't see any specificity about the PP page for exclusives.
What does the non-exclusive PP page say?
Nothing
Edit:
Partner Program
The links for your uploads that used to be here have been moved to the left navigation at the bottom of the page.The iStockphoto Partner Program makes your files available to Getty Images partner sites, such as Thinkstock and Photos.com.
About the Partner Program
As a non-exclusive contributor to iStock, your entire portfolio will be made available for distribution through our partner sites.
Oh, of course it wouldn't <hits head> as indies can't opt files out.
You might have to post on the forum to get a rough idea, and contact CR.
-
@HughStoneIan: see my post on page 23 at 9:16 today.
edited to correct page number
-
Hope you folk don't mind, but I consider it worth repeating something I mentioned earlier, because of the length of this thread: If you have images in the PP, it is going to take some time to get them deactivated. If you are deactivating files, I suggest you monitor the PP sites, and e-mail contributor relations with PP image numbers to get them taken down before you close your account (if that's what you decide to do). I deactivated an image 2012/10/28, and it was still active in the PP two months later. To their credit, contributor relations removed the images when I contacted them.
Regards
Thanks, Pinocchio. So, it looks like double the work for non-exclusives---deactivate images on IS and then track them on Thinkstock for months to make sure they've been deleted and if not, then contact CR to ask them to delete them.
Fun.
-
Hope you folk don't mind, but I consider it worth repeating something I mentioned earlier, because of the length of this thread: If you have images in the PP, it is going to take some time to get them deactivated. If you are deactivating files, I suggest you monitor the PP sites, and e-mail contributor relations with PP image numbers to get them taken down before you close your account (if that's what you decide to do). I deactivated an image 2012/10/28, and it was still active in the PP two months later. To their credit, contributor relations removed the images when I contacted them.
Regards
Thanks, Pinocchio. So, it looks like double the work for non-exclusives---deactivate images on IS and then track them on Thinkstock for months to make sure they've been deleted and if not, then contact CR to ask them to delete them.
Fun.
Especially if you're sure you'll never want to reactivate them, it could be worth contacting CR right away. At the very least it costs them a few seconds to hit the right cookie-cutter reply - if they even bother.
-
Oh boy.. I've been barely around the forums lately so I'm totally out of the loop. Not sure what's going on. Looks like I've got some reading to do tonight...
-
Oh boy.. I've been barely around the forums lately so I'm totally out of the loop. Not sure what's going on. Looks like I've got some reading to do tonight...
Better put an ice pack onto your head.
-
I think it's a disgrace that they don't remove images from Thinkstock and Photos.com for such a long time after we deactivate them on istock. Are they legally obliged to remove images from their other sites? It will be time consuming for us all to monitor this for months on end and our images could still end up being given away for virtually nothing. I hope there's a way to force them in to doing this quickly.
They might ignore one person complaining about this but there must be hundreds of us deactivating images now.
-
Oh boy.. I've been barely around the forums lately so I'm totally out of the loop. Not sure what's going on. Looks like I've got some reading to do tonight...
Better put an ice pack onto your head.
I seriously have a headache. Maybe not entirely related to this, but probably made worse by it.
Microbius gave me a summary of events, which was super helpful, but I've also been skimming this thread and it's stunning how crazy this is. I should be amazed that this is happening, but then again, it's Getty we're talking about. What can really surprise us about that company any more?
-
Seems like a class action lawsuit might be the thing to do. It is one thing to use our photos for promotional purposes, it's another to give the photos away without license restriction or compensation. Getty is stretching the legalese in their contributor agreement beyond its intended meaning.
-
News - I guess...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=31 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=31)
Lobo
Posted 9 mins ago
Quote
Posted By leeavison:
Posted By SteveDF:
Another good question.
...that istock HQ continue to ignore.
Hrmm, no we aren't ignoring anything. We've been working on responses and other things since Wednesday of last week. There is lots to this so you can appreciate we aren't going to rush to respond. It would be great if we had answers immediately but we don't. So we will continue to focus on the growing concerns of the contributor base in the hopes of having something together for mid to late this week. I can assure you we are doing our best to get something sooner than later. End of week discussions are always difficult so we are trying to avoid that.
Stay tuned, folks.
Right. It would have never occurred to TPTB that there may be question/objections in light of the latest decisions. So I guess they were taken totally by surprise by all the whining from contributors.
-
They are waiting to gauge the contributor response, before constructing their own "response".
-
To me the long official silence from Getty says, "Go away, be quiet, don't bother us, we have more important things to do right now than worry about your piddly little problems!"
(I really do believe they see this as a "piddly little problem.")
-
The parties in the pink isolation chamber must be amazing...no time to check on the low lives... ;D
We are lucky they generously included many top level production studios in their free redistribution deal with google. I think it is their protest, not our hundreds of postings and complaints that is making someone, who is terribly annoyed, look up from his desk or get dragged by another team member to a meeting so that they maybe, just maybe, they will consider coming up with a solution that works.
But maybe they are also just rearranging the latest combination of buzzwords in whatever hip magazine they follow to see if they can come up with a line that will string us along.
I do feel sorry for the people on teh istock team that are genuinly concerned. they must exist, even if they are not allowed to post.
-
People have talked about contacting someone in the US Congress about this deal - I'd suggest that since Getty Images is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, it might be worthwhile to contact Washington State's Attorney General. The state attorney generals in the US generally deal with issues such as this - issues where one side believes they have been subject to unfair dealing - They are well set up for this type of thing and may be able to help with advice as well being able to take action on behalf of the photographers.
I'm a tiny contributor there and none of my images appear to be in the deal, so it makes no sense for me to do it - but if someone - especially if there's someone from Washington State - or better yet if a group of people contact the AG's office there, you might make some headway. Good luck!
Just a thought. This deal is terrible for the entire industry. It's tough enough for photographers to make a living - this type of thing just makes it tougher.
-
The parties in the pink isolation chamber must be amazing...no time to check on the low lives... ;D
From jhorrocks, on the price slide thread on iStock:
"Which brings me to another point... have the forums just become someone's sick idea of entertainment? I get the impression these little changes are being introduced, then Getty execs watch the forums as if they were watching an ant colony being slowly tortured with a magnifying glass. "Watch them scatter!" .. "Oohh.. we made that one REALLY mad!" ... "HAHAHAHA!" "
-
The parties in the pink isolation chamber must be amazing...no time to check on the low lives... ;D
From jhorrocks, on the price slide thread on iStock:
"Which brings me to another point... have the forums just become someone's sick idea of entertainment? I get the impression these little changes are being introduced, then Getty execs watch the forums as if they were watching an ant colony being slowly tortured with a magnifying glass. "Watch them scatter!" .. "Oohh.. we made that one REALLY mad!" ... "HAHAHAHA!" "
Feels like shouting in an empty room. :'(
-
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out. I guess we're either going to get enough spin to make a whirling dervish look stationary, or there's a serious problem. The rest of the world knew Google had asked Drive users to propose ThinkStock images as long ago as August 10 last year when a discussion about it started on an Alamy thread that was updated this past weekend. Seems to me the whole stock world is watching this drama unfold.
Regards
-
After all did some make phone call with them iS or Gredd y or Google?
-
we have waited more to be born but ain't this a little too much? ::)
-
After all did some make phone call with them iS or Gredd y or Google?
Istock no longer accepts phone calls from contributors ::)
Not sure about Getty or Google, but I imagine it would be difficult to get through to anyone above entry level receptionist. Letter from an attorney might be the way to go IMO.
-
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out...
Really? Are you really?
;)
-
At the end who is guilty IS or Greedy?
-
New thread started by Mr Erin seems to indicate that there is some movement and they are working with Getty to amend this deal:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1)
We’ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.
Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.
We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves.
Then he goes on to repeat the bullet points we've all seen at the top of the last thread.
-
Sorry if this is already discussed here and I missed it, but does anyone know if there is any way to know which images are included in this program?
-
Not much new. The copyright paragraph is a rehash of what he wrote in his OP to the other thread.
"That said, we are very aware that copyright enforcement is vital to the future of our business, Getty Images purchased PicScout and the Image IRC and we continue to develop new methods for copyright protection on behalf of our contributors and partners, many of which could help this platform and others like it improve in this way over time. "
The only new information is that they are 'working with Google to refine the implmentation', which is a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
And they only "believe" this will address only "some" of the concerns raised over the past several days.
Why on earth did it take a wave of protest from the contributors to 'refine the implementation'. Don't they have their inhouse team of IP specialists and lawyers who should have refined the t&c with a very fine toothcomb before the deal was fixed?
This is the problem with a team of suits and bean counters who are not suppliers. They should have at least two suppliers nominated by the contributing community to monitor the interests of the suppliers, and even to pre-liaise with us, when these deals are being brokered.
I'd scream for SuperSean.
-
New thread started by Mr Erin seems to indicate that there is some movement and they are working with Getty to amend this deal:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url])
We’ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.
Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.
We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves.
Then he goes on to repeat the bullet points we've all seen at the top of the last thread.
Discussions with Google now is just shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.
The fine print on that deal is so fine and so unrestricted, the average Google user won't read it, and if they did wouldn't understand it. And it's so wide that if they did understand it they can still do pretty much what they like with the images.
Having an image in that deal would require a total payout of the value of the image over its expected stock lifetime to be reasonable. Even if it did have metadata attached so it wasn't legally orphaned, with what can be done to it through Google under the EULA, and what is likely to be done to it by people who don't understand copyright it's a dead image as far as your ability to be able to get return on your own copyright.
For istock to go forward from this they need to give a cast iron guarantee that they would never give away contributors IP like this again. And I wouldn't believe any statement they made could be that cast iron after the number of times they have gone back on things.
-
Sorry if this is already discussed here and I missed it, but does anyone know if there is any way to know which images are included in this program?
Sean Locke has downloaded them all and made a searchable list. You can search on your last name (or the last name of other artists) to see if your images were included.
http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages/ (http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages/)
-
Sorry if this is already discussed here and I missed it, but does anyone know if there is any way to know which images are included in this program?
http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages (http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages)
Beat me, Lisa! :)
-
Sorry if this is already discussed here and I missed it, but does anyone know if there is any way to know which images are included in this program?
[url]http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/googleImages[/url])
Beat me, Lisa! :)
:D
-
Who sign this kind of contract with Google? Dont Tell me that sign is from greddys new gofer who need to prove himself that he can walk over corpses. Kelly Konjson?
Sorry for my late in I was on winter vacation
wasnt similar story last year from they side how to screw us even more...
-
All I get from mr_erin's statement is that IS is trying, retroactively, to be sure they have themselves covered from a legal standpoint - so that any copyright violations are demonstrably not IS's fault. Photographers not being paid for uses of their work - and losing uncounted future sales of those images - isn't even mentioned.
And he points out that the number of photographers ripped off in this current deal is small - in his frame of reference anyway. Wow that's great. Even if there's no assurance there won't be another, bigger, deal next month.
-
Sorry if this is already discussed here and I missed it, but does anyone know if there is any way to know which images are included in this program?
This is a searchable text file Sean put together (http://seanlockephotography.com/data.html) - not all of the files have info in them, but it's much faster to work with searching text than visually scanning thumbnails.
-
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out. I guess we're either going to get enough spin to make a whirling dervish look stationary, or there's a serious problem. The rest of the world knew Google had asked Drive users to propose ThinkStock images as long ago as August 10 last year when a discussion about it started on an Alamy thread that was updated this past weekend. Seems to me the whole stock world is watching this drama unfold.
Regards
I believe there is a serious problem. It's kind of obvious to me, but other signs, apart from iStock taking very long time to respond is that we haven't seen any posts at all from some very serious contributors that participate both in micros and macros... which can only mean they've lawyer-ed up.
-
The new statement doesn't really help much.
The mantra - "we've heard you" now sounds very much like "...your business is very important to us. Please hold for the next available operator..." to me. I don't give a sh*t if you've heard me if you go on acting the way you acted before you heard me.
So the deal was done over the fall and summer. They didn't think it was worth sharing with iStock contributors as "good news". A month after it goes live, Sean starts a thread to ask and they scurry around trying to find details they can share with us.
Now, with a deal long-since inked and images long-since released, they are going to do something about contributor concerns?
How about replace all the content for iStock contributors with wholly owned Getty content in the Google stock library? How about give Google a couple of thousand extra Getty wholly owned images for their troubles?
How about an opt in for any future deals. All off by default, but anyone who wants to opt in can choose to do so. And if they find no one wants to opt in for a $12 royalty, then perhaps they can improved the terms.
They just tried to stick a pacifier in contributors' collective mouths IMO
-
Has anyone addressed the issue of Google Drive itself?
I'd never heard of it until this furore broke out, but according to CNET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-google-drive (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57420551-93/who-owns-your-files-on-google-drive)
Google Terms:
"Your Content in our Services: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide licence to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes that we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
The rights that you grant in this licence are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This licence continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing that you have added to Google Maps)."
The last sentence makes all the difference. While these rights are limited to essentially making Google Drive better and to develop new services run by Google, the scope is not defined and could extend far further than one would expect.
Simply put: there's no definitive boundary that keeps Google from using what it likes from what you upload to its service.
Having said that, it also states:
"Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
According to its terms, Google does not own user-uploaded files to Google Drive, but the company can do whatever it likes with them (http://According to its terms, Google does not own user-uploaded files to Google Drive, but the company can do whatever it likes with them)"
(article goes on to opine that Google's lawyers would probably prevent them incurring a lawsuit by pushing this too far)
This content includes any materials uploaded using the recent ingestion of Getty family images.
Isn't that the exact sort of terms which on other sites precludes exclusives using them?
-
New thread started by Mr Erin seems to indicate that there is some movement and they are working with Getty to amend this deal:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url])
We’ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.
Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.
We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves.
Then he goes on to repeat the bullet points we've all seen at the top of the last thread.
To my reading it's starting to sound as if it may be a major cock-up. Perhaps somebody agreed to something, possibly chasing a bonus target, when they didn't understand (or care about) the implications. Why otherwise would Istock/Getty be 'meeting with Google' when it is a done deal that was supposedly a win-win-win for all concerned?
At this point I'm favouring cock-up over conspiracy although possibly that's the optimist in me. It simply didn't make any business sense from the start, other than for Google. Hopefully we'll find out before D-Day.
-
I believe there is a serious problem. It's kind of obvious to me, but other signs, apart from iStock taking very long time to respond is that we haven't seen any posts at all from some very serious contributors that participate both in micros and macros... which can only mean they've lawyer-ed up.
Yep. This is EXACTLY how I interpret it too. If I find any of mine in this or similar deals I'll be lawyering up too. :)
-
:
-
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out. I guess we're either going to get enough spin to make a whirling dervish look stationary, or there's a serious problem. The rest of the world knew Google had asked Drive users to propose ThinkStock images as long ago as August 10 last year when a discussion about it started on an Alamy thread that was updated this past weekend. Seems to me the whole stock world is watching this drama unfold.
Regards
I believe there is a serious problem. It's kind of obvious to me, but other signs, apart from iStock taking very long time to respond is that we haven't seen any posts at all from some very serious contributors that participate both in micros and macros... which can only mean they've lawyer-ed up.
Again, to me, the delay is far more indicative of a mistake that they are trying to extract themselves from rather than a deliberate and major change in policy. If the latter had been the plan then we should have expected a carefully worded statement, issued at the time, of how beneficial to all the new policy would be. Nothing like that has happened.
-
License information: Under the agreement, Google has a bespoke EULA to allow these images to be used by Google users through the Google Drive platform. Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations and these end uses can be for commercial purposes; however, users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside of Google Drive created content and Google users have no rights to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they’re used
Can be used for commercial purposes is bad enough but it doesn't even state the scope of those 'purposes'. I like the way they try to spin it by saying that they can't use the imagery in non google drive stuff - when they can use whatever they've created with google for whatever purpose they want.
-
It sounds like the suspected source of the images is ThinkStock. Anyone know if that's confirmed?
Still trying to digest all of this, but so far, I have a few unpleasant thoughts. Primarily the thought that even though I'm not directly impacted by this and likely won't be any time soon (very few vectors seem to be ending up in this program), I still feel a bit dirty continuing to do business with istock/getty. Or more dirty today than I did yesterday, anyway.
This is the very same program that was first announced back in August, right? The one in which people were asked to nominate images from TS?
I bring this up only because it makes this feel more like a long-running initiative, something that was planned and worked on for a long time, maybe as long as a year already. Meaning that Getty will be hard-pressed to abandon it or modify it in any way that makes it less profitable. They're heavily invested in it, and they need a return.
And judging by the treatment of independent artists with regard to TS (no opt-out), I suspect this may go the same way. As in, if you want to do business with getty, this is one of the costs of admission.
Lastly, I hate to say "I told you so", but back when TS became no longer optional for independents, I did say that the day would come for exclusives, too. This isn't exactly it, but it's a start. It's very similar. If you want to be on partner sites, you'll need to take a chance on having some images show up in this free collection as well. The only way out is going to be to stop doing business with any and all Getty sites.
I really do hope that this all gets changed in a way that makes it realistic for contributors to remain involved. But realistically, istock has almost never changed anything they've done to reduce the negative impact that these things have on us. I wouldn't be surprised to see this program continue on with maybe just some slight changes. A few bucks more paid to the contributor per image or something like that.
-
@EmberMike: It seems that many images were sourced from TS, but this thread has also documented images from vstock and zoonar amongst other agencies that distribute through Getty; there are also Vetta images. I don't have an easy summary, but if you read the whole thread, long as it is, you'll get those answers. Key posts were made by jsnover and sjlocke. sjlocke has a text file with all the details on hos own web site. sjlocke established a discussion board for folk with portfolios at http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php; (http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php;) I haven't looked at it, but I expect there will be lots more information there.
Regards
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a right to give away my works for free via third party partners. And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to. Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.
And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?
-
@embermike:
1. I have not seen reports of vectors being included, but DRIVE users discussed requesting some.
2. The earliest reference to this "deal" that I know of is on Alamy, August 10, 2011.
I'm not expecting an outcome iStock contributors of any flavour are going to like. There are many in this thread who have already started deactivating images to keep them out of this "deal", and many more who are concerned about the consequences of usages that do not comply with model release conditions.
I'm a very small contributor, waiting to see what happens and concerned about those few images that sell well for me.
Regards
-
@embermike:
1. I have not seen reports of vectors being included, but DRIVE users discussed requesting some.
Raster version of one of my vectors is there.
-
@panoramic: I think your quick summary is effectively accurate, even though Getty has not publicly asserted they can give your work away for free as far as I know. If you have a big, valuable port you need to take the time to read this whole thread, as well as the 3 Discussion Threads related to Google Drive in the iStock forums, together with recently opened threads here.
Regards
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a right to give away my works for free via third party partners. And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to. Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.
And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?
From my limited understanding, yes, it seems that way. And that is exactly what I'm struggling with. I'm not impacted by this right now. Do I roll the dice and hope that somehow my images are never included in this program or some other new deal related to this program?
Essentially I have to decide if I'm going to gamble and just hope I manage to avoid this program, or take the risk out of the equation and cut ties with getty. Of course to do that I need to forfeit current and future earnings from istock. But I guess either way there's a cost. I leave my images on istock and it could cost me my livelihood if getty ever decides to put my work into this or some other shady deal in which the value of my images is destroyed.
-
Panoramic, if one of your images is there, I think you need to do the same reading I recommended to EmberMike.
-
Any image that is part of this deal will lose all future commercial value - in my opinion. Posts at iStock suggest more content will be included in this and other similar deals; no deals identified, no timeline mentioned. Check threads by mr_erin at iStock. The effect of this deal threatens to make a mockery of Getty's oft-repeated claim they're committed to protecting copyright of their contributors.
-
New thread started by Mr Erin seems to indicate that there is some movement and they are working with Getty to amend this deal:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url])
We’ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.
Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.
We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves.
Then he goes on to repeat the bullet points we've all seen at the top of the last thread.
To my reading it's starting to sound as if it may be a major cock-up. Perhaps somebody agreed to something, possibly chasing a bonus target, when they didn't understand (or care about) the implications. Why otherwise would Istock/Getty be 'meeting with Google' when it is a done deal that was supposedly a win-win-win for all concerned?
At this point I'm favouring cock-up over conspiracy although possibly that's the optimist in me. It simply didn't make any business sense from the start, other than for Google. Hopefully we'll find out before D-Day.
Therefore why Erin stated the following in his first Google drive post:
"There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement"
This does not sound like a one time cock-up affair if you consider that additional content was going to be added over a period of time. Those planned deals would probably involved communication across a wider administrative spectrum by both companies....more than just somebody.
-
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out. I guess we're either going to get enough spin to make a whirling dervish look stationary, or there's a serious problem. The rest of the world knew Google had asked Drive users to propose ThinkStock images as long ago as August 10 last year when a discussion about it started on an Alamy thread that was updated this past weekend. Seems to me the whole stock world is watching this drama unfold.
Regards
I believe there is a serious problem. It's kind of obvious to me, but other signs, apart from iStock taking very long time to respond is that we haven't seen any posts at all from some very serious contributors that participate both in micros and macros... which can only mean they've lawyer-ed up.
Again, to me, the delay is far more indicative of a mistake that they are trying to extract themselves from rather than a deliberate and major change in policy. If the latter had been the plan then we should have expected a carefully worded statement, issued at the time, of how beneficial to all the new policy would be. Nothing like that has happened.
gostwyck, I am totally with you here. From the very beginning it looked to me like a major f**kup by sales - I worked for a major software company for a number of years, I know how it's done. Now that doesn't mean it's not a serious problem for Getty at this point. I don't know what I would prefer - deliberate malicious intent or plain old incompetence... probably malicious intent since that at least implies some planning and logical thinking ;). But looking back at everything that happened ever since Getty acquired Istock all I see is incompetence and failure to understand and adjust to changing times and new technology. The funny thing is, they think they do... but all they'we done so far is bought a thriving company with vibrant artist community and turned it into a nightmare.
-
Funny thing got an email today with this video - totally in sync with my feelings about Getty/Istock ;) It's called EXODUS ;D
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/news/featured/exodus/ (http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/news/featured/exodus/)
-
Since mr_erin's reply was about acknowledging they need to make sure copyrights are protected, I'll bet they "fess up" to mistakenly erasing the metadata and agree to re-instate it. Then they'll say, "see we care about you so everything's good now." Then they go back to pushing more images (all with the proper metadata of course) over to Google or whoever for unlimited free usage.
I suspect the legal issue of erasing copyrights in metadata is the only place they think they have a liability so they'll correct that. I think they believe they are on firm footing with the rest of the deal.
-
Haha, replace Government with Getty, and....
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3806_542434675781842_819480222_n.png)
-
The following post is by landbysea from the iStock forum. I think this is extraordinarily well said:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2)
"I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material result of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives."
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
http://kga.me/gds (http://kga.me/gds)
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
good job ;)
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
If anyone is thinking of downloading and using these files for anything other than their stated Google Drive uses, you should be aware that Getty is making a big deal of the fact that they own PicHunter. It's possible these files have been embedded with some sort of code that will enable Getty, through PicHunter, to track illegal uses, and sue you. Be very careful.
-
Too many great posts here to acknowledge them all - just well said people! I'm getting RSI from clicking hearts.
That's a terrific quote by landbysea, Cybernesco. Thanks so much for posting it here.
Something that really screams at me in both the posts we've seen from iStock so far is this line:
"our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors"
I can't help feeling that the interested parties in that list are placed very consciously in that order, with contributors firmly at the end of it. Although in this case, they might as well not have included us on the list at all.
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
Thanks so much for doing that. Can someone help me out here? If the metadata is stripped, how come hovering over the thumbnails gives you the name of the author - which you can click to see other instances in the google min-port. You can also search google by clicking the google link that shows up.
I'm wondering now if this was supposed to be some sort of initial test for their Picscout and ImageIRC facilities - since they keep banging on about that.
Given that they can provide active links for the mini-port and google results on hovering, surely it wouldn't be too hard to have that active link connect back to actual portfolios on iStock and Getty (although they'd probably only want to link to TS if they linked to a sales site, especially as JK said in that interview that they wanted to push TS aggressively).
-
I think they just demonstrated they don't even understand the issues involved. The problem is that even if the deal works exactly as intended and all the copyright data is there, they have still effectively made the images worthless by giving them away for free by the tens of thousands to Google users, all for $12. +1 for cybernesco's quote from landbysea on the IStock forum.
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
-
If they talk to Google would it be that difficult to add some box to Google Drive that would appear before inserting image to doc saying "I understand that this image is to be used .......and I'll be shot if I use this image otherwise......blah blah", tick off the box, ok..." meanwhile - before some acceptable agreement is done? It's a question of few minutes.
-
I totally agree Microbius, and that's a terrific idea JM. Actually I wish that sort of warning was available on all sites to really drive copyright issues and license agreements home to people.
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
Thanks for posting that. That's terrifying... thousands and thousands of HR images and big work for free !!! :-(
I was reading the threads for 2 or 3 days and couldn't believe it, but now...
I will think of de-activating my files for D-Day, and from now on, i stop uploading anything to istock.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a right to give away my works for free via third party partners. And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to. Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.
And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?
They do compensate people with $12 per image used :) If they added two zeroes at the end of that, it might be adequate compensation, given that they've used highly commercial images. I'm not even sure if non-exclusives get the full $12?
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
I'm a bit torn here, my images are in there too. I appreciate you are trying to help, but you also don't have the right to have those images on your site, even if the deal was legit (which I would dispute) you shouldn't be using them outside Google Drive. Could you at least lower the resolution and watermark them?
It is one more place where the unscrupulous can stumble upon my work through a Google image search and pinch it.
-
New thread started by Mr Erin seems to indicate that there is some movement and they are working with Getty to amend this deal:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1[/url])
We’ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.
Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.
We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves.
Then he goes on to repeat the bullet points we've all seen at the top of the last thread.
To my reading it's starting to sound as if it may be a major cock-up. Perhaps somebody agreed to something, possibly chasing a bonus target, when they didn't understand (or care about) the implications. Why otherwise would Istock/Getty be 'meeting with Google' when it is a done deal that was supposedly a win-win-win for all concerned?
At this point I'm favouring cock-up over conspiracy although possibly that's the optimist in me. It simply didn't make any business sense from the start, other than for Google. Hopefully we'll find out before D-Day.
I think they bent over backwards to do a deal with Google, as they know Google could easily crush their business if they wanted to. It can't just be a cock-up, as they aren't going to deal with a company bigger than Google. They've been working on this for months. Surely it must of been several people at various levels of management putting together and giving the go ahead for a deal like this? They might be trying the old trick of going too far and then given us some small changes to try and make it look like they care but we aren't going to fall for that again are we?
It's either well planned or complete incompetence and I don't see how I can trust them again either way.
-
I just posted this question in the new google thread. Does anyone know if registered works were chosen for MS or Google deals?
cobalt
Posted 7 mins ago
Quote
I have a question for the community and maybe one of the admins can answer this question. A photographer from the German community last week gave me a "lecture" on the differences of copyright law around the world. My background is something else, but apparently it was a required class wherever he studied. According to him, German copyright, or "Urheberrecht" is vastly different from the US copyright and offers a lot more protection to teh artist. It cannot be sold or transferred, it "sticks" for life to the artist and his creations as long as he resides in Germany.
Even stronger, according to him, are all files registered under US copyright law. I have never registered anything before and I am now looking into it.
So my question to the community and getty would be: are there any registered works in the MS/Google free redistribution deal?
Would registering unpublished works before uploading and then adding the registration number to each file (or a sentence making it clear the work is registered) prevent files to be "elected" for these "deals".
If registered works are not chosen for free re- distribution, then maybe this would give us a practical solution going forward. We could register whatever believe needs to be exempted and Getty could select from the others.
The best solution would be the simple one: create a lightbox, allow us to chose "donation images" and fullfill your marketing speak truthfully about "user generated content donated to the media community"
Getty themselves encourage registration, they even have a special field for it upon uploading. maybe here on istock we have been too negligent to do it.
So - would registering have any effect on if that file gets chosen? You clearly said you don´t choose RM files. How about registred works? can they be selected and distributed to millions of unregistred users? Does it influence the value of their protection in any way?
-
Do you think we can ask for reparations for being sent crazy by all these shenanigans?
I just raised a spoonful of cornflakes to my mouth and blew on it, as if it was hot soup!
(Definitely going bonkers)
-
I think they just demonstrated they don't even understand the issues involved. The problem is that even if the deal works exactly as intended and all the copyright data is there, they have still effectively made the images worthless by giving them away for free by the tens of thousands to Google users, all for $12. +1 for cybernesco's quote from landbysea on the IStock forum.
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
The copyright data is only in the exif of the thumbnails, as far as I can see.
-
The following post is by landbysea from the iStock forum. I think this is extraordinarily well said:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2[/url])
"I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material result of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives."
That is a very effective and passionate statement.
-
I'm a bit torn here, my images are in there too. I appreciate you are trying to help, but you also don't have the right to have those images on your site, even if the deal was legit (which I would dispute) you shouldn't be using them outside Google Drive. Could you at least lower the resolution and watermark them?
It is one more place where the unscrupulous can stumble upon my work through a Google image search and pinch it.
Since you can "publish the documents to the web", including an inframe link, and there is nothing about hotlinking or showing attribution in any agreement, I don't see this as an invalid use.
See, I just did it myself in two seconds:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJrYhEWzN4j4G8_xiXUYGlnGtyZTeNOtELCKW_CJu_I/pub
-
Oh right, that site was published from Google Drive? I hadn't realized, I thought the photos had been pulled out of Google Drive and placed in a website created elsewhere.
So you can set up a stock library containing all our work from Google Drive? God that sucks that Getty has given our work away like that.
It would still be good of anyone here not to put our work on the internet in such an easily searchable way at high resolution, but it sounds like if the agreement is valid it isn't actually illegal (shocking!!!!)
-
Oh right, that site was published from Google Drive? I hadn't realized, I thought the photos had been pulled out of Google Drive and placed in a website created elsewhere.
So you can set up a stock library containing all our work from Google Drive? God that sucks that Getty has given our work away like that.
It would still be good of anyone here not to put our work on the internet in such an easily searchable way at high resolution, but it sounds like if the agreement is valid it isn't actually illegal (shocking!!!!)
No, but I'm just saying I don't see much difference. He could have easily created a page with iframes linking to all the images. or just hotlinked to them.
-
I agree that the way the deal was done leaves it open to misuse and doesn't protect our work or make terms clear enough to normal Drive users but as far as I understand it from this end the license negotiated only allows Drive users to use the photos in Drive created documents.
The difference is that he is not licensed to use the images in other ways, am I incorrect?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a right to give away my works for free via third party partners. And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to. Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.
And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?
They do compensate people with $12 per image used :) If they added two zeroes at the end of that, it might be adequate compensation, given that they've used highly commercial images. I'm not even sure if non-exclusives get the full $12?
I think you miss the point. I'm not talking here about fair compensation.
This time they sold to google one of my works ( for 12 $) . They claim it's legal. If selling one image like that is legal, next time they can include 100 or 10000 or 1000000 of my images in similar deal. It will also be completely OK and legal for them. Today they make 6000 images avilable for free download on Google. Tomorrow the whole getty and istock collections can be included, if they want to. Why not? What bothers me is not the money or compensation. I don't want to find out one day that whole my port is availble online for free to google or microsoft clients. In this case all my buyers from Shutterstock an Fotolia will stop buying my images. They will go to Google instead. And there is no way for my to prevent it.
-
I agree that the way the deal was done leaves it open to misuse and doesn't protect our work or make terms clear enough to normal Drive users but as far as I understand it from this end the license negotiated only allows Drive users to use the photos in Drive created documents.
The difference is that he is not licensed to use the images in other ways, am I incorrect?
Well, I used it in a Google created document and published it on the web. Hotlinking is not illegal, sooo.....
Once could also claimed fair use, possibly.
Also, we don't know of any license, aside from the general terms buried in the Google EULA which is hard to find, and is in conflict with the statement on the search that says they have a commercial use license, period.
-
iStock say they're "looking at" the site (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6822491) with the list of images and full sizes, so I wonder if temporarily making it go away might be expedient, legal or not?
-
Someone else blogging about why you shouldn't use the Google Drive stock images (http://farrellbrian.com/2013/01/16/why-you-shouldnt-use-google-drive-stock-images/)
-
It's all ok everyone! I've dug out an interview with Johnny Klein in which he stresses just how hard he works to protect the IP of Getty contributors;
Jonathan Klein on Intellectual Property (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0mSYjL44n0#ws)
It's particularly interesting what he has to say from 2.40 onwards. Enjoy.
-
iStock say they're "looking at" the site ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6822491[/url]) with the list of images and full sizes, so I wonder if temporarily making it go away might be expedient, legal or not?
The site uses thumbnails to link to the original full size images. I don't see the issue. I mean, that's how the internet works, right?
-
iStock say they're "looking at" the site ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6822491[/url]) with the list of images and full sizes, so I wonder if temporarily making it go away might be expedient, legal or not?
The site uses thumbnails to link to the original full size images. I don't see the issue. I mean, that's how the internet works, right?
I'm not arguing whether they're right or not, or even how unreasonable it is that they told contributors they had to do the leg work to find misuse of images from the Microsoft promotional giveaway where here they are volunteering to look into something probably OK but which they think might cause them grief
Just suggesting that getting into spats with them for the 20 seconds they're paying attention to something like this might be best avoided.
-
"We are aware of this site and are looking at it now. No need to post links to it."
Has anybody told them these images are on Google Drive? They will look at it. Now. :-)
-
that's where our money is going
rain jackets ;D ;D ;D
-
OK, I got the massage form Getty. This is how I see on this scandal.
We(Getty)are so powerful so we can do whatever we want and you're nothing but poor miserable contributors depending on us. We need $$$ we need millions, we need billions no,no, we need trillions $$$ and we will do everything to increase our profit. We are going to make a deal(if is's necessary) even with the devil just to make our profit bigger and bigger.
It's so simple and I don't have to be super smart to figure out the point.
-
Someone else blogging about why you shouldn't use the Google Drive stock images ([url]http://farrellbrian.com/2013/01/16/why-you-shouldnt-use-google-drive-stock-images/[/url])
Really excellent blog article JoAnn. He's summed up the situation very nicely. I will probably link to his blog in any further media contacts I send out. Thank you for posting!
-
Is anyone keeping an eye on the ASA? I wouldn't put it past them to make changes quietly to the agreement to support deals like this at this point.....
-
Someone else blogging about why you shouldn't use the Google Drive stock images ([url]http://farrellbrian.com/2013/01/16/why-you-shouldnt-use-google-drive-stock-images/[/url])
Really excellent blog article JoAnn. He's summed up the situation very nicely. I will probably link to his blog in any further media contacts I send out. Thank you for posting!
He says "What this agreement does not allow, and what Google is effectively engaging in, is the free redistribution of these images without attribution and further compensation."
However, nobody except Google and Getty knows what the agreement allows or does not allow. He's just guessing that Getty are adhering to high standards and Google are being the bad guys.
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
I'm a bit torn here, my images are in there too. I appreciate you are trying to help, but you also don't have the right to have those images on your site, even if the deal was legit (which I would dispute) you shouldn't be using them outside Google Drive. Could you at least lower the resolution and watermark them?
It is one more place where the unscrupulous can stumble upon my work through a Google image search and pinch it.
I was thinking the same Mantis. When downloaded from that site there is absolutely nothing stopping them, no licence, nothing. With all due respect.
-
MP just posted a new blog post :D
http://www.microstockposts.com/photographers-plan-to-remove-images-from-istockphoto/ (http://www.microstockposts.com/photographers-plan-to-remove-images-from-istockphoto/)
-
MP just posted a new blog post :D
[url]http://www.microstockposts.com/photographers-plan-to-remove-images-from-istockphoto/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockposts.com/photographers-plan-to-remove-images-from-istockphoto/[/url])
It's good to see the words finally getting out and hopefully people will read it.
-
I see the news has reached APhotoEditor at http://www.aphotoeditor.com/... (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/...)
Regards
-
How come noone wrote up some basic facts of this deal in wikipedia? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images)
I would but my English is not quite perfect... any takers?
-
I see the news has reached APhotoEditor at [url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/...[/url] ([url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/...[/url])
Regards
http://www.aphotoeditor.com (http://www.aphotoeditor.com)
-
I think any photographers / artists affected by this should file a complaint with the FTC. (I have already done so)
They have an online form to file a complaint.
They won't take on individual cases but if they get enough complaints about one company it might prompt them to look into it.
Both Getty and Google have run afoul of them before so maybe this might do some good.
From their Site:
The Federal Trade Commission, the nation's consumer protection agency, collects complaints about companies, business practices, identity theft, and episodes of violence in the media.
Why: Your complaints can help us detect patterns of wrong-doing, and lead to investigations and prosecutions. The FTC enters all complaints it receives into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database that is used by thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement authorities worldwide. The FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints.
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov (https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov)
-
Hey everyone,
Any suggestions on how to influence people to stop buying from Getty & co? I would like to drive business away from them as much as i can. They are ruining my professional life and driving me out of business. I want to retaliate. Even if by small influence, i want them to have less customers.
There should be a hashtag for this horror.
Exclusive. Full time. But not for long.
-
We support contributor fairness and want to help spread the word, we just posted this article on our blog:
“Creatives Stunning Revolt Against Big Bad Business”
http://graphicleftovers.com/blog/creatives-stunning-revolt-big-bad-business/ (http://graphicleftovers.com/blog/creatives-stunning-revolt-big-bad-business/)
Please feel free to comment and share.
-
Hey everyone,
Any suggestions on how to influence people to stop buying from Getty & co? I would like to drive business away from them as much as i can. They are ruining my professional life and driving me out of business. I want to retaliate. Even if by small influence, i want them to have less customers.
There should be a hashtag for this horror.
Exclusive. Full time. But not for long.
I would start be tweeting and posting to Facebook articles like the one above
-
Is Speider Schneider an employee at GL? He has written some great blog posts for the site in the past
-
This might have been posted somewhere else in this forum, but according to this, Instagram lost 8 million users thanks to the web-rebellion over change of terms! D-Day, here we come!
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bad_insta_karma_4ZENrwZVX2byVMQxK045rN (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bad_insta_karma_4ZENrwZVX2byVMQxK045rN)
-
Is Speider Schneider an employee at GL? He has written some great blog posts for the site in the past
Speider is one of our freelance writers. Here is his bio:
Speider Schneider is a former member of The Usual Gang of Idiots at MAD Magazine and has designed products for Disney/Pixar, Warner Bros., Harley-Davidson, ESPN, Mattel, DC and Marvel Comics, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon among other notable companies. Speider is a former member of the board for the Graphic Artists Guild, co-chair of the GAG Professional Practices Committee and a former board member of the Society of Illustrators. Follow him on Twitter @speider
-
Hey everyone,
Any suggestions on how to influence people to stop buying from Getty & co? I would like to drive business away from them as much as i can. They are ruining my professional life and driving me out of business. I want to retaliate. Even if by small influence, i want them to have less customers.
There should be a hashtag for this horror.
Exclusive. Full time. But not for long.
They seem to be doing a good job of driving away buyers themselves. We can help them out by removing our images and recommending sites like GLStockImages, Pond5 alamy and Stockfresh that all pay 50% commission or more and have good prices for buyers.
-
Hey everyone,
Any suggestions on how to influence people to stop buying from Getty & co? I would like to drive business away from them as much as i can. They are ruining my professional life and driving me out of business. I want to retaliate. Even if by small influence, i want them to have less customers.
There should be a hashtag for this horror.
Exclusive. Full time. But not for long.
I would start be tweeting and posting to Facebook articles like the one above
ok, i did.
Never been an activist so far. Good time to start. How does one initiate a subject hashtag?
I suggest #boycottgetty
-
Google is "curating" - looking for more content. Artist beware!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDJzSUtIRl82MXdJTG9LaWpadWtCWEE6MQ#gid=0
-
ETA deleted due to being too immature, sorry
-
Microbius, you beat me to it:
(http://www.lizworld.com/Google.jpg)
-
Oh Godddd... it's even worse when you see that happy invitation.
Can someone stop the world please? I want to get off.
_____________________________________________________________________
ETA: I didn't even notice those entries when I looked at it - just saw the invitation. Not immature Microbius! If those entries on ShadySue's post are yours then I liked what you did there.
-
Microbius, you beat me to it:
You said it in a lot more mature way and with less naughty words!
-
Oh Godddd... it's even worse when you see that happy invitation.
Can some stop the world please? I want to get off.
_____________________________________________________________________
ETA: I didn't even notice those entries when I looked at it - just saw the invitation. Not immature Microbius! If those entries on ShadySue's post are yours then I liked what you did there.
These are mine, but as I was posting them, I saw that Microbius had thought of dong the same thing and got in first. Then by the time I'd posted, he had deleted his. ;D
-
Aha! Well in that case, well done Sue! Inspired!
Sorry I didn't get to see yours Microbius... you were too fast for me. You'd have done well in the Wild West with such a fast trigger finger :)
-
This is so sickening, do you think we should ask Google for an opt out? If it takes months to get images off Thinkstock and if we don't want them in the Google drive collection, we should be able to opt out somewhere. I'd like to see a page like this for copyright holders to pick the images they don't want to be included.
-
That's a great idea Sharpshot. I wonder if they'd oblige? Who would we ask?
-
If we had enough people doing this, we could all "vote" for the same BAD photos. If we would all suggest our worst photo, then define about 50 (or more) of them of different MSG'ers, then each of us would vote on 10 of them. I bet Google automates part of this and will add the top 1000 to their collection ...?
-
Another supporter:
Open Rebellion At iStockphoto
http://outwardtrends.blogspot.hk/2013/01/open-rebellion-at-istockphoto.html (http://outwardtrends.blogspot.hk/2013/01/open-rebellion-at-istockphoto.html)
-
Google is "curating" - looking for more content. Artist beware!
[url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDJzSUtIRl82MXdJTG9LaWpadWtCWEE6MQ#gid=0[/url] ([url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDJzSUtIRl82MXdJTG9LaWpadWtCWEE6MQ#gid=0[/url])
From Sirimo @ iStock forum: ( http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823199 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823199) )
That is the orignal link from August last year, it's not a new request.
Check the URL with the link on https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject (https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject) that says Want to help us curate a new batch of stock images? »
-
Ongoing on a rolling programme, then. :(
-
If we had enough people doing this, we could all "vote" for the same BAD photos. If we would all suggest our worst photo, then define about 50 (or more) of them of different MSG'ers, then each of us would vote on 10 of them. I bet Google automates part of this and will add the top 1000 to their collection ...?
LOL! What an idea! Let's create the 'Google Crap Collection'!
-
Interesting comment in that APhotoEditor article, about the issue of model releases and images not being used in any defamatory way, in porn, etc. Since Google is essentially redistributing images, and no license info goes along with the images, how can they enforce that part of the agreement any more? Makes it dangerous for models to work with istock photographers and might hurt existing relationships between photographers and their regular models. I'd imagine that models won't be too pleased to find out that their images can be redistributed without any licensing and without protection from defamatory use.
It really is getting to the point of "death by a thousand cuts" as another commenter put it. It's not just the one issue of redistribution. It's the poor compensation, the lack of consent, the copyright issues, the meta issues, the model release issues, everything. Plus all of the other cuts Getty/istock have given us over the last couple of years.
-
This Google-Getty deal is on the news, hopefully more sites will talk about this wonderful deal...
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/01/getty-signs-deal-google-gives-photographers-pittance (http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/01/getty-signs-deal-google-gives-photographers-pittance)
-
This Google-Getty deal is on the news, hopefully more sites will talk about this wonderful deal...
[url]http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/01/getty-signs-deal-google-gives-photographers-pittance[/url] ([url]http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/01/getty-signs-deal-google-gives-photographers-pittance[/url])
This is nice, tweet and like guys, tweet and like:) I did:)
-
The link that blog article provides to check if you are images are on the Google site is a dead link: http://kga.me/gds/ (http://kga.me/gds/)
-
The link that blog article provides to check if you are images are on the Google site is a dead link: [url]http://kga.me/gds/[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds/[/url])
Works for me now, but yesterday it was offline for some time.
-
Here is an interesting comment on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/16/getty-hands-google-users-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/#comments (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/16/getty-hands-google-users-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/#comments)
John Neff January 17, 2013 at 11:56 am
I have been a full-time video producer with iStock for 2.5 years. If they do this
with our photos what will they do with my high end medical clips? I am getting out as fast as possible and never looking back!
-
OK I wasn't convinced before but I am now. Getty is trying to kill Microstock. This is a real stab in the back and kick in the @$$ Talk about insults too, $12 and they basically gave away the images with all rights and no attribution. Bad Bad Bad.
Here is an interesting comment on [url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/16/getty-hands-google-users-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/#comments[/url] ([url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/16/getty-hands-google-users-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/#comments[/url])
John Neff January 17, 2013 at 11:56 am
I have been a full-time video producer with iStock for 2.5 years. If they do this
with our photos what will they do with my high end medical clips? I am getting out as fast as possible and never looking back!
-
We’ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.
Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.
We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law,
Wah wah woh wah wah, blah blah blah IS BS
-
OK I wasn't convinced before but I am now. Getty is trying to kill Microstock. This is a real stab in the back and kick in the @$$ Talk about insults too, $12 and they basically gave away the images with all rights and no attribution. Bad Bad Bad.
But ... only a tiny percentage of the images involved ... were actually 'microstock' images. Over 90% of the 7000 images involved were in fact 'macrostock', from Getty themselves and other macro agencies. Of the 700 microstock images that were included most of those were Vetta/Agency images and arguably not 'microstock' at all.
The far more logical conclusion, based on the images themselves, is that Getty is trying to kill Macrostock rather than microstock. Of course neither theory holds any water. The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Whats curious?
-
I think any photographers / artists affected by this should file a complaint with the FTC. (I have already done so)
They have an online form to file a complaint.
They won't take on individual cases but if they get enough complaints about one company it might prompt them to look into it.
Both Getty and Google have run afoul of them before so maybe this might do some good.
From their Site:
The Federal Trade Commission, the nation's consumer protection agency, collects complaints about companies, business practices, identity theft, and episodes of violence in the media.
Why: Your complaints can help us detect patterns of wrong-doing, and lead to investigations and prosecutions. The FTC enters all complaints it receives into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database that is used by thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement authorities worldwide. The FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints.
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov (https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov)
Great idea! Worth repeating.
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Marisa, hopefully you will join in the protest and delete some of your photos?
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Whats curious?
the fact that she gave a ______ about iStock and said we haven't but still left her portfolio online which means she haven´t gave a ______ just like we haven't ;D
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
What's curious?
I dropped exclusivity with iStockphoto at the end of 2011 and have since been independent. I rarely check in on my files or make $ withdrawals, and never really got around to uploading much on other sites. Microstock is back to being a super-back-burning side thing for me. When I saw how things were going at iStockphoto and that contributors weren't willing to come together en masse to make a difference with HQ/Getty, I stopped giving a *. What was the point anymore? So I self-banned from the iStockphoto forums, and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again. And that's that. That's why you rarely, if ever, see me here talking microstock. I've even unsubscribed from public and private iStockphoto groups on Facebook. I really don't give a hoot anymore. It's way too late. No more stock steam. I focus now, instead, on selling the odd print via Etsy and contributing to the one agency I love that's by invite-only and that I feel cares about its contributors. It's not that I won't contribute to others or to iStockphoto even. It's just that I'm interested in other things now and use my extra energy for these things rather than trying to make a difference in iStockphoto forums. Microstock is not my day job, or even a hobby anymore, really. I quit that dream for reality, and am much happier for it.
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Marisa, hopefully you will join in the protest and delete some of your photos?
That requires time and energy that I can't promise. My latest protest-deleting project on Instagram is taking ages. I just can't be bothered with all these jokers right now. New job and joys, little free time. And that time is too valuable. The last thing I want to do when I get home is spend time on iStockphoto or Instagram. But maybe, Lisa. We'll see.
-
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .
Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .
that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Whats curious?
the fact that she gave a ______ about iStock and said we haven't but still left her portfolio online which means she haven´t gave a ______ just like we haven't ;D
I was exclusive from jump and dropped my crown in protest. That was my protest, at the end of 2011. I wanted to go independent and spread my work around, rather than keep it exclusively with iStockphoto; because I wasn't keen on how they were treating contributors. That's when I checked out of caring about trying to make a difference at iStockphoto.
Dig?
-
So ... and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again.
That's probably illegal in several States. ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
-
So ... and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again.
That's probably illegal in several States. ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I was hoping someone fun would pick up on the double entendre. ;) That I do miss about the iStock forums. We had some good times, y'all. #memories
-
Marisa I know your story and we actually talked in a few emails, maybe you have forgotten, anyway that wasn't the point here
it was about you telling that we haven't give a ___ back in 2011 but still leaving your portfolio online, sure you have all the reasons in the world and I respect that, next time just don't say we don't give a ___ because we actually did and do everyday, I have stopped uploading back in March 2012
-
The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.
Totally agree. It's also fixable. People messed up. I am opposed to this, not in principle, only because it seems like a lousy deal for the photographers. There seems to be nothing good about it.
But I am not at all convinced any longer by this point that some people have been making about model released content being put at risk. If you sell your work RF, especially via multiple agents and at subscription sites, then it is already out there in use from where it can be potentially be re - downloaded (stolen from other web uses) and misused. And the internet is too big and too international for anyone at an agency to do much about that. Professional RF models should know that risk and be paid accordingly or else should not care. Anything potentially sensitive should be either commissioned or very tightly controlled RM.
-
The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.
Hmm... It seems to me Getty is too slow and deliberate to make such mistakes. It's more likely a ploy of some sort. Getty and Google are like two alley cats sizing each other up and miaowing loudly before the real action starts. Remember that Klein a number of times made the point, "all it would take is for Google to flip a switch" and the stock photo market would be transformed. That is, Google allowing images in ads. It hasn't happened, but something else has, which we now can see, but only partially.
So at first glance it looks like 1-0 to Google. But you have to wonder... Isn't Getty playing a pusher to a potential junkie? The deal is so clearly underpriced. Getty would have known the reaction of iStockers would be severe, a negotiating tactic they can plausibly deny, but that can only drive prices higher in the future. Getty took an "own goal" in the first round for a bigger prize later on.
-
Marisa I know your story and we actually talked in a few emails, maybe you have forgotten, anyway that wasn't the point here
it was about you telling that we haven't give a ___ back in 2011 but still leaving your portfolio online, sure you have all the reasons in the world and I respect that, next time just don't say we don't give a ___ because we actually did and do everyday, I have stopped uploading back in March 2012
I didn't say that you (or anyone still active on iStock, in any capacity, or on this thread) don't give a *. What I said was, "It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ . Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ ."
Translated (didn't realize it needed translating): it's good to see people angry enough to band together and take action in a bigger way (which may actually make a difference) than in earlier years over kerfuffles past. It seems in the past, while people cared and were angry (to varying degrees), there wasn't a willingness to really do something big and meaningful in protest, en masse.
Further, look at how quickly Instagram retreated from its proposed TOS changes when users took to the web and started voicing their displeasure, deleting images, or whole accounts. Imagine that every single exclusive photog on iStock/Getty would commit to and actually drop exclusivity on a particular day, unless the changes they wanted to see from corporate were enacted? Wow. That would get press and probably get results. Or what if all iStock/Getty photogs committed to deleting 5 of their top-selling images each day, every day, until the changes desired by the community were heard and instituted. Stuff like that. So that if you want to continue on with the company, which I'm sure most do, you don't create a mountain of reloading work for yourself. You make a big difference, but hopefully one that you can easily manage the consequences of if/when you get what you want from corporate.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
-
I think we are all getting lost in translation ;-)
-
I don't think this deal is a mistake, or a ploy, or anything except exactly what it appears to be: Getty trying to make some quick cash from IS's content, from a company with very deep pockets who's ready to pay right now. They're doing it because they think they can, and that any contributor kick-back won't be damaging enough in the long run to care about. They'll do more of this sort of thing in the future, not less.
The growing wave of bad press and contributor takedowns will, however, be a cautionary tale to other agencies who might be tempted to do something similar.
Eventually IS will go away, or at least cease to exist as a quasi-independent agency, and its market share will continue to decline, for reasons not directly related to this issue. But nothing is going to change with regard to whatever deal they're currently making with Google.
-
Marisa, hopefully you will join in the protest and delete some of your photos?
That requires time and energy that I can't promise. My latest protest-deleting project on Instagram is taking ages. I just can't be bothered with all these jokers right now. New job and joys, little free time. And that time is too valuable. The last thing I want to do when I get home is spend time on iStockphoto or Instagram. But maybe, Lisa. We'll see.
Gotcha. I didn't realize you were caught up in the instagram thing. What a PITA.
I am not pushing in any way, and totally understand if you have washed your hands of the Istock thing. If you did decide to try deactivating some images, even a token amount would help. Sean has written a Greasemonkey script that adds a deactivation column to the My Uploads page and makes it really easy. You can delete 20 pics in about 3 minutes.
I can't find it at it seems to have been deleted from the thread on Istock. If anyone has it can you post it? I have also contacted Sean for a direct link...
-
I can't find it at it seems to have been deleted from the thread on Istock. If anyone has it can you post it? I have also contacted Sean for a direct link...
Here's the post (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-(deactivation-day)-on-istock-feb-2/msg291150/#msg291150)where Leaf posted a link in case iStock deleted it. Thanks Leaf :)
-
I can't find it at it seems to have been deleted from the thread on Istock. If anyone has it can you post it? I have also contacted Sean for a direct link...
Here's the post ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-(deactivation-day)-on-istock-feb-2/msg291150/#msg291150[/url])where Leaf posted a link in case iStock deleted it. Thanks Leaf :)
Thank you JoAnn! You deserve more than just a heart, but also a pat on the back :D
Thanks also to Tyler for smart thinking.
-
The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.
So at first glance it looks like 1-0 to Google. But you have to wonder... Isn't Getty playing a pusher to a potential junkie? The deal is so clearly underpriced. Getty would have known the reaction of iStockers would be severe, a negotiating tactic they can plausibly deny, but that can only drive prices higher in the future. Getty took an "own goal" in the first round for a bigger prize later on.
Wait, were we told how much getty made from this deal??? I know the $12 to contributors
-
Over in the istock forum, oldladybird said "...With Google Drive, they licensed the file so neither collection or the files status really matter."
I replied asking to see this new license that was issued, because obviously the standard license doesn't cover redistribution, nor does any EL, at least not unlimited redistribution outside of a template usage. Since Google Drive makes it possible to easily download high-res files for any and all uses, I'm assuming that a special license was drawn up for the Google deal.
Fat chance my request to see this special license will be honored, but I sort of knew that before I even asked. :)
-
something I just posted on IS
admin oldladybird said
"With Google Drive, they licensed the file so neither collection or the files status really matter. "
I am sure you must realise that your statement is showing an action which is totally and unbelievably wrong...What you are spinning and saying by "neither collection or the files status really matter" is in fact that contributors don't really matter.
Furthermore, as you say "they licensed the file". In this case "they" means Getty acting on their own "licensed" the file. That license is INVALID BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER MADE AWARE OF IT.....THIS IS ILLEGAL
-
Has this been mentioned on each of the stock site forums? I didn't know about this until I stopped by here today and saw this thread. I know that bringing up things happening at other stock sites is difficult to do on some forums, but we should be able to mention the Google "deal".
I'd be interested in reading the threads (even on sites I'm not a member). If you have seen this mentioned on other stock forums, could you post the links?
-
Has this been mentioned on each of the stock site forums? I didn't know about this until I stopped by here today and saw this thread. I know that bringing up things happening at other stock sites is difficult to do on some forums, but we should be able to mention the Google "deal".
I'd be interested in reading the threads (even on sites I'm not a member). If you have seen this mentioned on other stock forums, could you post the links?
Sorry. I just found the thread (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gettygoogle-news-blog-and-forum-links-here/) for this.
-
Has this been mentioned on each of the stock site forums? I didn't know about this until I stopped by here today and saw this thread. I know that bringing up things happening at other stock sites is difficult to do on some forums, but we should be able to mention the Google "deal".
I'd be interested in reading the threads (even on sites I'm not a member). If you have seen this mentioned on other stock forums, could you post the links?
If you want honnest information from all micro sites you come here at microstockgroup.com. Individual stock forums understandably will not entertain their competitor's problems or successes as this could affect their own business.
-
If you want honnest information from all micro sites you come here at microstockgroup.com. Individual stock forums understandably will not entertain their competitor's problems or successes as this could affect their own business.
Yes, but there are many photographers and illustrators who know nothing of MSG. Posting about this having happened at those sites may help as well. Perhaps those posts should link back to some of the threads on this site, and more people will learn that MSG exists.
-
If you want honnest information from all micro sites you come here at microstockgroup.com. Individual stock forums understandably will not entertain their competitor's problems or successes as this could affect their own business.
Yes, but there are many photographers and illustrators who know nothing of MSG. Posting about this having happened at those sites may help as well. Perhaps those posts should link back to some of the threads on this site, and more people will learn that MSG exists.
Well...in any industry wether it is automobiles, computers, cell phones, making something or doing someting, if you want to know about something, you type in the words in google (gee for some reason I don't like that word as much anymore) and you will get all kind of forums to suit your needs. For instance, in this particular case, google microstock, bingo you will get here. It is not the mandate of an individual stock forum to inform their contributors about their competitors or MSG.
-
...you type in the words in google (gee for some reason I don't like that word as much anymore)...
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
-
...you type in the words in google (gee for some reason I don't like that word as much anymore)...
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
I agree that even without knowing all the details, Getty is possibly mostly to blame, however, I am not sure if Google can be totally without blame.
On the blog post by Google there was no mention made as to where the majority of the images came from, who they belonged to or how they were licensed. They basically just stated that if you have a Google Drive account, you have access to these images and are free to use them in your documents however you choose.
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/01/17/getty-google-struck-a-deal-people-are-not-happy/ (http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/01/17/getty-google-struck-a-deal-people-are-not-happy/)
Therefore, why there was never a mention made as to where the majority of the images came from? Why Google agreed to hide the identities of those images? If hiding all identities was a condition of the deal by Getty, would that not ring a bell that something was not right? They mutually agreed to hide these images identities...I cannot think of one good reason to do that.
-
I believe that I read somewhere that someone at Google posted on a blog saying something to the effect of, "I hope you are getting permission from the photographers before going ahead with this deal."
I'm firmly in the "Getty is evil" camp.
-
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
I understand your point, but I think you're letting Google off the hook way too easily. If you tell me you have a great deal on a 60" flat screen LED TV for $25, I have to know that there's something amiss.
Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.
You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.
-
I understand your point, but I think you're letting Google off the hook way too easily. If you tell me you have a great deal on a 60" flat screen LED TV for $25, I have to know that there's something amiss.
Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.
You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.
Well, then again have a look where Google is coming from. Usually they get all content for their sites for free by grabbing them from the internet. Actually they have gone to court several times, sometimes successful, sometimes not. So for them it's probably a big thing they have to pay anything at all. ;)
Or to use your analogy: Google is used to get the LCD TV for free because the manufacturer hopes that Google's clients will see the TV and buy one from them. Meanwhile, Google is selling ads running on the TV. ;D
-
Of course Google knew they got a super deal. Dont think for one minute Google, of all companies, didnt know what was going on.
-
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
I understand your point, but I think you're letting Google off the hook way too easily. If you tell me you have a great deal on a 60" flat screen LED TV for $25, I have to know that there's something amiss.
Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.
You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.
except we have no idea what Google paid. Maybe we got 20%, or maybe there is a few million in advertising credits or some other bonus type thing Google had to swap for the images... or a deal where Getty is the exclusive contributor for stock photos for google drive. This could just be a little sampling to see if customers really want the images and the value of Google Drive is raised. Once Google sees that customers are interested in using the photos they will be willing to pay 4x the price. Now we can give away our images for $48....
... where was I now..
... oh yeah, deactivating files.
-
... where was I now..
... oh yeah, deactivating files.
LOL
;D
-
I'm sure if Google could get all our images for $1 each legally, they wouldn't hesitate. I don't know why people are so nice about Google. It would be easy for them to start their own stock images site and pay a reasonable commission or use a new AdSense model to make sure we get some compensation for our work. Instead they do a deal with Getty, knowing they only pay 20% commission and they pay a ridiculously low fee for top quality stock images. People that do deals like that are the opposite of kind.
-
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.
I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.
The thumbnails used to link to the full size. Did you change that?
eta: Never mind, it looks like it was just the ones I was looking at. I also see meta data now listed for each image that does include, at least, the name of the contributor - for mine at least.
etaa: However, when I find the image myself on Google and download the full res, the meta is not there. Where did you find your full rez images to have ones with the meta? Are they removing it when they insert it in an application?
-
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.
You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums????
-
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.
It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.
Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.
You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums????
That is just a guess.. assuming that $12 was a 20% payment, the original fee would be $60.
-
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums????
We get %20 per RF license. Assuming this is paid at that rate, that makes $60.
-
I apologize if someone already posted this link
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography)
-
Or they could always go though this link http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=262 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=262) :)
-
I apologize if someone already posted this link
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography[/url])
Thank You jm
i just recieved a very helpful message back from Shutterstock
-
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio
Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them. Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.
-
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio
Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them. Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.
Yes, i am being offered a bypass, they looked at my istock port and are happy with it, just got to show some ID now. Very nice email, and quick reply, made me feel good :)
-
That nice to hear Susan. I know it must be scary leaving exclusivity, but it is really great to be respected also.
I hope that down the road Jon and SS maintain their integrity/reputation. They haven't disappointed me yet.
-
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive. Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference. She has a lot of meat, so to speak.
-
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio
Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them. Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.
Yes, i am being offered a bypass, they looked at my istock port and are happy with it, just got to show some ID now. Very nice email, and quick reply, made me feel good :)
This is fantastic Susan!! Very happy to see that you guys will be fairly treated!! One GREAT reason for the exclusives to get away from this nightmare.
-
It's nice to have a site making sensible decisions. Hope for all of us that use them that it stays that way for a long time.
-
It's nice to have a site making sensible decisions. Hope for all of us that use them that it stays that way for a long time.
Enthusiastic +1 on both counts (although I can only give you one ;) )
-
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums????
We get %20 per RF license. Assuming this is paid at that rate, that makes $60.
Holy cow, I should have negotiated for them. They should have "googled" this question "google cash on hand 2012". I can tell them it is $50,000,000,000.
I can't believe they would sell this type of portfolio for $300,000 for unlimited downloads to the #1 used website. Paying the contributors $60,000. Considering how much damage this portfolio is going to due to getty's stock sites.
It's hard to believe the getty guys who absolutely stole istock from bruce for 50mil when it was worth at least 1 billion would not get a great deal. Must be back end hidden money to getty. This must have done to boost their balance sheets before their latest sale to caryle. Who expected the sale to be higher considering the loss of getty stock sales to the competition. not me!
We are not being told the real details here.
-
it´s probably just a small part of an overall cooperation deal. I am sure getty would love to be the exclusive supplier for google adwords with images.
that is just such a juicy fruit hanging there, I understand that they would try to do many, many things to be able to pick it.
But handing over our IP should not have been part of that deal. and I think we can all see that even if they succeed in becoming a part of google adwords, that the artists would not be participating. Another 10 dollar "special license" and off go the files to google adwords.
Or something like that.
-
If anyone wants a summery of the situation, Sjlocke just made a nice post
http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/ (http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/)
-
If anyone wants a summery of the situation, Sjlocke just made a nice post
[url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/[/url])
Well done, Sean. A million hearts for you! Also you deserve a platinum crown embedded with rubies, diamonds and an attachment with two beer can holders.
-
Yes. Brilliant post. Well done Sean, and I hope they'll say something useful soon so that you can get back to doing what you love best. Thanks so much for taking the time and standing up for principles as strongly as you do.
-
how desperate are we? ;D
-
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio
Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them. Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.
Possibly although a LOT of stuff that gets accepted on IS routinely gets rejected by SS with its extremely random and inconsistent review process!
-
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio
Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them. Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.
Possibly although a LOT of stuff that gets accepted on IS routinely gets rejected by SS with its extremely random and inconsistent review process!
I was wondering if it meant that they were ready to give a free pass to defecting exclusives, since the SS inspection is generally tougher these days than the iS one. They wouldn't want to put exclusives off hanging up the crown by rejecting their initial application, would they?
-
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive. Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference. She has a lot of meat, so to speak.
Sandralise, is blisfully unaware of this sh*t storm. She only has about 300 images left on istock having tired of them a couple of years ago, I believe. She no longer reads the istock forum either.
-
I was wondering if it meant that they were ready to give a free pass to defecting exclusives, since the SS inspection is generally tougher these days than the iS one. They wouldn't want to put exclusives off hanging up the crown by rejecting their initial application, would they?
I wouldnt class SS as tougher just a LOT more random. There are big difference in accepted styles too. IS really want fairly untouched and minimally processed images whereas SS want completely finished, processed images. I quite often have to submit 2 images of one photo - a severely edited SS and a barely edited IS of the same.
-
The thumbnails used to link to the full size. Did you change that?
eta: Never mind, it looks like it was just the ones I was looking at. I also see meta data now listed for each image that does include, at least, the name of the contributor - for mine at least.
etaa: However, when I find the image myself on Google and download the full res, the meta is not there. Where did you find your full rez images to have ones with the meta? Are they removing it when they insert it in an application?
Yes, Google deletes all image meta data when you click the Select button or double click a thumbnail to insert the larger file into your document.
To download a thumbnail with meta data...
- Right click on any thumbnail in the search results and select View Image Info. (http://kga.me/screengrab/gds1.jpg)
- Click the 'Save As...' button on the next popup to save the image to your computer. (http://kga.me/screengrab/gds2.jpg)
If you want a link to the thumbnail with meta data copy the url in the 'Location' field. For visual reference click on link #2 above.
Here is a link to the thumbnail with meta data:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6E39j_cy4EE/ULTQ2bUBFOI/AAAAAAABr_k/vrN-Tel3ul8/h120/143919444.jpg (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6E39j_cy4EE/ULTQ2bUBFOI/AAAAAAABr_k/vrN-Tel3ul8/h120/143919444.jpg)
To get the high resolution file with meta data simply alter the thumbnail url above. Change 'h120' to 'h3200'.
Here is a link to the high resolution file with meta data:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6E39j_cy4EE/ULTQ2bUBFOI/AAAAAAABr_k/vrN-Tel3ul8/h3200/143919444.jpg (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6E39j_cy4EE/ULTQ2bUBFOI/AAAAAAABr_k/vrN-Tel3ul8/h3200/143919444.jpg)
-
Ahhhh. Interesting. I'm going to post this in the IS forum, if you don't mind...
-
Ahhhh. Interesting. I'm going to post this in the IS forum, if you don't mind...
I don't mind at all.
-
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive. Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference. She has a lot of meat, so to speak.
Sandralise, is blisfully unaware of this sh*t storm. She only has about 300 images left on istock having tired of them a couple of years ago, I believe. She no longer reads the istock forum either.
I sent her a note with a pointer to Sean's blog and the D-Day post here, so now she knows :)
-
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive. Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference. She has a lot of meat, so to speak.
Sandralise, is blisfully unaware of this sh*t storm. She only has about 300 images left on istock having tired of them a couple of years ago, I believe. She no longer reads the istock forum either.
I sent her a note with a pointer to Sean's blog and the D-Day post here, so now she knows :)
Sandra was two years ahead of us when it comes to action!
-
Sandra was two years ahead of us when it comes to action!
With respect to iStock, but she could still get caught by having images with Blend, Image Source and the other macro agencies which distribute through Getty. I think it's worth her seeing to what extent she's affected outside of iStock as well.
-
From a post at istock, it appears that some additional royalties were paid last month for another round of images slated to go over to Google, but those images have yet to actually appear on Google Drive yet. Meaning there is probably a new batch of images already queued up and ready to go over to Google, and we have no way of knowing which images yet.
-
About 14 new images were added yesterday:
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/76750666_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/76750666_highres.jpg) contributor=Creatas
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/83111088_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/83111088_highres.jpg) contributor=Jupiterimages
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86498386_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86498386_highres.jpg) contributor=Jupiterimages
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86503787_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86503787_highres.jpg) contributor=Jupiterimages
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86505137_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86505137_highres.jpg) contributor=Jupiterimages
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86536400_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/86536400_highres.jpg) contributor=Jupiterimages
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87501875_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87501875_highres.jpg) contributor=Jupiterimages
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87528926_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87528926_highres.jpg) contributor=Hemera Technologies
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87664566_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87664566_highres.jpg) contributor=Jupiterimages
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87716692_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87716692_highres.jpg) contributor=Hemera Technologies
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87785725_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/87785725_highres.jpg) contributor=NA
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/89695990_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/89695990_highres.jpg) contributor=PhotoObjects.net
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/AA038712_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/AA038712_highres.jpg) contributor=Chad Baker
http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/dv484078_highres.jpg (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/120/dv484078_highres.jpg) contributor=NULL
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=11 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=11)
Here's the link. AMAZING!!!
-
No. I don't believe it. Mr.Erin wrote "There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans" so it is not possible. :-\
Well - I'm sorry but I'm afraid that I can't wait till D-Day...
-
Thank you Kenny.
I can't believe what a bunch of duplicitous scum Getty is. They're silent in the forums all week as they're busy adding more content - KNOWING all the fuss.
Is this their idea of sorting things out with Google???
-
wow... clicking on these links hoping not to win this lottery again... well that tells you how they are "listening".
<edit> hmm maybe we shouldn't wait till Feb 2 after all...
-
.
-
I wonder why they haven't come clean and told us what other deals they have made with Google? Is it so bad that it's better not to say anything? If people are getting $6 now, have they already given Google a 50% discount? Every time I think it can't get any worse, they prove me wrong.
-
liliboas just added a comment on the shutterstock blog asking for help if she moves her portfolio. Good for her! I am surprised so many others are so quiet.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography[/url])
This is such a serious issue, I am surprised how many voices are missing. And istock is stalling, no comments at all.
Maybe this is indeed their way of dissolving the exclusive program without announcing it.
:-\
eta
no comments from istock and more files moving to google. I think I really have to start deactivations. It seems nothing their admins say has a real meaning. Or it has a hidden double meaning. But I don't live my life in doublespeak.
This is a great example of a meaty portfolio. If she pulls her content THAT would be like throwing a pie into the pieman's face.
-
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549)
I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.
Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!
We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.
Point.
Legal action:
Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.
Second step: Lawsuit.
It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....
-
I bet that a lot of copyright lawyers are lining up to go after this deal as infringement. Hopefully, an injunction to stop further sales to Google, is around the corner.
-
I bet that a lot of copyright lawyers are lining up to go after this deal as infringement. Hopefully, an injunction to stop further sales to Google, is around the corner.
Boy, I hope you are right.
-
liliboas just added a comment on the shutterstock blog asking for help if she moves her portfolio. Good for her! I am surprised so many others are so quiet.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography[/url])
This is such a serious issue, I am surprised how many voices are missing. And istock is stalling, no comments at all.
Maybe this is indeed their way of dissolving the exclusive program without announcing it.
:-\
eta
no comments from istock and more files moving to google. I think I really have to start deactivations. It seems nothing their admins say has a real meaning. Or it has a hidden double meaning. But I don't live my life in doublespeak.
This is a great example of a meaty portfolio. If she pulls her content THAT would be like throwing a pie into the pieman's face.
I knew liliboas when she had more uploads than downloads at over 1500 uploads. She blew up with 60K xmas downloads at the peak a couple of years back. Last xmas her great new images did not sell. It is a no brainer Istock is dead.
They wanted it this way, getty that is.
-
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549[/url])
I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.
Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!
We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.
Point.
Legal action:
Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.
Second step: Lawsuit.
It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....
I'm glad someone here was able to capture that because the deleted it within about 30 minutes. I'd noticed it and had to step away from my computer; when I came back it was gone.
-
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549[/url])
I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.
Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!
We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.
Point.
Legal action:
Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.
Second step: Lawsuit.
It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....
Good capture, Stan.
-
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549[/url])
I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.
Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!
We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.
Point.
Legal action:
Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.
Second step: Lawsuit.
It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....
I'm glad someone here was able to capture that because the deleted it within about 30 minutes. I'd noticed it and had to step away from my computer; when I came back it was gone.
I just reposted the following on IS forum:
A friend of mine is a lawyer and said the following:
"
Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!
We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.
Therefore......
"
Getty if you delete the above mentioned without giving us an explanation, this will represent a further admission of guilt...
-
Just in case my response to a poster on IS gets deleted I am re-posting it here
"Posted By NicolasMcComber:
Google is not reselling our images... They're just making them available (distributing them) for free to their millions of users for commercial use as long as they use their software to build their documents. That's what's different. Previously, third parties didn't have the right to duplicate and distribute the images on the web by simply buying a custom license for each image... let alone for commercial purposes, which really threatens the market."
In this context, although they are being distributed for free, those images are adding perpetual value to google just like if they were selling them. A Google user don't need to spend money on their stuff (such as google translate, maps, calendar ect. ) to be worthy, as advertisers will pay them so much per so many users. Therefore, just the fact that google users are coming back, because of these images, is sufficient payment for such a powerhouse as Google. Only mammoth internet companies such as google, facebook, microsoft ect.. can be huge enough with so many millions users, to afford such a scheme and still make money.
As well if these images are to be used for commercial purposes, can the Google drive document be printed-out on nice photo papers and resold?
-
We didn't hear a word from them since monday but they delete posts with word "lawsuit".
It seems that they are not that sure about themselves anymore. Good.
-
it´s a company board. you cannot allow people to discuss on the companies own board what is the best way to sue them. you really can´t blame them for deleting any of that. disuccions about lawsuits against google and getty should be hold outside, here on msg, private boards or social media groups.
-
Agreed, there's no way they will be leaving anything like that up. People need to be told there are places like MSG out there where you can speak in an uncensored way. A lot of exclusives don't even know the forum is here.
-
Except it turns out it was the guy who posted it who deleted, in order to give a more considered comment later.
Quote:
did write: Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!
We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.
..and i am a lawyer. I deleted the post because i wanted to be more accurate. They can not grant right to buyer to resell and most important to REDISTRIBUTE or make available for further usage (for free) other than the byer, simply because it is not stated in the agreement that we signed.
The final byers in this deal are not aquainted with the permitted usage conditions.
Also, models who signed and read thew model releases never agreed to the fact that the usage is at will (porn??)
Many many legal issues here...
In Serbia we would do it firstly, by lawsuit demanding a court to pronounce that the action by wrongdoer is illegitimate. Because contract is law....for the parties that signed it,that is. (It is not important the fact that we "agreed" to the conditions, because it is normal for big companies to present a contract finished to the less powerful party. This in no way means that the parties are not equal!!! We are.
Second step would be to calculate what the damage was...and demand reimbursment. But the damage is less important in this case, right? We want this nonsense to end.
PS..has anyone opened FB page as a backup way to communicate...smile..
?
Sorry for my englishsmile
(Edited on 2013-01-19 21:25:13 by Marko_Marcello)
/quote
-
Agreed, there's no way they will be leaving anything like that up. People need to be told there are places like MSG out there where you can speak in an uncensored way. A lot of exclusives don't even know the forum is here.
Well, it was advertised often enough through all controversial issues in the past, actually even pointed to by admins and moderators. They (we) always knew there is no way to control the internet. But still there is a limit what can be tolerated inside a company. I don't think they will happily let you stand in the hall of your local bank shouting loud how they keep cheating you or how the other bank across the street is much more customer friendly. In real life most people would know that wouldn't be a smart move to do. ;)
-
His post's been deleted now and so has mine pointing him to this thread.
-
That's odd. I can still see both of them
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824863 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824863)
Istock's operated a surprisingly solid hands-off policy in moderating that thread. I've sometimes wondered if the iS crew actually want Getty to see what people are saying, maybe try to use it as leverage in negotiations.
-
or maybe they want google to see it if they are talking to them.
-
That's odd. I can still see both of them.
So can I now, I must have been going blind.
-
This looks as though it might be vaguely significant in some way:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6825025 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6825025)
-
Yes. I posited twice here that it might be some sort of live test for PicScout and there were no takers for that idea.
However, if that IS the case then why didn't they just come back straight away and say so? I can think of no fathomable reason why they wouldn't.
-
Yes. I posited twice here that it might be some sort of live test for PicScout and there were no takers for that idea.
However, if that IS the case then why didn't they just come back straight away and say so? I can think of no fathomable reason why they wouldn't.
You probably gave em that idea now. I can see someone from IS slapping their forehead now. Tomorrow HQ will post something like that. ;)
-
LOL
As I say - if that were true they would surely have said so immediately. I doubt many would believe it if they said it after such a long silence.
...and anyway it still wouldn't address the concerns that we had no forewarning, no option to opt out and the risk this deal poses in turning protected and saleable works into orphan works.
-
I can't see how Picscout would have anything to do with this.
-
I'm not gonna argue with you. You're the President. ;D
-
I can't see how Picscout would have anything to do with this.
An experiment to track use?
-
It is importand to stop uploading at all. If you need - do work, shoot, postprocess and keyword. Bu just don't upload. There is no reason to deactivate until everyone also stops uploading.
I very much hope they will cancel this horrid deal and never repeat this grave mistake.
-
Could someone repost the link to that gallery that lists all the images currently in the Google Drive collection? I lost it and have been searching the forums for it but it's difficult to find anything in all these monster threads. Thx.
Has the list been updated to include the images sent over there in the past week? According to one tally I read, the number of images is pushing 8000 now. I did check the initial batch and none of my pix were there, but I'd like to see if some have turned up since then.
-
http://kga.me/gds (http://kga.me/gds)
-
So it's up to 8,696 images now. :o
-
This looks as though it might be vaguely significant in some way:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6825025[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6825025[/url])
Yes indeed. Very interesting. "Curiouser and curiouser", to quote Alice in Wonderland...
-
So it's up to 8,696 images now. :o
Worse than I thought. >:(
Thanks for the link. I didn't see any way to tally up the total number of images included in the list. Does anyone know if this is up to date?
-
So it's up to 8,696 images now. :o
Jeez. Really bad. I don't see a positive way they can spin this. Sure puts a lid on the notion that it was some sort of mistake.
>:(
-
So it's up to 8,696 images now. :o
Jeez. Really bad. I don't see a positive way they can spin this. Sure puts a lid on the notion that it was some sort of mistake.
>:(
And shows which of mr_erin's two contradictory statements:
"There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans"
and
"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume."
was a total lie, and which was just a partial lie.
-
So it's up to 8,696 images now. :o
Worse than I thought. >:(
Thanks for the link. I didn't see any way to tally up the total number of images included in the list. Does anyone know if this is up to date?
1-100 of 8696 images (100 per page. Page 1) --this text located just under the search box. Kenny said that 14 new ones were added on 1/18 but I don't know when the others "hit the page"
-
I can't see how Picscout would have anything to do with this.
An experiment to track use?
So is there any way to tell if an image has been indexed into the ImageIRC platform (http://blog.picscout.com/2012/10/18/imageirc-reaches-the-100-million-image-mark/#.UPwyBqF2G-M)? The reason PicScout might have something to do with this deal is if Getty planned to do post-usage billing (http://blog.picscout.com/2012/09/10/announcing-the-imageirc-post-usage-billing-service-2/#.UPwwk6F2G-M) on these images for anything outside of Google Drive. If Getty planned to keep all that revenue versus share it with the copyright owner, even small additional amounts could add up.
I really don't understand where PicScout and ImageTracker are going - if you look at the case studies (http://www.picscout.com/customers/case-studies.html), it doesn't appear they've done much do date - but when this description of what it is compares it to YouTube's content ID tracking system, it says to me that Getty wants to get its technology as the platform for this type of usage tracking and payment.
"With the ImageIRC Post-Usage Billing Service, photographers and content licensors can now be assured that their work is properly acknowledged on platforms which will embrace the ImageIRC Post Usage Billing solution.
In the online video world, a similar service is YouTube’s Content ID. Launched in 2007, Content ID allows licensors of video and audio media shared by YouTube users to take action on their content as it is uploaded. Similar to the ImageIRC model, licensors upload the audio and video “reference” files they would like monitored on YouTube into Content ID. Then, the uploaded reference files are fingerprinted and stored in the Content ID system. When YouTube users uploaded audio or video content that exists in the Content ID system, the licensor has the ability to track, block or monetize the content. Like professional imagery, professional audio and video content drives significant engagement on YouTube. Since the launch of Content ID, licensors and YouTube users can benefit equally from value created by professional content."
It seems to me that your big hurdle if you have a service like this is getting the major online players to use your platform. It seems to me that getting Google to use Getty technology for image IDs - the image equivalent of Content ID for video - might be the thing Getty is really after in this Google Drive deal.
Our images are just the sideshow (from Getty's point of view) if this is what's actually going on.
If I were Google I wouldn't want to be beholden to an outside company for something that central. But Getty might think they can do a deal.
I also don't understand why, if it's free to register images with Image Exchange (http://www.picscout.com/products-services/imageexchange-pricing.html), more people aren't using it - is it because no one trusts Getty and figures that it'll soon cost money? Or 'cause they're lousy at getting the word out?
-
I can't see how Picscout would have anything to do with this.
An experiment to track use?
Perhaps, but then their experiment is still at all the contributors whose images they are giving away's expense.
-
I can't see how Picscout would have anything to do with this.
An experiment to track use?
Perhaps, but then their experiment is still at all the contributors whose images they are giving away's expense.
Indeed - no matter what, it would have been far better if they had used their wholly-owned content for this funny business. It's especially suspicious that they apparently included none of it.
-
Is image exchange owned by Getty? I am interested after seeing what they do, and its free, but I dont want to end up in the claws of Getty at some point
-
So it's up to 8,696 images now. :o
Worse than I thought. >:(
Thanks for the link. I didn't see any way to tally up the total number of images included in the list. Does anyone know if this is up to date?
1-100 of 8696 images (100 per page. Page 1) --this text located just under the search box. Kenny said that 14 new ones were added on 1/18 but I don't know when the others "hit the page"
Thanks, I didn't catch that. So, for now, I still haven't been caught in this net. I feel I like I ought to escape while I can.
-
Is image exchange owned by Getty? I am interested after seeing what they do, and its free, but I dont want to end up in the claws of Getty at some point
Yes. Getty purchased PicScout. I'm not doing anything with it, but wondered why, as a Getty company, it wasn't being pitched to photographers at Getty agencies.
-
How does on see what NEW images have been added to Google Drive? I am having some funky sales on PP and fear the worst.
-
Is image exchange owned by Getty? I am interested after seeing what they do, and its free, but I dont want to end up in the claws of Getty at some point
Yes. Getty purchased PicScout. I'm not doing anything with it, but wondered why, as a Getty company, it wasn't being pitched to photographers at Getty agencies.
THanks, sounds like a great service, but I dont want to get involved with getty in any way
-
Their website says they also work with photo shelter. probably they will work with other agencies in the future. If they really want it to become an industry standard it cannot be limited to getty.
-
Now I'm paranoid. I was walking by a table of USB drives and it said "100 free photos". Momentary panic - until I read the package and it was actually 100 free prints. Worried for a minute there that this might have been another bright initiative!
-
Their website says they also work with photo shelter. probably they will work with other agencies in the future. If they really want it to become an industry standard it cannot be limited to getty.
You will find similar information on Photoshelter's web site, but when I asked them about it last week (we use Photoshelter) they replied that the relationship is on hold since the time Getty bought PicScout. The original arrangement was that PicScout would fingerprint all priced images in publicly viewable galleries; unpriced images, and those in private galleries were not fingerprinted. No explanation for the absence of any statement to this effect on the Photoshelter web site...
Since I'm in a betting mood (very rare): I think Getty may be trying to position themselves to get a penny (or two or three) every time an image is licensed, from every agency. Imagine JK's smile...
This is likely off-topic for this forum, but I re-discovered a very interesting publicly accessible article dating back to September 2010. Titled "Why Full-Time Stock Photographers Are an Endangered Species", it's at http://rising.blackstar.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-shooting-stock.html. (http://rising.blackstar.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-shooting-stock.html.) Uncomfortable, but probably essential reading for all of us.
Regards
-
This is likely off-topic for this forum, but I re-discovered a very interesting publicly accessible article dating back to September 2010. Titled "Why Full-Time Stock Photographers Are an Endangered Species", it's at [url]http://rising.blackstar.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-shooting-stock.html.[/url] ([url]http://rising.blackstar.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-shooting-stock.html.[/url]) Uncomfortable, but probably essential reading for all of us.
Regards
The link didn't work for me.
-
So it's up to 8,696 images now. :o
Worse than I thought. >:(
Thanks for the link. I didn't see any way to tally up the total number of images included in the list. Does anyone know if this is up to date?
It's over 11,000 now :(
-
The latest export from Google Drive to kga.me/gds resulted in 3,085 new images. Current total is now 11,781! Here's a text list of the images that were added http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt (http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt)
-
Holy Sh*t - they're busy!. Lots of Hemera, Jupiter Images. Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this :)
-
I have this banner posted on IS.
(http://sassets.photodeck.com/0e3a3e10-1391-11e1-93c9-a340c9d61f95/assets/309fd852-62cd-11e2-9b33-9fa3c1f9bdeb.jpg)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6825247 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6825247)
update: got deleted sometime this morning
-
Holy Sh*t - they're busy!. Lots of Hemera, Jupiter Images. Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this :)
1 image by "Blend Images/Marc Romanelli" was added today:
http://kga.me/gds/4729/blend-images-marc-romanelli (http://kga.me/gds/4729/blend-images-marc-romanelli)
image number=151333861
title=Librarian helping student in library
-
Holy Sh*t - they're busy!. Lots of Hemera, Jupiter Images. Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this :)
1 image by "Blend Images/Marc Romanelli" was added today:
[url]http://kga.me/gds/4729/blend-images-marc-romanelli[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds/4729/blend-images-marc-romanelli[/url])
image number=151333861
title=Librarian helping student in library
:)
-
Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this :)
What snotty response? Is it posted somewhere? It's utterly amazing to think any stock agency (besides GI) would see this as a good thing.
-
Unbelievable. Getty obviously doesn't believe there is going to be an issue with continuing.
-
Wow, someone's putting a lot of time into the http://kga.me/gds (http://kga.me/gds) site. Who's maintaining this? Does anyone know how often it checks for updates?
-
Sounds to me like Getty/Google is trying to get as many on there as they can, as quickly as they can. That's moving pretty fast. What next?
-
Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this :)
What snotty response? Is it posted somewhere? It's utterly amazing to think any stock agency (besides GI) would see this as a good thing.
I'll ask if it's OK and then I'll post here if it is - it wasn't an open forum.
-
Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this :)
What snotty response? Is it posted somewhere? It's utterly amazing to think any stock agency (besides GI) would see this as a good thing.
I'll ask if it's OK and then I'll post here if it is - it wasn't an open forum.
I'd like to know more about that response to Sean as well.
By the way, Blend Images currently has 35+ high resolution images available through Google Drive:
kga.me/gds/contributor-search/blend
-
Wow, someone's putting a lot of time into the [url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url]) site. Who's maintaining this? Does anyone know how often it checks for updates?
I think it's a search engine that just lists what's there. I suppose it is some sort of search by date that lists the new files.
-
Images that I deactivated eight hours ago already disappeared from ThinkStock. So this works surprisingly quickly.
Unfortunately not that quickly as adding of images to Google Drive :-(
-
After reading everything out there on this and talking to old friends that were exclusive for years. I think it's a non Issue.Like I've said for years. 10,000 submitters could leave tomorrow.and ya know what? 10,000 new ones will replace them and Us in 3/6 months with the same Images give or take. The sites know this guys. Wondering why some of you don't.Thats why they call this crowd sourcing.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90)
-
Okay, I am not sure if this has been explicitly stated said yet because all these threads are getting a bit hard to keep up with!
After watching this video, finding out the Google images are stamped, given the purchase of Picscout and so on I would stake money on this being the situation.
Getty want to test out their new business model, discussed in the video, of getting their images out to the maximum number of people then perusing payment via image tracking. Hence picking images that are specifically wanted by the maximum number of Google users.
They are gambling that they will be able to get the main payment from users posting stuff to Facebook and the like.
Rather than doing the decent thing and using their solely owned content to test the viability of their new model, they have acted a if they are the copyright owners of our content and gone against what could be reasonably assumed in their terms.
It all seems to add up, and suddenly makes a lot more sense in this context.
Craig Peters Speaks at Luminance 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn_tMAiG0es#ws)
ETA or even worse case scenario, they aren't hoping for more money from these images, but think it is worth the sacrifice just to test the tracking technology
-
After reading everything out there on this and talking to old friends that were exclusive for years. I think it's a non Issue.Like I've said for years. 10,000 submitters could leave tomorrow.and ya know what? 10,000 new ones will replace them and Us in 3/6 months with the same Images give or take. The sites know this guys. Wondering why some of you don't.Thats why they call this crowd sourcing.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90[/url])
I don't like that way of looking at it. Instead of the greedy stock sites replacing us, I think we should replace them. Hopefully even if it does only take 3/6 months to replace our images, the buyers will of already checked out other sites and found out that some of them have a better for all of us.
-
Okay, I am not sure if this has been explicitly stated said yet because all these threads are getting a bit hard to keep up with!
After watching this video, finding out the Google images are stamped, given the purchase of Picscout and so on I would stake money on this being the situation.
Getty want to test out their new business model, discussed in the video, of getting their images out to the maximum number of people then perusing payment via image tracking. Hence picking images that are specifically wanted by the maximum number of Google users.
They are gambling that they will be able to get the main payment from users posting stuff to Facebook and the like.
Rather than doing the decent thing and using their solely owned content to test the viability of their new model, they have acted a if they are the copyright owners of our content and gone against what could be reasonably assumed in their terms.
It all seems to add up, and suddenly makes a lot more sense in this context.
Craig Peters Speaks at Luminance 2012 ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn_tMAiG0es#ws[/url])
ETA or even worse case scenario, they aren't hoping for more money from these images, but think it is worth the sacrifice just to test the tracking technology
I just don't understand why they wouldn't do this with the images they own? If they did have to use contributors images, why wouldn't they ask them first? And why wouldn't they tell us about it last week, as it might stop some people removing their images. It's already being talked about, so it's not a secret. So I think this is unlikely.
-
I just don't understand why they wouldn't do this with the images they own? If they did have to use contributors images, why wouldn't they ask them first? And why wouldn't they tell us about it last week, as it might stop some people removing their images. It's already being talked about, so it's not a secret. So I think this is unlikely.
IMHO Doing it with images they own would be right thing. My guess would be that they didn't simply because they didn't give a sh*t, and didn't give taking our images for this experiment a second thought.
They can't clarify now because they know people are getting lawyered up and also because it was pretty awful thing to do, so owing up will make things worse, not better.
-
After reading everything out there on this and talking to old friends that were exclusive for years. I think it's a non Issue.Like I've said for years. 10,000 submitters could leave tomorrow.and ya know what? 10,000 new ones will replace them and Us in 3/6 months with the same Images give or take. The sites know this guys. Wondering why some of you don't.Thats why they call this crowd sourcing.
I don't like this argument. Number of iStock contributors is not limited - so all good Microstock artist who wanted to jump in bed with iStock - they already are or were their contributors. Number of good photographers on this planet who are interested in microstock business is not unlimited. I'm sure that there are thousands of "artists" who would like to replace leaving contributors but millions of images from children running around with iPhones or hobbyists with D3200 and tungsten lamp (no offense) cannot replace images from contributors like Sean or Lisa. They can keep or increase number of images but not their quality. The only possibility how to replace this quality is to convince good photographers that didn't want to become iS contributors but this is probably impossible these days.
-
The microstockgroup has been around 30-32k members for quite a while. I don´t see it growing by 10 000 people a year.
The number of people doing stock full time is extremely limited.
istock has already lost several very good artists who had a unique trademark style - like simonox.
sure, they can get loads of people shooting ducks in the park with their iphone - but real, planned stock with models, lighting, locations, processing...no amateur will do that.
-
After reading everything out there on this and talking to old friends that were exclusive for years. I think it's a non Issue.Like I've said for years. 10,000 submitters could leave tomorrow.and ya know what? 10,000 new ones will replace them and Us in 3/6 months with the same Images give or take. The sites know this guys. Wondering why some of you don't.Thats why they call this crowd sourcing.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90[/url])
I agree with what others have said here. The decline in traffic to IStock over last couple of years shows how dependent on user support crowd sourced sites are.
-
T
-
Okay, I am not sure if this has been explicitly stated said yet because all these threads are getting a bit hard to keep up with!
After watching this video, finding out the Google images are stamped, given the purchase of Picscout and so on I would stake money on this being the situation.
Getty want to test out their new business model, discussed in the video, of getting their images out to the maximum number of people then perusing payment via image tracking. Hence picking images that are specifically wanted by the maximum number of Google users.
They are gambling that they will be able to get the main payment from users posting stuff to Facebook and the like.
Rather than doing the decent thing and using their solely owned content to test the viability of their new model, they have acted a if they are the copyright owners of our content and gone against what could be reasonably assumed in their terms.
It all seems to add up, and suddenly makes a lot more sense in this context.
ETA or even worse case scenario, they aren't hoping for more money from these images, but think it is worth the sacrifice just to test the tracking technology
Thanks Microbius. Your thinking is very much in line with my own on this, but I haven't been able to sit down and put it together cohesively due to other issues I'm dealing with.
As you say, if this is correct it would make more sense to have used their wholly owned content. For me the big puzzle remains over the line that seems to have been crossed on the copyright issue, and why on earth they wouldn't use this as an opportunity to link back to their own sites to generate more sales. From their own perspective I'd have thought that would be a huge and missed opportunity.
I suppose I'll just have to remain confused until they come back and say something concrete.
-
Maybe google wasn't willing to have the link back.
-
Could be, Getty could be trying to sell the idea of the new way to monetize the content to Google, and they are checking out the feasibility between them. Link backs could pollute the stats for income from these specific images?
Or Getty is trying to hide from the end user that these are the same images they could be paying a lot of money for, thus devaluing their collection? Keeping the markets separate?
-
The latest export from Google Drive to kga.me/gds resulted in 3,085 new images. Current total is now 11,781! Here's a text list of the images that were added [url]http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt[/url])
Wow, they are now putting up to 3k x 3k up there!
-
Wow, they are now putting up to 3k x 3k up there!
OMG!! Just when you think it cannot get any worse... :'(
-
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 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html)
-
The latest export from Google Drive to kga.me/gds resulted in 3,085 new images. Current total is now 11,781! Here's a text list of the images that were added [url]http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt[/url])
Wow, they are now putting up to 3k x 3k up there!
It looks like at least some of the new images are Getty's wholly-owned content. Banana Stock was bought by Jupiter, for example, who in turn were bought by Getty.
-
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:
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url])
Since this deal was done last summer under H&F, I think they were the ones looking for the quick cash before they dumped it on Carlyle.
-
Could be, Getty could be trying to sell the idea of the new way to monetize the content to Google, and they are checking out the feasibility between them. Link backs could pollute the stats for income from these specific images?
Or Getty is trying to hide from the end user that these are the same images they could be paying a lot of money for, thus devaluing their collection? Keeping the markets separate?
Good points from both you and BT. It all sounds feasible to me. Thanks for these.
-
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:
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url])
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 (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.
-
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:
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url])
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.
[url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815[/url] ([url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815[/url])
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.
-
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.
Don't know about Getty, but at iStock:
"Where iStockphoto becomes aware of the breach of a license agreement by a user of Exclusive Content, it agrees that it will take initial steps in accordance with its usual business practices for the exclusivity program to request that the offending party refrain from its prohibited use of such Exclusive Content. iStockphoto will use commercial efforts to further assist in the protection of your intellectual property rights, at your request and expense."
(Which IME means they send an email and that has fulfilled their 'usual business practices')
and also
"The Supplier agrees that iStockphoto shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an "Infringer") for any violation of a license agreement or alleged infringement of other rights of the Supplier. The Supplier hereby releases iStockphoto from any and all claims the Supplier might have, either directly or indirectly, arising out of or in connection with a determination by iStockphoto to proceed or not to proceed against any Infringer in any instance. iStockphoto hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal or enforcement action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate iStockphoto for lost licensing fees or statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery ( including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by or on behalf of iStockphoto in connection with such action, be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. In the event iStockphoto elects not to proceed against an Infringer, the Supplier shall have the right to proceed against such Infringer for such license violation or infringing action. The Supplier hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate the Supplier for lost licensing fees or include statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis), be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above."
-
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/ (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.
-
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;
[url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url])
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.
-
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.
Truem, but the fact that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' images, is utterly bizarre.
-
.....
The link didn't work for me.
Ok, obviously I'm not good at linking - sorry. You can google the article title - that's how I verified it was still there yesterday.
And My Error is: the trailing . Fresh URL, no dot: http://rising.blackstar.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-shooting-stock.html (http://rising.blackstar.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-shooting-stock.html)
Regards
Lionel
-
Interesting read : http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/01/09/kiosked-offers-automatic-solution-to-monetize-images (http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/01/09/kiosked-offers-automatic-solution-to-monetize-images)
-
well spotted!
there is definetly a race to establish an "industry standard" when it comes to this. It is another form of digital wallet payment systems.
but the question is - who will pay?
making images traceable is one thing, convincing websites to install the technology so they can pay for the images used, is something else.
-
I see lots of Hemera images among the new uploads. Anyone with images still in StockXpert finding their images included?
FWIW, it looks like the additional images added over the last few days are largely from wholly owned collections, not from Istock contributors. Am I reading that correctly?
Possibly they are hesitant to upload anymore content from Istock contributors because of the threats of legal action?
-
Okay, I am not sure if this has been explicitly stated said yet because all these threads are getting a bit hard to keep up with!
After watching this video, finding out the Google images are stamped, given the purchase of Picscout and so on I would stake money on this being the situation.
Getty want to test out their new business model, discussed in the video, of getting their images out to the maximum number of people then perusing payment via image tracking. Hence picking images that are specifically wanted by the maximum number of Google users.
They are gambling that they will be able to get the main payment from users posting stuff to Facebook and the like.
Rather than doing the decent thing and using their solely owned content to test the viability of their new model, they have acted a if they are the copyright owners of our content and gone against what could be reasonably assumed in their terms.
It all seems to add up, and suddenly makes a lot more sense in this context.
ETA or even worse case scenario, they aren't hoping for more money from these images, but think it is worth the sacrifice just to test the tracking technology
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
-
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;
[url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url])
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/ (http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/)
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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 (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2046860/getty-images-acquisition-spree-snaps-picscout-photolibrary)
-
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:
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html[/url])
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.
[url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815[/url] ([url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815[/url])
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment)
-
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'.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment[/url])
LOL, funny stuff to ponder on in a shower. ;) Thanks for clarifying.
-
All the good guys left Getty. Just wondering why kelvinjay is still a Forum Moderator on Istockphoto?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
This is somewhat OT - but relates to what Getty's thinking about uses of images online. Getty Creative just tweeted a link t (http://socialmouths.com/blog/2012/12/19/visual-social-media/)o 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
-
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 (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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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 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.
-
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
(http://digitalbristles.com/temp/gull-orig.jpg) (http://digitalbristles.com/temp/gull-type.jpg) (http://digitalbristles.com/temp/gull-flipped.jpg) (http://digitalbristles.com/temp/gull-cropped.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/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 (http://www.graphicleftovers.com/), www.shutterstock.com (http://www.shutterstock.com/), www.123rf.com (http://www.123rf.com/) and www.fotolia.com (http://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?
-
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.
-
I think at this point (as long as I'm understanding all this correctly) my question would be this:
If PicScout makes it 'OK' to strip metadata, and therefore deals are made that allow the metadata to be stripped... in the full confidence that PicScout can make connections with the fingerprint in the image and reveal the copyright holder etc...
...then what happens if this encourages further proliferation of metadata-free images across the Web, and one day, some clever but misguided techie out there discovers a hack of some sort that somehow renders the fingerprint undetectable?
Isn't it preferable to just leave the metadata intact regardless of whether PicScout exists or not?
-
They could make it virtually impossible to hack, some kind of database failure could be a problem though. So yes, it is preferable to leave the metadata intact.
-
Thanks Sharpshot.
-
I agree, but that does not mean that a (facebook) warning against illegal use of (Google Drive) images is not useful ? Any argument against posting on facebook? It even contains a hint in the direction of non-istock agencies.
-
Interesting - I have just seen the attached ad on Facebook on D-Day, promoting "The World of Pictures", a small new agency focused on social media & mobile images. ;)
-
Stripping the metadata is not OK, period.
Even if this wonderful fingerprint is 100% perfect and flawless, by stripping the copyright data they are enticing people to think that there is no copyright on them and therefore they are free, which will only encourage copyright theft and redistribution.
What's more, your personal connection with your work is severed. The only contact point for any image becomes Getty, because no photographers have a name any longer. There'll never even be the possibility of a credit saying: "Image: Baldrick/iStock" because the photographer's identity will be concealed, depriving you of your reputation.
Only yesterday I had someone on FAA trying to tell me that you can't object to a blogger taking your work if they find it in a google search, because you can't say to them "well, the other 4,999 pictures in that search were free but mine happens not to be". It's not fair to people who are "picking up stuff people have left lying around". If nothing even has copyright restrictions put in it any longer, because people selling it take the information away, even more people will think like that.
-
Thank you BT, that's great stuff.
I'm just looking for the argument that makes them sit up and take notice because their own profits could take a hit via this method. They would surely care about that enough to actually hear it.
-
Let me post again that "fingerprinting" is a _reactive_ system, not a _proactive_ system. They are not adding anything to the image to make it any more trackable than any other system. Their algorithm for matching images may be different or better, but it is not some secret code inserted in the jpeg.
From https://support.photoshelter.com/entries/21604911-picscout:
"In order for PicScout to fingerprint your images, PhotoShelter securely sends a low-resolution copy of the image to them. Then PicScout fingerprints your images using an advanced image recognition algorithm that identifies unique patterns within the image. Unlike a watermark, this image fingerprint is derived from the image and therefore cannot be erased, modified, or edited. The current ImageExchange technology allows PicScout to identify images in a near-exact match as they appear on the Internet.
Each image fingerprint is associated with its unique metadata, which we send along with the image. At present, this metadata includes image owner, license type, and image URL. The image is not altered by PicScout in any way."
"Fingerprinting" just makes it sound supercool and mysterious.
As mentioned above, as well, the world does not revolve around online usage. Giving away our work in order to try and snatch a few crumbs would be unacceptable, and illegal, IMO, and makes no sense.
-
Yes, sorry Sean - 'fingerprint' does automatically make me think of some invisible, embedded piece of code that an external piece of code can read. I have to shake that notion out of my head. Starting the mantra "It's just an intelligent recognition algorithm.... It's just an intelligent recognition algorithm..."
But would you agree that Sharpshot's point about a database failure remains a valid risk?
There must be an identifiable and unforeseen risk to Getty's profits in here somewhere. Perhaps I'm on a road to nowhere here, but I thought if we could identify such a thing and point it out we might be able to persuade them to leave the metadata intact. Arguments about our own losses seem to be falling on deaf ears at the moment.
-
More:
"Proprietary ImageTracker methodology identifies image content based on digital fingerprints derived from algorithmic-based characteristics of the content. The highly accurate approach is independent of metadata, watermarks or file hashes and not affected by alterations that may have occurred in applications of an image. "
http://www.picscout.com/products-services/imageexchange-pricing.html (http://www.picscout.com/products-services/imageexchange-pricing.html)
"The images you have uploaded into the ImageIRC are identified by ImageExchange as they appear online and are then displayed in the ImageExchange side panel. This area contains a thumbnail of the image and creator information. When users click on an image in the side panel, the ImageExchange licensing window opens. The licensing window provides a direct link to the image asset page on your site where users can quickly and easily license your image. ImageExchange can deliver highly-qualified leads directly to your site for fast and easy licensing."
Nothing about uploading and then re-downloading, then distributing.
-
Thanks for clarifying that Sean, from the terminology I had also jumped to wrong conclusion about how fingerprinting worked
-
And this works ad exclusive images only? How would it make difference with indie image bought from some other place and one stolen from G sources?
-
Just in case it disappears, this classic satirical post from IvanJekic just went on the iStock forum:
"People, we heard you. Thanks for your patience and helping us improve. As some of you pointed out, there's been a tragic error on our part with royalties of free Google imagery. Some of you quoted 6$ and some even 12$ for exif-less images.
We'd like to apologize, humbly, deeply, and sincerely about the royalties. Thanks for understanding and your support. This won't happen again as we improved the deal with Google. From now on, there won't be any royalties for free images! Zero. We are sorry that this kind of issue happened at all and made you all upset.
As we don't know who / what / where shot that images and who will use it and for what purpose. No model releases, no extended licenses and similar nonsense.
Please know that this is for your own safety. In a tough times you're saving this company a big chunk of resources and feeding the poor. Think for a second, a 12$ for a single image, that's 60.000$ for 5000 images! You can make this world a better place!
We are forever grateful to your kind and humble hearts and deeply moved by your sincere effort and support. We appreciate your understanding. And cannot thank you enough. Thank you! Thanks."
-
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.
Those are some of the issues, and there's no information yet about how they'll be resolved. Need to watch this; it could go both ways.
Regards
-
I think at this point (as long as I'm understanding all this correctly) my question would be this:
If PicScout makes it 'OK' to strip metadata, and therefore deals are made that allow the metadata to be stripped... in the full confidence that PicScout can make connections with the fingerprint in the image and reveal the copyright holder etc...
...then what happens if this encourages further proliferation of metadata-free images across the Web, and one day, some clever but misguided techie out there discovers a hack of some sort that somehow renders the fingerprint undetectable?
Isn't it preferable to just leave the metadata intact regardless of whether PicScout exists or not?
I would absolutely encourage you to put all appropriate metadata into your images, and hope you did not think I was suggesting otherwise. There are other registries "coming soon" too. I also think we need to lobby to get copyright law changed to narrow the circumstances in which copyright holder information can legally be removed or altered. But that's just me...
Regards
-
Let me post again that "fingerprinting" is a _reactive_ system, not a _proactive_ system. They are not adding anything to the image to make it any more trackable than any other system. Their algorithm for matching images may be different or better, but it is not some secret code inserted in the jpeg.
From https://support.photoshelter.com/entries/21604911-picscout:
"In order for PicScout to fingerprint your images, PhotoShelter securely sends a low-resolution copy of the image to them. Then PicScout fingerprints your images using an advanced image recognition algorithm that identifies unique patterns within the image. Unlike a watermark, this image fingerprint is derived from the image and therefore cannot be erased, modified, or edited. The current ImageExchange technology allows PicScout to identify images in a near-exact match as they appear on the Internet.
Each image fingerprint is associated with its unique metadata, which we send along with the image. At present, this metadata includes image owner, license type, and image URL. The image is not altered by PicScout in any way."
"Fingerprinting" just makes it sound supercool and mysterious.
As mentioned above, as well, the world does not revolve around online usage. Giving away our work in order to try and snatch a few crumbs would be unacceptable, and illegal, IMO, and makes no sense.
I found the same material on PS; because we have a web site there I asked them late last week about the T's and C's under which PicScout fingerprints images. I was told that all fingerprinting was suspended shortly after Getty bought PicScout (there's a certain amount of tension between PS and G).
The reply from PS indicated that PicScout had been fingerprinting images that were both publicly visible AND priced. Images that did not meet both criteria were, apparently, not fingerprinted.
Regards
-
I agree, but that does not mean that a (facebook) warning against illegal use of (Google Drive) images is not useful ? Any argument against posting on facebook? It even contains a hint in the direction of non-istock agencies.
I love your proposed Facebook warning Anyka. Really explains the dangers well and offers reasonable alternatives to image theft. Well done!
-
This was posted in the English main forum. i hope Michael doesn´t mind if I repost it here (also in case it gets deleted)
I am really grateful how Lobo is allowing the threads to continue.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350403&messageid=6825629 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350403&messageid=6825629)
"MichaelUtech
Posted 23 hours ago
Quote
I just loaded the new weekly statistics today (usually I make an update once every week, more often makes no sense since iStock often had problems publishing the stats themselves). Looks like not much has changed. No exclusive exodus yet (2 diamonds and 5 gold members returned their crown so far in January, only one gold member became exclusive), however it takes 30 days until the status change becomes visible so we might see a few more. Downloads still as low as the whole final quarter of last year, absolutely no upswing visible.
A little more interesting - About 140 members deleted 7300 files the last week (week before was 4600, already much more than usual). In addition upload numbers are about 30% lower than between summer and Christmas. These 7300 are more than what gets uploaded on a regular day. Let's see what happens when the Feb 2nd plans of a group of contributors become reality here...
Since I will be in Kenya from the end of this week until end of February this will be the last update for some time Maybe it is good to get some distance to the chaos here and afterwards I can decide for myself if I will keep the crown."
-
We can launch "Google stole ios and now they are stealing artist images" "Do evil just don't get caught" "Dominate by plundering" "We are to big to care" "Google owns all IP so starve"
-
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;
[url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url])
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.
Well it is bizarre, but not that unbelievable. Copyright trolling is a popular business these days, and Getty has been involved in it for a number of years - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images,) "Controversial practices to enforce copyright". The idea is to bully people into paying up, they almost never go to court. I heard it's quite lucrative, since many people prefer to pay them some money rather than going to a lawyer and incur legal expenses.
It's hard to say if Getty is planning to that with Google images, we still know pretty much nothing about the deal. But it's one or part of the possibilities.
-
how do you find out if one of your images in the Google free image bank?
thanks
-
how do you find out if one of your images in the Google free image bank?
thanks
http://kga.me/gds (http://kga.me/gds)
and search on your name
-
how do you find out if one of your images in the Google free image bank?
thanks
[url]http://kga.me/gds[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds[/url])
and search on your name
I don't know if I've missed an answer to this, but I'm still puzzled why the kga.me site can identify the copyright holders but people are still saying that the EXIF data has been stripped when they download the images. Can anyone explain at what stage of the process the copyright info disappears? Is Google doing it, or Getty?
-
I don't know if I've missed an answer to this, but I'm still puzzled why the kga.me site can identify the copyright holders but people are still saying that the EXIF data has been stripped when they download the images. Can anyone explain at what stage of the process the copyright info disappears? Is Google doing it, or Getty?
Getty Images supplies Google with meta data imbedded in the images. Google deletes the meta data when a user imports a thumbnail into their document.
-
I don't know if I've missed an answer to this, but I'm still puzzled why the kga.me site can identify the copyright holders but people are still saying that the EXIF data has been stripped when they download the images. Can anyone explain at what stage of the process the copyright info disappears? Is Google doing it, or Getty?
Getty Images supplies Google with meta data imbedded in the images. Google deletes the meta data when a user imports a thumbnail into their document.
Okay, thanks. Be interesting to see how that plays out if anyone goes for legal action.
-
New page added that lists the amount of money distributed to the agency and the artist/agency commissions.
http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images (http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images)
-
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;
[url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/[/url])
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.
Well it is bizarre, but not that unbelievable. Copyright trolling is a popular business these days, and Getty has been involved in it for a number of years - see [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images,[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images,[/url]) "Controversial practices to enforce copyright". The idea is to bully people into paying up, they almost never go to court. I heard it's quite lucrative, since many people prefer to pay them some money rather than going to a lawyer and incur legal expenses.
It's hard to say if Getty is planning to that with Google images, we still know pretty much nothing about the deal. But it's one or part of the possibilities.
Interesting, I just found an old 2006 thread about similar practices from Getty.....someone complaining of receiving a letter from Getty demanding $1000.
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me (http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me)
-
Interesting, I just found an old 2006 thread about similar practices from Getty.....someone complaining of receiving a letter from Getty demanding $1000.
[url]http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me[/url] ([url]http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me[/url])
The letters were still being mailed well into 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter (http://www.scribd.com/doc/83405769/Attorney-Timothy-B-McCormack-Settlement-Demand-Letter#)
eta: Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter (Short Version) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/95708364/Attorney-Timothy-B-McCormack-Settlement-Demand-Letter-Short-Version#)
-
New page added that lists the amount of money distributed to the agency and the artist/agency commissions.
[url]http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images[/url])
Where are the totals coming from? Did Getty or Google reveal the actual amount exchanged in the deal? I see where the price of the images are coming from (cost of licensing the file at the given resolution), but where did the other data come from? Also, would none of these images need a special extended license for the type of redistribution that Google is allowing? If so, what would the cost of that license be for these images?
The page is currently a bit sparse on sources, but it is still very, very interesting.
-
There are no extended licenses at Getty. Published, anyways. This is just a list of the cost of the regular RF images.
-
There are no extended licenses at Getty. Published, anyways. This is just a list of the cost of the regular RF images.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that.
-
MATTDIXON posted this in another thread but I didn't see any response to it.
mattdixon
Intersting quote from the UK Government spokesperson.
It is illegal under UK law to “knowingly or without authority” strip metadata from “a copy of a copyright work”, and this will continue to be the case when the Orphan Works scheme comes into force.
What is Google's liability when they strip metadata from images used in the UK?
ETA the link:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/getty-joins-opposition-to-copyright-changes/msg292949/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/getty-joins-opposition-to-copyright-changes/msg292949/?topicseen#new)
-
just a note... when quoting people from other places, please link to the original content.
-
The letters were still being mailed well into 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter ([url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/83405769/Attorney-Timothy-B-McCormack-Settlement-Demand-Letter#[/url])...
Yep. I know someone personally who got one of those settlement letters a few months ago. And they were asking for a lot more than $1,000. About 10x that if I recall correctly.
Just another one of the disgusting business practices Getty employs.
-
They are over 12,000 images now: http://kga.me/gds/ (http://kga.me/gds/)
-
The letters were still being mailed well into 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter ([url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/83405769/Attorney-Timothy-B-McCormack-Settlement-Demand-Letter#[/url])...
Yep. I know someone personally who got one of those settlement letters a few months ago. And they were asking for a lot more than $1,000. About 10x that if I recall correctly.
Just another one of the disgusting business practices Getty employs.
While conversely, when defending themselves, they claimed the DMCA gave them protection from infringement claims if they act in a timely manner to take down allegedly infringing material quickly.
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/AFP-Washington-Post-7312.shtml (http://www.pdnonline.com/news/AFP-Washington-Post-7312.shtml)
-
From oldladybird on IS forum:
Discussions are ongoing with Google. Once we have an update we can provide that both parties have agreed on, we will post here.
The lack of update is not an indication that the subject is closed.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827083 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827083)
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7)
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
-
This is so fu*king ironic! Exclusives always blaming SS for starting the sub model, making it popular and at the same time laughing at non-exclusives for selling images for 25c, other people complaining about small agencies leading the race to the bottom. But at the end, Getty, with prices 100x higher than those in micro, is giving away images for free, not only bringing prices to an absurdly low level, but destroying the micro industry altogether.
Is it a plan to destroy micro, so there will only be macro? But who'd buy images at macro prices, if they even aren't prepared to pay micro prices...Are the people in charge under such an enormous pressure from stock owners that they're really doing everything they can for short term gains?
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url])
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here (http://asmp.org/articles/getty-images-background.html#.UQAT9Up2Fkg) and here. (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/)
Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.
-
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
Ciao, then. :-*
-
And this post says that WIX (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827163)is making Google Drive available to their users - so the sub-sub licensor is now sub-licensing??
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here ([url]http://asmp.org/articles/getty-images-background.html#.UQAT9Up2Fkg[/url]) and here. ([url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/[/url])
Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.
Yes and yet it wont effect me in a sense that is. However you have to agree though, its lots of noise for nothing really, it was obvious that sooner or later it would come to this.
I mean the trad agencies could they foretell the arrival of micro? yes in fact they did but they were just too late in reacting.
Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url])
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
-
Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.
I don't really see the whole "if one does it, they'll all do it" philosophy. These agencies (while similar) clearly have different strategies.
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url])
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url])
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.
The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.
-
Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.
Ridiculous.
Everyone said SS would go the way of istock once they had an IPO and had investors to answer to. So far, SS is operating in completely different ways than istock. In fact, I say they're improving. Contributor communication is better than ever, sales are up, things are going well. Completely unlike what happened to istock.
istock is the exception, not the rule. Most other companies are wise enough to not follow istock/Getty's example here.
-
The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital camera and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.
The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.
Nice simple explanation. You get a heart.
-
The delay on this is troubling. I can't see a whole lot of good coming out of this for us.
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url])
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.
The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it.
I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.
Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world.
The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really.
Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here. :)
-
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it.
I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.
Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world.
The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really.
Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here. :)
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it?
Yes it does one is evolution and the other one is illegal
That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.
I am 56 years old and I always have been an avid computer and internet user since its beginning and I am absolutly certain there is no way in 1993 anybody could have predicted the last 8 years . It would have been impossible to predict the convergence of two industries which are the internet and digital cameras to give opportunities to such a wide audience. Furthermore, the speed of the internet in this is very important. In 1993, most of us had dialed-up from 16 to 56kbs (kilo byte per second) . Have you ever tried to upload just a 1MB file at between 16 and 56kbs.... Do you think in 1993 we knew how fast internet would be now?
-
The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.
Not defending this deal but IIRC Bruce only started charging when the bandwidth and other site costs went through the roof. Microstock started out as a free model.
eta: brevity
-
From the iStock forum:
oldladybird
Posted 48 mins ago
Regarding the images you've seen added to the Google Drive library over the past few days, I can confirm that no additional iStock content has been added since the initial batch.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=23 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=23)
-
I wasn't sure if that covered all iStock content available at TS or Getty.
-
From the iStock forum:
oldladybird
Posted 48 mins ago
Regarding the images you've seen added to the Google Drive library over the past few days, I can confirm that no additional iStock content has been added since the initial batch.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=23[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=23[/url])
Can the oldladybird confirm the total number of images added to Google Drive's stock image library?
-
This is just crazy, she posted and ran. So the last batch had no iStock content.... the next batch has it all?? How many photos are going to be given away? Nothing. Are they really in talks with Google?? Who can trust a company like this!
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
If your RMs don't sell long enough they will be made RFs and treated as such, which might mean TS or Google. And, of course, your photographers' choice collection can always be sent there, if Google wants them.
-
Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.
I don't really see the whole "if one does it, they'll all do it" philosophy. These agencies (while similar) clearly have different strategies.
Agreed - that would mean one lemming takes them all out. At least one has to be a little smarter than to follow the crowd?
-
This is just crazy, she posted and ran. So the last batch had no iStock content.... the next batch has it all?? How many photos are going to be given away? Nothing. Are they really in talks with Google?? Who can trust a company like this!
I think they must have had quite a shock at the reaction to this, so I would guess yes they really are having talks. (It would be vindictive of me to think that the talks might have begun with Getty ringing up saying "What .'s going on over there, can't you keep your amateur snappers in line, people are starting to ask questions about what they're saying")
-
Oh I think talks are going on but it's not about what we think! They are taling on ways to make more money for themselves with OUR content. Don't forget Getty knows how to bleed people dry and then tell them they are working for the artist. Keep in mind who you are dealing with. Track record anyone? This is just the facts from what we know of from the past. It's time we learn from the past before we repeat it!
-
Give Larry a piece of your mind.
https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts
-
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it.
I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.
Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world.
The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really.
Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here. :)
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it?
Yes it does one is evolution and the other one is illegal
That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.
I am 56 years old and I always have been an avid computer and internet user since its beginning and I am absolutly certain there is no way in 1993 anybody could have predicted the last 8 years . It would have been impossible to predict the convergence of two industries which are the internet and digital cameras to give opportunities to such a wide audience. Furthermore, the speed of the internet in this is very important. In 1993, most of us had dialed-up from 16 to 56kbs (kilo byte per second) . Have you ever tryed to upload just a 1MB file at between 16 and 56kbs.... Do you think in 1993 we knew how fast internet would be now?
in 1994 a coworker brought in a 2mb jpg picture he'd been given. Zipped across two floppy disks it took ages to extract and unzip onto the hard drive. It then took the pentium 90 machine about 30-40 minutes to bring it up on screen. It was pic of red bird that had been scanned. I can picture the software but cant remember what it was called, I remember we discussed the new acdsee software :)
At the end of the year, parliament house in canberra put 5 pcs on seperate network in the parliamentary library and gave them a link to the internet (I think it was a shared dialup connection, but have been a 64k isdn link). 5 internet machines for 3000-4000 staff, I never once saw all 5 being used and often none were being used.
- Funny the things you remember
-
Not sure if it matters but getty was founded in 1995.
-
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.
I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?
The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.
-
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.
I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?
The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.
You're right - I didn't know about it. I just tried to upload image to FB and download it and IPCT data disappeared.
-
Not sure if it matters but getty was founded in 1995.
Well the Getty-Stone deal went through around 93, we have sales-reports as proof, Image-Bank I think was in 94 or 95?
BTW. I was Iris drumscanning in 89. Digital is far from something new.
-
Posted By secablue:
And the plot thickens... I have one of my Websites hosted by WIX, who have just announced that I can now use any GoogleDrive document in my web site via a special App connecting GoogleDrive to WIX... so now Google are writing contracts for our photos to be used by another business!!!
Is Getty aware that it was Google's intention not only to give work away for free via GoogleDrive, but also contract it to others? Hmmm... is it even legal for our work to be contracted on for use by another party not associated with the original sale of the image?
(Edited on 2013-01-23 09:58:38 by secablue)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827163 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827163)
http://www.wix.com/lphtml/apss-lp?utm_campaign=em_new_apps_1_22_2013_en&experiment_id=em_new_apps_1_22_2013_en (http://www.wix.com/lphtml/apss-lp?utm_campaign=em_new_apps_1_22_2013_en&experiment_id=em_new_apps_1_22_2013_en)
-
...and one more thing I don't understand - why are the images on Google Drive that large? Or am I the only one one with resolution of monitor 1920 x 1200? Even if we agree with this deal I think that 1600 px wide images would be more than enough.
-
Is Getty aware that it was Google's intention not only to give work away for free via GoogleDrive, but also contract it to others? Hmmm... is it even legal for our work to be contracted on for use by another party not associated with the original sale of the image?
Probably not on both points (awareness and legality) but all the more reason these deals stink. It's a slippery slope, giving redistribution rights to a completely separate company (Google). And then knowing that Google cuts various deals of their own to give access to their products and services to yet even more companies, it is very clear that this whole mess does really kill the value of an image and make copyright impossible to enforce. Images will be spread not just into the Google Drive user base but also well beyond that and into other offerings through other companies. It's still "Google Drive", but it's Google Drive via Wix, Google Drive via XYZ Company, etc. It will further and further erode the value of an image until the image is truly worthless and is so widespread that it appears to be public domain to the user.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that images going through the Google Drive program get redistributed again and again and then come back to istock, where someone claiming ownership tries to upload them and sell them as their own.
-
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.
I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?
The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.
You're right - I didn't know about it. I just tried to upload image to FB and download it and IPCT data disappeared.
I would think that this is fairly common on any website where you upload photos. The original image containing the IPTC data is not being served. When the file gets uploaded, one or more sizes are automatically created and those files contain only the image data, not the IPTC.
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url])
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Of course its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
No difference? When microstock came in, photographers suffered and were reduced to lower earnings. Perhaps some at pennies, but at least something. With this new scheme of images being given away, photographers get zero, nada, zip, nothing. And all the volume in the world won't help that. Admittedly some big name and up-and-coming photographers will still be able to find contract work and some of the trads may be able to hang on with specialty images. Everyone else needs to go with plan B, or C, or whatever. That's the difference.
-
...Are the people in charge under such an enormous pressure from stock owners that they're really doing everything they can for short term gains?
Yes. The owners care not a whit about you or me or what happens to us now or ever. You are a non-entity to them. They give not a thought about you. Their only concern is what happens on their balance sheets. Their only demand is more profit$, no matter how it gets done. That is all. Good day.
-
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.
I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?
The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.
You're right - I didn't know about it. I just tried to upload image to FB and download it and IPCT data disappeared.
I would think that this is fairly common on any website where you upload photos. The original image containing the IPTC data is not being served. When the file gets uploaded, one or more sizes are automatically created and those files contain only the image data, not the IPTC.
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here ([url]http://asmp.org/articles/getty-images-background.html#.UQAT9Up2Fkg[/url]) and here. ([url]http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/[/url])
Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.
If this (below) is how Getty takes care of RM I wouldn't fee all that confident about just how safe those images are. $2.08 for extensive, untracked use is right there in the same camp as $12 for untracked use under the special premium access time limited license. Seems like they don't care who they trample on.
Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Files Class Action Against Getty Images on Behalf of Professional Photographers Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."
According to Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, Premium Access is not a rights managed product. "Getty has shirked its responsibility as a picture archive to track the use of plaintiffs' images, and to set pricing per use in good faith on a commercially reasonable basis." As a result, photographers have lost the ability to track the uses being made of their images.
Among the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit are some of the world's leading photographers. Their photographs have been licensed by Getty to major media clients for as little as $2.08 for extensive, untracked use. According to Nelson "Getty's prices have severely undercut the market for comparable photographs, damaged the future market for these photographs, and violated both the Rights Managed Image Distribution agreements Getty signed and the Uniform Commercial Code."
[url]http://www.kreindler.com/Recent-Developments/Kreindler-Kreindler-LLP-Files-Class-Action-Against-Getty-Images-on-Behalf-of-Professional-Photographers.shtml[/url]
-
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites?
No doubt, but presumably people who care don't post pics to FB without watermarks.
-
...Are the people in charge under such an enormous pressure from stock owners that they're really doing everything they can for short term gains?
Yes. The owners care not a whit about you or me or what happens to us now or ever. You are a non-entity to them. They give not a thought about you. Their only concern is what happens on their balance sheets. Their only demand is more profit$, no matter how it gets done. That is all. Good day.
But it doesnt make sense if the place goes bankrupt. Thats not in the investors interest either
-
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites?
No doubt, but presumably people who care don't post pics to FB without watermarks.
I'm not the one posting my images, so I have to do something about this.
-
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?
Not at all. You can still easily find the copyright holder for an image (especially stock art) by doing a quick search in Google images. Orphaned works laws are more about keeping old works alive rather than usurping living copyright holders rights.
-
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?
Not at all. You can still easily find the copyright holder for an image (especially stock art) by doing a quick search in Google images. Orphaned works laws are more about keeping old works alive rather than usurping living copyright holders rights.
Sometimes you can, but I tried to track down the origin of two popular environmental blog images yesterday and they returned such a huge number of results that I still don't know if they are public domain or if they have been licensed from somewhere. It would take hours to go through every site on every page of the search.
-
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad. :)
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7[/url])
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Of course its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
No difference? When microstock came in, photographers suffered and were reduced to lower earnings. Perhaps some at pennies, but at least something. With this new scheme of images being given away, photographers get zero, nada, zip, nothing. And all the volume in the world won't help that. Admittedly some big name and up-and-coming photographers will still be able to find contract work and some of the trads may be able to hang on with specialty images. Everyone else needs to go with plan B, or C, or whatever. That's the difference.
Thanks! and youre right. This time around, its zip. However this does not affect dayrate, commissioned photography, THANK GOD!
basically for all those here who thought the world revolved around micro alone. Think again and FAST.
-
Just a request. It would be great if people wouldn't quote 5+ other posts when they reply to someone, maybe just the last one? It makes it an incredible PITA to try and read through a thread, especially when the quotes often only concern one or two people.
-
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?
Not at all. You can still easily find the copyright holder for an image (especially stock art) by doing a quick search in Google images. Orphaned works laws are more about keeping old works alive rather than usurping living copyright holders rights.
Sometimes you can, but I tried to track down the origin of two popular environmental blog images yesterday and they returned such a huge number of results that I still don't know if they are public domain or if they have been licensed from somewhere. It would take hours to go through every site on every page of the search.
It's very much hit and miss. Sometimes pics are easily found on iStock, sometimes not at all, even when searching off the iS page.
Alamy seems to somehow be blocking GIS - or at least I haven't found any traceable back to Alamy, so they're much less covered than e.g. iS.
Don't know about the success rate of other agencies.
-
Ok, I need some guidance please as I'm still new here. Should I include a link to the post I refer to below?
An Alamy contributor did some experimenting with PicScout and the ImageIRC browser extension and reported that when ImageIRC finds a fingerprinted image it displays a list of all the sources from which that image can be licensed. So, at least some Alamy images have been fingerprinted, but Alamy was not identified as a source for any of the images this fellow looked at - no irony here. Seems as though PicScout is going to have an impact on all the agencies.
Regards
-
An Alamy contributor did some experimenting with PicScout and the ImageIRC browser extension and reported that when ImageIRC finds a fingerprinted image it displays a list of all the sources from which that image can be licensed. So, at least some Alamy images have been fingerprinted, but Alamy was not identified as a source for any of the images this fellow looked at - no irony here. Seems as though PicScout is going to have an impact on all the agencies.
Regards
Could it be that these sources were all Getty-related ? ::)
-
An Alamy contributor did some experimenting with PicScout and the ImageIRC browser extension and reported that when ImageIRC finds a fingerprinted image it displays a list of all the sources from which that image can be licensed. So, at least some Alamy images have been fingerprinted, but Alamy was not identified as a source for any of the images this fellow looked at - no irony here. Seems as though PicScout is going to have an impact on all the agencies.
Regards
Could it be that these sources were all Getty-related ? ::)
Anyka, the post (which is publicly accessible) made specific mention of the owner's (a private individual) web site being one of the sources displayed, so at this stage it appears they're at least trying to be fair and not direct all licensing through Getty exclusively. In the US and those countries that have legislation similar to the US anti-trust legislation I would expect that any attempt to route all licensing through Getty exclusively would provoke a lawsuit - and please remember I'm no lawyer!
I know from Photoshelter that fingerprinting was limited to images that were both priced and publicly visible.
As far as I can tell at this point we all need to know
a) What terms and conditions does PicScout/Getty plan to apply to this "service",
b) the fee, if any, we would pay to PicScout/Getty to "reward" them for finding a buyer for your image, and
c) how you get your images fingerprinted (or not).
The ImageIRC plugin seems to be freely available from Mozilla; I found it there but have not installed it yet, just because I don't know if it's to be trusted. I don't know which other browsers they support.
Regards
-
Is believe there are photos from Thinkstock from non-exclusives that were "purchased" by Google? What about the image owners for those photos? They sell THEIR photos on many other sites to make a living. How does the copyright work in these type cases?
- Just posted this to the iStock forum. Not sure if it's been addressed before. If anyone has info, please redirect me. - thanks.
-
From iStock admin oldladybird:
A couple of you have brought up Wix in this thread. From what we can see, there is an APP that lets users upload their Google Drive content directly to their Wix site. Doing it within that context, is ok.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827745 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827745)
-
oops
-
From iStock admin oldladybird:
A couple of you have brought up Wix in this thread. From what we can see, there is an APP that lets users upload their Google Drive content directly to their Wix site. Doing it within that context, is ok.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827745[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827745[/url])
That's disappointing. So these extended redistributions are ok in the eyes of istock/Getty? Scary stuff.
-
The http://kga.me/ (http://kga.me/) site has gotten a DMCA takedown notice.
Copy from kga.me
"Corporate Counsel at iStockphoto, Ronald Lo, issued a DMCA takedown notice (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM PST). I respectfully obliged (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM PST)."
Here are a couple of other places you can use to find out if your images were involved in the Google Drive stock image deal: 1. Text list 2. Text + Image list
More information regarding Google Drive's stock images:
http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html (http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html)
-
That's BS. A, it is fair use of the thumbnails, imo, and B: hotlinking to the images is not against DMCA, afaik. What was the specific issue?
Please keep an up to date text list, as I don't see how that could be any issue, and I don't have the programming savvy to do that.
-
That is complete BS. Google does exactly the same thing when you do a Google Images Search.
-
The [url]http://kga.me/[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/[/url]) site has gotten a DMCA takedown notice.
Corporate Counsel at iStockphoto, Ronald Lo, issued a DMCA takedown notice (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM PST). I respectfully obliged (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM PST).
Wow! The very height of hypocrisy!
-
I hope who ever owns the site may give us some more info, because this is the BS!
-
Don't Back Down if what you are doing is legal!!!!!
-
It is legal, this is pure bully tactics from Getty.
-
Holy f%ck thats mental
-
What a bunch of miserable hypocrites!
They can't get iStockreseller.com taken down after months and they can send a takedown notice to a site because it's proving useful to contributors who are trying to fight their outrageous rights grab in selling redistribution rights to Google?
The only time they move quickly on anything...
Just sent out a tweet on this - let people know what they're up to. A little public shame never hurt:
#iStock issues DMCA takedown for image thumbs in the scummy #Getty/#Google deal-so we can't track them http://bit.ly/WXbJul (http://bit.ly/WXbJul)
-
It is legal, this is pure bully tactics from Getty.
I don't suppose you can make a Google Docs document with all the images?
-
If I could host it now I would!!!
-
To the person behind http://kga.me/ (http://kga.me/) if you have an interest in sharing the code I will be more then happy to pay you for you´re service and run it on my own server.
-
http://mikeyounglaw.com/web-lawyer-dmca-copyright-infringement/ (http://mikeyounglaw.com/web-lawyer-dmca-copyright-infringement/)
-
The [url]http://kga.me/[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/[/url]) site has gotten a DMCA takedown notice.
Corporate Counsel at iStockphoto, Ronald Lo, issued a DMCA takedown notice (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM PST). I respectfully obliged (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM PST).
Here are a couple of other places you can use to find out if your images were involved in the Google Drive stock image deal: 1. Text list 2. Text + Image list
More information regarding Google Drive's stock images:
[url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url])
The good news is iStockphoto has the legal people on the job. This is more than we could learn from the forums!
The bad news is he may not be shooting very straight. Maybe it just all scatter shots to see what he can hit.
Watch to see what other site references disappear now that this target has been hit. It might prove interesting who they are going after.
-
Take a look at my new picture on my user_view page (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php)
-
[url]http://mikeyounglaw.com/web-lawyer-dmca-copyright-infringement/[/url] ([url]http://mikeyounglaw.com/web-lawyer-dmca-copyright-infringement/[/url])
Great find:
"According to Google, more than half of the DMCA complaints it receives involve businesses targeting competition. Here’s the key stat: 37% of the claims were bogus. In other words, just because someone claims you’re violating the DMCA doesn’t necessarily mean that you actually are. So there’s no need to panic if you receive a DMCA complaint."
-
The [url]http://kga.me/[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/[/url]) site has gotten a DMCA takedown notice.
Corporate Counsel at iStockphoto, Ronald Lo, issued a DMCA takedown notice (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM PST). I respectfully obliged (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM PST).
Here are a couple of other places you can use to find out if your images were involved in the Google Drive stock image deal: 1. Text list 2. Text + Image list
More information regarding Google Drive's stock images:
[url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url])
I don't know the full reason this site was asked to come down, but my guess is that part of the reason might have been that each thumbnail had a link to the full sized image. Those links may have been problematic.
It sure would be nice if at the bare minimum if the site could continue showing some of the stats (like how many images are currently available in Google Drive).
-
Just sent out a tweet on this - let people know what they're up to. A little public shame never hurt:
#iStock issues DMCA takedown for image thumbs in the scummy #Getty/#Google deal-so we can't track them [url]http://bit.ly/WXbJul[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/WXbJul[/url])
Send me a link to your tweet so I can retweet it.
-
Linking is not illegal.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials (http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials)
"The most straightforward case is so-called "deep linking," which refers to placing a link on your site that leads to a particular page within another site (i.e., other than its homepage). No court has ever found that deep linking to another website constitutes copyright or trademark infringement. "
-
Just sent out a tweet on this - let people know what they're up to. A little public shame never hurt:
#iStock issues DMCA takedown for image thumbs in the scummy #Getty/#Google deal-so we can't track them [url]http://bit.ly/WXbJul[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/WXbJul[/url])
Send me a link to your tweet so I can retweet it.
If you search hashtag #istock you will find it straight away
-
Is deep linking legal? http://www.linksandlaw.com/news-update47-district-court-deep-linking.htm (http://www.linksandlaw.com/news-update47-district-court-deep-linking.htm)
Some judges dont think it is. But I think these days, sites like Flickr allow it, it probably is.
-
That was 2006. The entire point of the internet is linking. If Google is making no effort to hide the content, there is no issue, imo.
-
That was 2006. The entire point of the internet is linking. If Google is making no effort to hide the content, there is no issue, imo.
I agree, hence the second part of my comment ;) Just throwing all available info out there so we can make a well informed judgement on Getty's latest move. ;)
-
New information regarding the DMCA takedown for http://kga.me (http://kga.me)
http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html (http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html)
-
That was 2006. The entire point of the internet is linking. If Google is making no effort to hide the content, there is no issue, imo.
So if someone lifts one of your photos that they have found on some site and puts it on their website, they're stealing. No question.
But if someone hotlinks to one of your photos and puts it on the same place on their website, it's OK?
-
New information regarding the DMCA takedown for [url]http://kga.me[/url] ([url]http://kga.me[/url])
[url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url])
I didn't realise that your first name only constituted a legal signature!
-
The registrant for the domain at issue ([url=http://www.kga.me/gds/]www.kga.me/gds/[/url] ([url]http://www.kga.me/gds/[/url])) is hosting thousands of copyrighted digital images and other media content at his/her site. Such materials are the copyrights of iStockphoto and its affiliate Getty Images. Evidence of such infringement is readily transparent as pointing one's cursor over any copyrighted material reveals the source of such images (i.e. iStockphoto or Getty Images) and each image has a file number to which corresponds to our database.
Well, they've stated themselves that the source of the content is off-site, and linking is not a crime, so.... And pointing a cursor points only to Google, not Getty or iStock. I'm not sure what the claim is here.
-
That was 2006. The entire point of the internet is linking. If Google is making no effort to hide the content, there is no issue, imo.
So if someone lifts one of your photos that they have found on some site and puts it on their website, they're stealing. No question.
But if someone hotlinks to one of your photos and puts it on the same place on their website, it's OK?
No, there is a difference between mere linking (ie, pointing to another piece of content), which is what was on the site, and inline linking (including the content on your page). I'm not sure if there is a huge difference, but there is a difference.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials (http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials)
-
;)
-
New information regarding the DMCA takedown for [url]http://kga.me[/url] ([url]http://kga.me[/url])
[url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url])
I didn't realise that your first name only constituted a legal signature!
Not sure what your on about, but i have nothing to do with the site, wish i had though.
Ron the istock lawyer only signs with his first name. Its on the link you posted yourself ;)
-
They are saying he hosted content on his server, which is untrue. So if he files a counter DMCA he can put all content right back up.
-
Such materials are the copyrights of iStockphoto and its affiliate Getty Images
??
-
New information regarding the DMCA takedown for [url]http://kga.me[/url] ([url]http://kga.me[/url])
[url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html[/url])
I didn't realise that your first name only constituted a legal signature!
Not sure what your on about, but i have nothing to do with the site, wish i had though.
Ron the istock lawyer only signs with his first name. Its on the link you posted yourself ;)
Yup, it was Ron I was referring to.
-
Sorry ShadySue way to much reading for me today :)
-
Sorry ShadySue way to much reading for me today :)
You're under stress. No problems.
It was just that I have to give my full name when requesting takedowns from pinterest, or IIRC Flickr.
-
I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)
-
I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)
Paypal? I'd happily send $5, though currency transactions & charges would erode that considerably.
-
I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)
Paypal? I'd happily send $5, though currency transactions & charges would erode that considerably.
Send a personal payment and you can choose who pays charges. I will donate 5 dollar too, Kenny, just send me the email and i'll pay 5 dollars.
I didnt think I was reading it right, but its a shame they take 20 dollar for filing the istock claim. Freaken Ron needs to pay for that.
-
I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)
Paypal? I'd happily send $5, though currency transactions & charges would erode that considerably.
Send a personal payment and you can choose who pays charges. I will donate 5 dollar too, Kenny, just send me the email and i'll pay 5 dollars.
I didnt think I was reading it right, but its a shame they take 20 dollar for filing the istock claim. Freaken Ron needs to pay for that.
Oh, right, I don't use PayPal for that sort of thing very often, so I don't really know how it works. Send me a SM too, Kenny.
-
Can we not resurrect the site with different hosts, if we choose dodgy ones then their far less likely to comply with takedown notices, we could also mirror it in numerous places ::)
-
I think all he needs to do is send a counter DMCA and the site will be back up. Only thing what will happen then is a lawsuit, or maybe not. If all he did was linking, istock has no case.
-
That was 2006. The entire point of the internet is linking. If Google is making no effort to hide the content, there is no issue, imo.
So if someone lifts one of your photos that they have found on some site and puts it on their website, they're stealing. No question.
But if someone hotlinks to one of your photos and puts it on the same place on their website, it's OK?
No, there is a difference between mere linking (ie, pointing to another piece of content), which is what was on the site, and inline linking (including the content on your page). I'm not sure if there is a huge difference, but there is a difference.
[url]http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials[/url] ([url]http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials[/url])
It seems that Ron is a chancer.
Goes with the territory, I suppose.
-
LOBO:
"We recently issued a DMCA notice to the operator of www.kga.me/gds/ (http://www.kga.me/gds/) to have Getty Images and iStockphoto images removed from that site.
As many of you noted here, the site wholly reproduced your content in high resolution and made them available for download and distribution without license. The site operator promptly removed the content.
To be clear, we did not and do not object to the operator’s use of indexed information of collection names and contributor names, statistics, and other organization or categorization of publicly available information and have taken steps to confirm that with the site operator."
-
Lobo added this
We've made attempts to contact the gentleman involved in the site to let him know that the information wasn't this issue. We hope to hear back from them as soon as they are able so this is clearly understood.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6828201 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6828201)
-
I can't waste another minute of my life caring about istock/getty. I'll wait to see what happens, but I doubt it will be anything positive. Until then, I'm done talking about it.
-
What a statement for them to make!
"We believe whilst acting in good faith that the Registrant's use of the Copyrights in the Domain is not permitted as the iStock Parties have not given the Registrant any permission or authorization to use the Copyrights nor are the Copyrights in the public domain."
Change Registrant to Getty and Domain to Google-Drive.
-
I can't waste another minute of my life caring about istock/getty. I'll wait to see what happens, but I doubt it will be anything positive. Until then, I'm done talking about it.
I think it's funny that I'm not shooting, prepping or uploading to iS, but it's taking up MORE of my time and nervous energy than before!
I'm a fool to myself.
::)
-
I can't waste another minute of my life caring about istock/getty. I'll wait to see what happens, but I doubt it will be anything positive. Until then, I'm done talking about it.
I think it's funny that I'm not shooting, prepping or uploading to iS, but it's taking up MORE of my time and nervous energy than before!
I'm a fool to myself.
::)
Agreed! This situation has taken up so much of my time I've hardly gotten anything done. Taking the dog to the dog park today was a welcome break, but here I am again, LOL.
-
I love this quote from shayes17 in the iStock thread (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6828333) on the latest bully tactics by Getty:
"And the one effective way "the respective artists" had to keep track of the alleged copyright infringement by Getty/Google was taken down by "iStockphoto LP and its affiliate companies and respective artists" for infringing on a copyright which "the respective artists" hold. It's like an infinite loop of irony."
Tweeted that too (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/294697179283615744)
-
I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.
I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something :o
-
I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.
I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something :o
It's all so sad.
-
Banned for telling the truth in quite a polite manner. How dare you :)
-
I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.
I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something :o
Its utter fascism. Lobo is completely out of touch with reality. How can he live with himself? Its sick, Getty wanted to get rid of that site as it was a thorn in their eyes, and now spin doctor Lobo is making it look like they did everyone a favor. I have no words for such a lowlife. I am sorry you got banned for saying something completely sane.
-
Be happy.
When you read the posts on the istock forum its like putting your head into a barrel of delution.
Everything is so twisted.
Istock makes me sick.
-
I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.
I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something :o
You made too much sense and that makes you dangerous! ;D
+ You may not get a badge, but I gave you a heart because you deserve it. ;)
-
I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.
I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something :o
It seems to me that you stated something that many of us were thinking and did so in a polite way. It is also something that has been said on that thread a lot of times already. How random that you should have got banned for it. I wonder how many other people have had post deleted and been banned behind the scenes during the discussion.
-
I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.
I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something :o
Welcome to the League of the Lobotomised ;D
Me: 26 months and counting, and that was also for telling the truth, though apparently he didn't like the way I told it succinctly. Oddly he didn't like your expanded way either.
I see he is turning nasty in the Google thread in general.
I'm guessing that's a sign that nothing good is going to come of the discussions and we'd better just suck it up or get out, then they can say that the rumblings in the ranks just disappeared, somehow.
I'd love to be proved wrong, but that's what happened with the RC thing.
-
Is there anywhere that google says what you can and cant do with the images 'beyond just personal and commercial use'?
-
Is there anywhere that google says what you can and cant do with the images 'beyond just personal and commercial use'?
Apparently not for general consumption, though it's been requested several times in Sean's thread over there. I guess if you used GoogleDrive, you'd have to be able to see the T&C. If not, even their suggestion that people can only use them within GD is even more farcical than it seems at first sight.
Someone suggested on the iStock thread that if someone sent Google a DMCA, they would surely get the EULA in reply.
-
Is there anywhere that google says what you can and cant do with the images 'beyond just personal and commercial use'?
Apparently not for general consumption, though it's been requested several times in Sean's thread over there. I guess if you used GoogleDrive, you'd have to be able to see the T&C. If not, even their suggestion that people can only use them within GD is even more farcical than it seems at first sight.
Someone suggested on the iStock thread that if someone sent Google a DMCA, they would surely get the EULA in reply.
I've been looking for it within google docs etc, all I can find is the general use of images (the just because you found doesnt mean you can use it) and googles overall eula for all their products, software (inc google drive) etc, nothing in that comes close.
From what I can see at this point google just say personal and commercial use with no specification including that they have to be used in google docs - it appears that I could grab them, put them on my site and resell them, just like you can with public domain etc (obviously not resell in the micros though because of copyright holder).
-
It seems to me that you stated something that many of us were thinking and did so in a polite way. It is also something that has been said on that thread a lot of times already. How random that you should have got banned for it. I wonder how many other people have had post deleted and been banned behind the scenes during the discussion.
It seems he (Lobo) had a bad day, today. This is from the "Way we communicate"-thread:
---
You all want communication but you shoot just about every one we have come in here. I don't reckon you only want to see me in here all the time as I tend to get testy and take was less guff than the rest of the admins. However, how about all you folks who seem to have all the snappy nasty remarks park your mouse button for a spell. My limit has been reached so either tone it down or get a helmet because I'm going to start raining hammers down on those of you who should know better.
You're mad. You want results. We are working towards making changes in how things are handled in here but it's going to take some effort on the part of the contributors as well. If you don't have something constructive or civil to say you and I will get to know each other real soon.
Matthewleedixon: if you have a chance take a look through the numerous threads we have rolling on an array of pertinent issues. In the morning I'll even link up a bunch of stuff for you, but it's late here and I have 2% battery life so I hope you'll forgive me.
This will be the last post. You won't gt a chance to respond in here. Feel free to send me a sitemail if you want to tell me what's what.
---
See here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350245&page=6 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350245&page=6)
-
Then he apologised for that post and said he needed a time-out, which is probably a first (though I suppose leaving it up acts as a sort of veiled warnign)
-
Then he apologised for that post and said he needed a time-out,
A permanent one would be good.
But I imagine the only reason he's come back in his normal persona is that he's had a further guarantee over his apparently teflon-coated, cast-iron contract - apparently the only one to be in a lesser's favour (meaning all of us lessers: contributors, employees ...).
-
He really needs to quit his job while he still has his sanity. He's in a terrible position trying to justify the unjustifiable and stamp down on people who are being scr*ed over. It is clearly extremely stressful and it is making him bitter and angry (and unprofessional).
Whatever they are paying him it's not worth the stress.
-
Then he apologised for that post and said he needed a time-out, which is probably a first (though I suppose leaving it up acts as a sort of veiled warnign)
Yes, he did, and I can understand why he is angry and frustrated, he probably gets a lot of pressure from contributors and the TPTB. I'm actually surprised how long they let some threads run, IMO there has been a major policy change on what is permissible in the forums long before the RR post...
-
He really needs to quit his job while he still has his sanity. He's in a terrible position trying to justify the unjustifiable and stamp down on people who are being scr*ed over. It is clearly extremely stressful and it is making him bitter and angry (and unprofessional).
If he remotely cared about having to 'justify the unacceptable', he'd have left at the time of the RCs, especially when, having encouraged people to diversiry into different media, they then shafted them hard for doing so. I'm not in that group, but no matter whether one thinks the RC system is 'fairer' (despite not being what we'd been promised), the multimedia people were well and truly sold up the river with no possible justification. They even had to be persuaded ex post facto to allow independence/exclusivity over the different media.
Anyone with the slightest human sensitivity would have quit then, or at least would have stopped adding insult to injury.
He's not a contributor; he clearly doesn't care a d*mn about us, without whom he'd have no job.
-
Things are hotting up all around and there's a week to go for 02 Feb. My fingers are itching to reach for that deactivate button already to take down a chunk of my port. With 3 clicks per image x 300 images that I plan, it will be a busy day since I couldn't figure out the short way to do it. ???
-
Things are hotting up all around and there's a week to go for 02 Feb. My fingers are itching to reach for that deactivate button already to take down a chunk of my port. With 3 clicks per image x 300 images that I plan, it will be a busy day since I couldn't figure out the short way to do it. ???
Use Sean's script, I am sure some one can dig up a link. I am at work now.
Maybe start a new sticky with Sean's script, Leaf?
-
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script.
Here's a link to Tyler's post explaining it:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-%28deactivation-day%29-on-istock-feb-2/msg291150/#msg291150 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-%28deactivation-day%29-on-istock-feb-2/msg291150/#msg291150)
And here's the direct link:
http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js (http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js)
-
He really needs to quit his job while he still has his sanity. He's in a terrible position trying to justify the unjustifiable and stamp down on people who are being scr*ed over. It is clearly extremely stressful and it is making him bitter and angry (and unprofessional).
Whatever they are paying him it's not worth the stress.
I always thought that there was a few folks who take turns being Lobo. This way he can stay snarky and not get burnt out. Also, competing Lobo's comparing notes and competing to "out Lobo", Lobo boosts comradery amongst the Lobos! ;D
-
It's like the school bully has been made head boy or head prefect!!!
-
I think this is similar to the WIX integration (http://www.wix.com/support/main/html5/wix-editor/apps-contact-forms-html-code-and-more/google-drive), but via a tweet I happened upon, the project sharing/management platform Kona has announced it now has Google Drive integration (https://www.kona.com/blog/2013/01/17/a-new-kona-release-for-the-new-year-2/)
I realize that Getty/iStock are arguing that this isn't really a new platform as it's just accessing work on Google Drive, but as things move around in these platforms - to other users or displayed on the web - what originated in a Google Drive doc is going to end up many other places.
-
I think this is similar to the WIX integration ([url]http://www.wix.com/support/main/html5/wix-editor/apps-contact-forms-html-code-and-more/google-drive[/url]), but via a tweet I happened upon, the project sharing/management platform Kona has announced it now has Google Drive integration ([url]https://www.kona.com/blog/2013/01/17/a-new-kona-release-for-the-new-year-2/[/url])
I realize that Getty/iStock are arguing that this isn't really a new platform as it's just accessing work on Google Drive, but as things move around in these platforms - to other users or displayed on the web - what originated in a Google Drive doc is going to end up many other places.
Yes it is. And that is the clincher for me.
-
It's like the school bully has been made head boy or head prefect!!!
It's not Hogwarts.
Would that it were.
-
Tis the clincher for me too, being banned from the istock forum was one thing, but this shows that things will only get worse, far worse as more and more sites start using the google docs api. Off to start deactivating.
-
New page added that lists the amount of money distributed to the agency and the artist/agency commissions.
[url]http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images[/url])
Not anymore, all the site's pages now direct to this http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html (http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html)
edit: I can't keep up with how much is being written on msg these days. Just realised this has already been mentioned. :)
-
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script.
Here's a link to Tyler's post explaining it:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-%28deactivation-day%29-on-istock-feb-2/msg291150/#msg291150[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-%28deactivation-day%29-on-istock-feb-2/msg291150/#msg291150[/url])
And here's the direct link:
[url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js[/url] ([url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js[/url])
Ok thanks v much, will try it :)
-
.
-
I removed one post whose only purpose was insulting lobo. Take it easy on the personal attacks (this goes for iStock admins as well)
-
I think this is similar to the WIX integration ([url]http://www.wix.com/support/main/html5/wix-editor/apps-contact-forms-html-code-and-more/google-drive[/url]), but via a tweet I happened upon, the project sharing/management platform Kona has announced it now has Google Drive integration ([url]https://www.kona.com/blog/2013/01/17/a-new-kona-release-for-the-new-year-2/[/url])
I realize that Getty/iStock are arguing that this isn't really a new platform as it's just accessing work on Google Drive, but as things move around in these platforms - to other users or displayed on the web - what originated in a Google Drive doc is going to end up many other places.
And the paragraph starts out "file sharing just got better"... another way of furthering the six degrees of separation. Supposedly the Google Drive document creator is agreeing to some unknown terms when they create the document but what terms are regulating anyone that document is shared with?
-
I just came across this article (http://rising.blackstar.com/getty-photographers.html) from May 2011 about the Getty issue with forcing photographers into the subscription program against their will and preventing them from blocking their RM work going into an RF collection. The APA commented on the issue like this:
As the creator and owner of the intellectual property, the photographer has the inherent right to determine how an image is to be licensed, including whether an image should be maintained as an RM or RF image. Getty Images’ effort to leverage its position in the industry to undermine that fundamental right and force its contributors to relinquish control over the manner in which their creative works are licensed is completely improper.
I feel like we're coming back around to the same old issues with Getty, over and over again. For the independents it was the forced inclusion in ThinkStock. Now we've got across the board forced inclusion in these redistribution deals. This is the new normal for Getty. Or it has been the new normal for a while now. The deal these days is that if you want to sign on with any Getty-owned company, you have to waive your rights to any say in where your images end up.
-
I just came across this article ([url]http://rising.blackstar.com/getty-photographers.html[/url]) from May 2011 about the Getty issue with forcing photographers into the subscription program against their will and preventing them from blocking their RM work going into an RF collection. The APA commented on the issue like this:
As the creator and owner of the intellectual property, the photographer has the inherent right to determine how an image is to be licensed, including whether an image should be maintained as an RM or RF image. Getty Images’ effort to leverage its position in the industry to undermine that fundamental right and force its contributors to relinquish control over the manner in which their creative works are licensed is completely improper.
I feel like we're coming back around to the same old issues with Getty, over and over again. For the independents it was the forced inclusion in ThinkStock. Now we've got across the board forced inclusion in these redistribution deals. This is the new normal for Getty. Or it has been the new normal for a while now. The deal these days is that if you want to sign on with any Getty-owned company, you have to waive your rights to any say in where your images end up.
In retro its been like that for years, long before micro, just that we notice it more nowdays, ppl are a bit more on the ball. The very second you sign a contract, youre in their hands.
Dont you think Getty long ago confirmed all this with their incredible battery of lawyers. Ofcourse they did.
-
http://farrellbrian.com/2013/01/16/why-you-shouldnt-use-google-drive-stock-images/#comment-273 (http://farrellbrian.com/2013/01/16/why-you-shouldnt-use-google-drive-stock-images/#comment-273)
Stock images are bought by a single user through the stock agency. Each new user new royalty paid. Google is not a single user. It is distributor and allows the use of these images on all its software. Many users do not understand this is the limit of what it can be used for and that they can be sued if they use the image in other ways.
The deal with google is of questionable legality. It is like the agent of a composer agreeing to download of all music to users of say itunes for both commercial and private purposes (without the composers consent).. Owners of the copyright have not agreed for the images to be used in this manner. The agreed and contracted model has each new user paying royalty. It also has the image watermarked until purchased. Using the image in ways that are show the models in a negative manner could also see the user sued. The model releases terms have not been shown to google users. They could be sued by the models and photographers for inappropriate usage.
-
Not sure if this has been posted, but fstoppers has written a story. They have quite a following - and over 120k Facebook fans.
http://fstoppers.com/when-getty-google-team-up-you-lose (http://fstoppers.com/when-getty-google-team-up-you-lose)
-
Not sure if this has been posted, but fstoppers has written a story. They have quite a following - and over 120k Facebook fans.
[url]http://fstoppers.com/when-getty-google-team-up-you-lose[/url] ([url]http://fstoppers.com/when-getty-google-team-up-you-lose[/url])
'Interesting' comments.
-
Not sure if this has been posted, but fstoppers has written a story. They have quite a following - and over 120k Facebook fans.
[url]http://fstoppers.com/when-getty-google-team-up-you-lose[/url] ([url]http://fstoppers.com/when-getty-google-team-up-you-lose[/url])
It's in the thread with all the press
-
Wow, those commenters are both clueless and defeatist.
-
In case some missed it in the iStock forums, Paul Cowan made a wonderful post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&messageid=6830751) about where were are in this current mess.
-
Yes, GREAT POST. Thanks Joanne.
Are our blogs moderated on Istock? This has likely come up, but can't we all post a blog on our IS profile?
-
In case some missed it in the iStock forums, Paul Cowan made a wonderful post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&messageid=6830751[/url]) about where were are in this current mess.
Posted By Starkblast:
@PaulCowan,
Good post! Says it all.
Posted By JoeGough:
^^^ Take a bow Mr Cowan. That's an outstanding and comprehensive summary of the position that many contributors here find themselves in.
And Lobo's reply.
I'm in his fan club too.
For everyone wondering why I left this train wreck up please do take the time to read through Pauls post.
-
Yes, GREAT POST. Thanks Joanne.
Are our blogs moderated on Istock? This has likely come up, but can't we all post a blog on our IS profile?
Not really moderated, but I believe they can delete text there if they don't like it. I know from personal experience that they can delete incoming and outgoing site mail if they wish to recall "intemperate" mail they sent so I don't see why the blogs would be exempt.
I did a picture change on my user_view page figuring that'd be harder for them to locate - a text search can't find it
-
Yes, GREAT POST. Thanks Joanne.
Are our blogs moderated on Istock? This has likely come up, but can't we all post a blog on our IS profile?
Not really moderated, but I believe they can delete text there if they don't like it. I know from personal experience that they can delete incoming and outgoing site mail if they wish to recall "intemperate" mail they sent so I don't see why the blogs would be exempt.
I did a picture change on my user_view page figuring that'd be harder for them to locate - a text search can't find it
I just clicked on the istock link at the bottom of the search to see what you had used as an avatar and for some reason the link didn't work. I then went to istock and put in jsnover as a search term and got up a whole load of images of cocaine sniffing that aren't your images. Tried it again and the same happened!!! I wonder why that happened unless jsnover is a foreign word for cocaine. Very strange.
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/jsnover (http://www.istockphoto.com/jsnover)
Looks fine to me. Love the protest pic!
+ Oh my goodness, iS is chronically slow today! So slow, it's even slow for iS! ;D
-
>>> I then went to istock and put in jsnover as a search term and got up a whole load of images of cocaine sniffing that aren't your images.
The search defaults to "did you mean 'sniffer' " ... :)
-
In case some missed it in the iStock forums, Paul Cowan made a wonderful post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&messageid=6830751[/url]) about where were are in this current mess.
Excellent post, I read it on the train this a.m. and was nervous that Lobo would lock it, but he hasn't, and has even commended the post.
-
[I just clicked on the istock link at the bottom of the search to see what you had used as an avatar and for some reason the link didn't work. I then went to istock and put in jsnover as a search term and got up a whole load of images of cocaine sniffing that aren't your images. Tried it again and the same happened!!! I wonder why that happened unless jsnover is a foreign word for cocaine. Very strange.
If you don't accept the user name suggestion that shows in the drop box, my member name appears to be a misspelling of several possibles. If you click on the suggestion in the search box versus just typing the name and hitting return you do get the portfolio. I'm sure that's a feature even if it looks like a bug :)
-
Paul does indeed sum this all up well, in terms that I think we all have felt lately but aren't as articulate as Paul is in our efforts to say so.
This is definitely an issue of "What happens next," where today's beating from Getty might sting but might also not be the worst beating we are in for. The dilemma comes down to whether we ride this out in hopes that things don't get any worse, or bail in hopes that we are removing ourselves from a bad situation that does, in fact, get much worse.
I'm of a similar opinion as Paul. I've stopped uploading, and I also don't know if I will resume. And I only started uploading again recently after another hiatus from istock for other reasons. I'm stuck in the position of depending on the income I get from istock, however small it is these days, and feeling like a bit of a fool for taking one beating after another from istock/getty and still hanging around.
I'm also in the unfortunate position of being a terrible bookkeeper and way underpaying my quarterly taxes last year, and looking at a hefty bill due in April, so I'm not in any position to be able to turn away any income right now. My personal situation definitely hurts my ability to make a rational decision about all of this. I suspect a lot of people may be in a similar boat. Even if your istock income is down, it's still income, and it's hard for a lot of folks to turn away any kind of income. I really can't imagine how I'd explain to my wife that I left istock because of a possible future issue, while right now the money we get from istock is very necessary.
-
Paul does indeed sum this all up well, in terms that I think we all have felt lately but aren't as articulate as Paul is in our efforts to say so.
This is definitely an issue of "What happens next," where today's beating from Getty might sting but might also not be the worst beating we are in for. The dilemma comes down to whether we ride this out in hopes that things don't get any worse, or bail in hopes that we are removing ourselves from a bad situation that does, in fact, get much worse.
I'm of a similar opinion as Paul. I've stopped uploading, and I also don't know if I will resume. And I only started uploading again recently after another hiatus from istock for other reasons. I'm stuck in the position of depending on the income I get from istock, however small it is these days, and feeling like a bit of a fool for taking one beating after another from istock/getty and still hanging around.
I'm also in the unfortunate position of being a terrible bookkeeper and way underpaying my quarterly taxes last year, and looking at a hefty bill due in April, so I'm not in any position to be able to turn away any income right now. My personal situation definitely hurts my ability to make a rational decision about all of this. I suspect a lot of people may be in a similar boat. Even if your istock income is down, it's still income, and it's hard for a lot of folks to turn away any kind of income. I really can't imagine how I'd explain to my wife that I left istock because of a possible future issue, while right now the money we get from istock is very necessary.
Getty knows this...hence the abuse continues. It isn't E-V-E-R going to get better, it will only get worse, as they try to wring every last cent and every last drop of sweat from contributors.
-
Does anyone know how many images are currently available in Google Drive? I was watching the numbers continue to go up on the kga.me site until it was shut down. The last figure I saw was slightly over 12,000 images. Does anyone have current numbers?
-
Does anyone know how many images are currently available in Google Drive? I was watching the numbers continue to go up on the kga.me site until it was shut down. The last figure I saw was slightly over 12,000 images. Does anyone have current numbers?
I don't. I PM'd Kenny over the weekend to ask if he would make a text list or tell me how I could and host it so we could see that. I haven't heard back from him though. Does anyone have another way - other than PM here - of reaching Kenny?
Or does anyone know how to make a list of filename, with a couple of EXIF extractions (photographer and copyright name) from the Google directory hosting the images?
-
Thanks to everyone who offered to pay that $20 DBP processing fee. I have it covered though.
For those requesting a text list of the images. I have put together 3 Google Drive Spreadsheets that contain all 12,003 Stock Images by Google Drive.
Google allows you to freely download these Google Drive documents by clicking the File tab -> Download as -> (Microsoft Excel|OpenDocument format|PDF Document|Comma Separated Values|Plain Text|Web page).
Doc #1 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao96JyYdzyPLdHVnREZSQUVTOVpWYVJVUW8yb0I5SXc
Doc #2 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao96JyYdzyPLdFJBOExRMjdVSHo0RUM2N2F6NkVuTUE
Doc #3 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao96JyYdzyPLdE9ick9rTDFrUWpEUm5INDZ0SGU3UlE
I'm sure Google Drive has many more stock images by now but I do not have the time or energy to keep this list updated. I am completly drained and need a vacation!
You can view all Google Drive stock images by adding an astrisk (*) in the search box and clicking the search icon. Google also allows you to search by the original Getty image numbers. They do not display results if you search for the copyrighters name.
-
I see where Google is being sued in the UK over violations of the Safari privacy rules. I wonder if the same law firm would care to piggyback a suit about stripping metadata from images (it's supposedly illegal to do that in the UK).
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/01/28/google-sued-in-uk-over-safari-tracking/1871489/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/01/28/google-sued-in-uk-over-safari-tracking/1871489/)
-
You can view all Google Drive stock images by adding an astrisk (*) in the search box and clicking the search icon. Google also allows you to search by the original Getty image numbers. They do not display results if you search for the copyrighters name.
It's a pain though. You have to scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll...
-
You can view all Google Drive stock images by adding an astrisk (*) in the search box and clicking the search icon. Google also allows you to search by the original Getty image numbers. They do not display results if you search for the copyrighters name.
Thanks for your hard work Kenny.
I found that one of my best seller is there :-(
-
>>> I then went to istock and put in jsnover as a search term and got up a whole load of images of cocaine sniffing that aren't your images.
The search defaults to "did you mean 'sniffer' " ... :)
Yes, CV working for you to make better searches? Not Really...
Nice page JS
-
Thx Kenny your hard work is truly appreciated.
-
Thx Kenny your hard work is truly appreciated.
+1
-
I couldn't wait until Saturday and just deactivated everything but one. My blackberry is sitting on my desk going Ping Ping Ping.....
I am kicking myself that I didn't leave my shot of the snake pit live for a bit of symbolism, it was too late when I thought of it - but I left the grasshopper shot. In this part of the world grasshoppers are more hated than snakes anyway.
I took screenshots of everything and of thinkstock and photos.com first.
It's a relief. I am so lucky I never depended on this income. I really feel for you guys that do. I know that many readers will say "Do you think Getty gives a rat's a$s?" The answer is No, I don't - but I do.
-
I couldn't wait until Saturday and just deactivated everything but one. My blackberry is sitting on my desk going Ping Ping Ping.....
I am kicking myself that I didn't leave my shot of the snake pit live for a bit of symbolism, it was too late when I thought of it - but I left the grasshopper shot. In this part of the world grasshoppers are more hated than snakes anyway.
I took screenshots of everything and of thinkstock and photos.com first.
It's a relief. I am so lucky I never depended on this income. I really feel for you guys that do. I know that many readers will say "Do you think Getty gives a rat's a$s?" The answer is No, I don't - but I do.
Well said.
-
...I am kicking myself that I didn't leave my shot of the snake pit live for a bit of symbolism...
You could reactivate it. Having seen the post complaining that reactivation takes up admins time, I think it would be another good way to protest.
-
Saw post this morning, tweeted..
https://twitter.com/sdeva/status/296553319369936896
-
...I am kicking myself that I didn't leave my shot of the snake pit live for a bit of symbolism...
You could reactivate it. Having seen the post complaining that reactivation takes up admins time, I think it would be another good way to protest.
Clever idea. I never thought of that.
And speaking of another way to protest, you know those emails IS sends you to notify you of deactivation? If everyone marked them as spam, would a wave of tens of thousands of IS emails tagged as spam maybe cause spam filters to raise IS's spammer score?
-
Interestingly, iStock is looking for a new Client Relations Representative:
http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-jobs-customer-service-Client-Relations-Representative-Getty-Images-iStockphoto-W0QQAdIdZ452458308 (http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-jobs-customer-service-Client-Relations-Representative-Getty-Images-iStockphoto-W0QQAdIdZ452458308)
-
Getty tweeted today, under WANTED that they want images of people enjoying walk on a beach. All ages and all locations.
Wonder where these images would go? And for what price? ;D
-
According to Lobo we should get another response soon
Posted By koi88:
Are they even trying to stop this? Has anybody officially said something like: "Oops, this whole Google thing has not turned out the way we wanted. Sorry! We'll try to find a way out."
Lobo:
We will have a follow up to this discussion very soon.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6833817 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6833817)
-
Well might Mike Dabell ask if that's iStock soon.
On Monday, Lobo posted:
" How about I see what we can do to start a discussion with exclusives directly. We know the proverbial fence is getting awfully crowded. I know we have been working on a number of comms for the Exclusives. I think we are going to have a news heavy week. "
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350685&messageid=6830907 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350685&messageid=6830907) (Exclusive forum)
And since then ... nada.
-
According to Lobo we should get another response soon
Posted By koi88:
Are they even trying to stop this? Has anybody officially said something like: "Oops, this whole Google thing has not turned out the way we wanted. Sorry! We'll try to find a way out."
Lobo:
We will have a follow up to this discussion very soon.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6833817[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6833817[/url])
friday night dump and run? new communication regime, same as the old...
-
friday night dump and run? new communication regime, same as the old...
From Lobo: "As we know how people hate the Friday announcements we are going to work on some things this weekend and be prepared for a Monday/Tuesday Newsletter."
-
friday night dump and run? new communication regime, same as the old...
From Lobo: "As we know how people hate the Friday announcements we are going to work on some things this weekend and be prepared for a Monday/Tuesday Newsletter."
So, clearly they're going to tough it out.
They're not going to offer any assurances about the future, and now they're going to see how many go ahead with deletions.
So far, the queue and the Total Files haven't really decreased, so it's probably only a small minority of people who have stopped uploading and/or are deactivating files.
The only significant thing will be how many big hitters have stopped and how many good-sellers will be deactivated.
People deactivating a few low/no sellers (as I have done) will have no effect.
People deleting slow ports will have no effect.
-
I wonder if they believe this will delay people's D-Day actions.
-
.
-
I wonder if they believe this will delay people's D-Day actions.
Hmm. I honestly don't believe they have any cards to play so maybe the best they can do is to bluff it out.
If they could have defused the fury in the forums, over the last couple of weeks, then I'm sure that they would have.
-
Next week they'll sound the trumpets and release a "Full Explanation Of The Terms Of the Licensing Agreement With Google", followed by an "Acknowledgement Of The Need To Communicate Better In The Future". Once those cow pies have landed, there will be a "Let's All Move On" post in the forum, and further discussion will be discouraged.
As D-Day approaches, I'm starting to feel the pain, even though I'm just a tiny minnow in this pond. My tiny portfolio contains 1 Photo+ image that sells frequently, bringing in just enough money that deactivating it would hurt. But I've realized that if it got to Google Docs, that could kill its sales elsewhere. As the Google archive grows, surely many buyers will start looking there first to see if they can get what they want for nothing. The licensing situation will remain so confused that many buyers will feel a sort of herd mentality "safety in numbers" when using it.
-
friday night dump and run? new communication regime, same as the old...
From Lobo: "As we know how people hate the Friday announcements we are going to work on some things this weekend and be prepared for a Monday/Tuesday Newsletter."
So I can't imagine that they are going to put anything legally binding in print, especially in a newsletter. My guess: "we know you're upset and we're working on some new and exciting and awesome things." >:(
-
I opened a new thread at iStock concerning image searches. Let's see if it stays open....
Internet search technology is not a cash cow for image infringement today. Maybe sometime in the future, but certainly not today. iStock/Getty seems to want us to think it will help our income. I am certainly not convinced. Here is my example.
This iStock image of mine:
www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-132558-auto-1939-chevrolet-with-flames.php?st=d1ab25f (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-132558-auto-1939-chevrolet-with-flames.php?st=d1ab25f)
Was used in the Microsoft giveaway:
office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?ex=2&qu=car#ai:MC900440335%7Cmt:0%7C>
It was downloaded from iStock: 142 times.
It was downloaded from Microsoft: 203,056 times.
For a total of: 203,198 downloads.
So if I check some of the search engines around the internet, I find....
Google (Images): 20 hits (most at iStock sites)
Bing (images 1939 chevrolet flames): 1 (at iStock)
Bing (Yellow classic car with flames): 0
TinEye: 3 (1 at iStock)
Yandex: 0 (in 30 pages)
So a few popular image search engines found a total of 21 hits (many from iStock sites that are not infringements) for a percentage found of 0.01% of the 203, 198 downloads. In my opinion, neither Getty, iStock, nor the contributor, has a chance of using image search technology today to find miss-used images in the wild for the purpose of making money.
Granted, I have not tried PicScout. But unless it finds 20,000 hits (10%), then I don't want to hear how Getty thinks this fancy technology will save the day, today, with recovering funds for miss-used photos.
Has anyone else tried similar searches on different images? On other image search engines? On Pic Scout?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351107&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351107&page=1)
-
Just found one of my images on Google Drive. And it's free! yay!
Time to make more changes.
-
I opened a new thread at iStock concerning image searches. Let's see if it stays open....
Looks like it's gone. :(
-
Just found one of my images on Google Drive. And it's free! yay!
Time to make more changes.
Sorry to hear you got caught in the net. If you do deactivate files, can you keep tabs on the number to post in the Tally thread (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/)
-
I opened a new thread at iStock concerning image searches. Let's see if it stays open....
Looks like it's gone. :(
Via sitemail Lobo said he didn't want that discussion tonight. I figure we will hear more of the side note of Getty working to preserve our image use via internet searches (which I believe are still very flawed).
-
Does the Istock/Google deal also affect vector contributors, i.e. are vector contributors at risk too?
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.?
-
...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.
-
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.
-
Interesting article on crisis management....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/carnivals-crisis-mismanagement_b_2725633.html (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.
-
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 (http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=docs_image_search&answer=179622)
-
.
-
Before reusing content that you’ve 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 aren’t making any representation that the content is actually lawfully licensed.
-
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.
-
I agree, this sounds like the images are all basically free by amateurs who just want to see their name printed. It doesn´t 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.
-
Before reusing content that you’ve 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 aren’t 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...
-
.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://kga.me/screengrab/google-drive-Jan-10th-2013-insert-stock-image-page.png)
Page that Google Drive displayed to user's if they clicked on the 'learn more' link in the screengrab above:
(http://kga.me/screengrab/google-drive-Jan-10th-2013-learn-more-page.png)
The 'Fair Use' link in the screengrab above goes to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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!
-
.
-
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!
(my bold above)
On the contrary. This is standard for all redistribution agreements, and the google/getty deal is a exactly that! Even though they call it something else.
-
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!
'Extremely Challenged'...that sums up iStocks IT well in general ;P
-
As far as I know this thing was the biggest scandal in microstock's recent history. And the biggest online mobilizing of contributors against a big fish.
There are a lot of talks around about the greed of big agency and WHAT can we ( the small people ) can do about it. I was reading on another thread about an attempt to bring the smaller ( fairer ) agencies to top - but we all know that we're just small drops in a huge ocean.
I am curios if we have any INFO on how this collective online RAGE against iStock paid off in the end. How many images have been taken off or how many users quit iStock. The scandal is all over the internet, blogs and website are screaming about it - the thing is pretty HUGE for the industry.
I figure that if this HUGE fiasco that got EVERYBODY MAD, didn't cause enough repercussion from the users that could even scratch iStock/Getty a bit - I am afraid that NOTHING WILL.
I am very happy to see people that are ready to make a stand, to go all the way - quitting big agencies for smaller ones - deliberately lowering their income just for THE GREATER GOOD but everything in the end might be for nothing.
Truth is, we cannot do anything to boycott the big boys because there are simply TOO MANY contributors to take our place ( and by we I mostly mean all of you - I'm was to small of a player ).
That's why I am very curios if anybody has any idea about the bottom line of this mass 2nd Feb thing. If it was big enough - we might just have a say after all.
Stock agencies DON'T NEED CONTRIBUTORS right now. There is a HUGE AMOUNT of contributors out there, everybody has a digital camera, almost everybody has a DSLR - and people are getting BETTER AND BETTER at photography as we speak. Everything is just VERY EASY and VERY CHEAP these days. What agencies need ( and have always needed ) ARE BUYERS.
-
...There are a lot of talks around about the greed of big agency and WHAT can we ( the small people ) can do about it. I was reading on another thread about an attempt to bring the smaller ( fairer ) agencies to top - but we all know that we're just small drops in a huge ocean...
That's not true. We can make a difference with the small agencies if we try. And I don't mean just by uploading. You're right, these companies don't need more contributors. They need buyers. I've personally referred 24 buyers to StockFresh. Imagine if everyone on this forum brought 24 new buyers to a small company like that.
-
.....Stock agencies DON'T NEED CONTRIBUTORS right now. There is a HUGE AMOUNT of contributors out there, everybody has a digital camera, almost everybody has a DSLR - and people are getting BETTER AND BETTER at photography as we speak. Everything is just VERY EASY and VERY CHEAP these days. What agencies need ( and have always needed ) ARE BUYERS.
Honestly, I'm sorry but you are wrong. There are thousands producing at the lower end (nothing wrong with that), but the number of contributors producing the top notch professional work that pays these companies' bills numbers in the hundreds, not even the thousands.
There aren't many prepared to put in the work to get to that level
If you want to see what effect contributor action has had take a look at IStock's Alexa figures. Most non exclusive contributors have stopped sending buyers there, as well as not buying there themselves.
-
I think we managed to persuade more buyers to use other sites. So it was a success.
-
What would make a difference would be a couple of high-profile cases of buyers getting into legal trouble by using images they got on Google Drive.
-
If you want to see what effect contributor action has had take a look at IStock's Alexa figures. Most non exclusive contributors have stopped sending buyers there, as well as not buying there themselves.
A few other signs of success:
-lots of MSG posters are suddenly asking questions about submitting to sites other than iS, some have said that they are newly independent escapees from iS
-at SS, review times are longer than they have ever been, and the whole submission/review process seems to show signs of being stressed (I have been there since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it), could be caused by a flood images as ex-iS exclusives submit their whole ports to SS? DT review times are also very long.
-iS has hired a consulting group apparently to try to find out what is wrong (they might not have done that if nothing is wrong)
-some MSG posts have said that forum participation at iS has fallen dramatically. I wouldn't know, I started at iS in 2005 and am a gold illustrator, but I don't submit there any more or go to the site very often.
-
Had a photo approved at iStock in 2 hours yesterday. Normal wait has been as long as 6 days and recently about 3 days. The queue is not very long. Looks like not many are uploading. There is a distinct lack of activity in the forums.
-
.
-
Was it an editorial file? They seem to be lightning fast with them.
-
What would make a difference would be a couple of high-profile cases of buyers getting into legal trouble by using images they got on Google Drive.
What would make a difference also... some big buyers that are paying for years istock, with its rising price, saw that Google in a single deal had got some thousands of images at low price. So what I expect is, someone going istock and tell them, who wants lower prices or they go by other agencies with lower prices. And this is what seems happened. Getty pushed the rock down the hill, it is moving but not as they expected. At the end this deal for istock is worse than they expected.
-
That is absolutely awesome news.
To be honest I made some calculations of my own - let's say a "good" contributor has what - 1000 images @iS at least ( right ? ) and a top one has over 10K. However the top ones ( over 10K ) are like ... 100 or 200 ( correct me if I'm wrong ). I mean Arcurs has like ... 40-50K images so let's assume that the top contributors have in average about 15K images. So 200 x 15K = 3 mil images. But let's assume that half of those ( and I think could be more ) - are not watching this forum ( or others ). I have friends that did not even hear about the iStock/Google deal and they are contributors for years. So the word went out to the contributors of 1.5 mil image holders. Out of those 1.5 images - let's assume that 1 mil ( and that is just being optimist ) was taken off the site. So we have 1 mil images taken down ( although I am pretty much afraid that's way too optimistic ). Let's say the others have also pulled off another million images - we have 2 mil. Although I am afraid not even 1 mil images have been taken off for real ...Not to mention most contributors HAVE NOT closed their account or deleted their photos. Many of them considered quitting exclusivity as a way to "punish" iS/getty so their folio is still up there, just that they made it available in other places also. I perfectly understand and salute the initiative, but most of the people are thinking about themselves pretty good before they pull the trigger on a money bringing alternative such as iStock.
Now on the buyer's perspective. They log in - look for a specific image - even if the top players have left - it's very likely that HE WILL FIND the suitable image he was looking for from the remaining users. So the sale is still made, money doesn't stop coming in. That is where the big problem is. Yes of course, iStock took a pretty nasty hit. Regarding quality of contributors, I think mostly it all comes down to QUANTITY rather then QUALITY in itself. Considering the iStock acceptance policy in the past years, it's safe to assume that if an image IS UP THERE - it's very likely that is of a GREAT QUALITY technically. It's maybe something about my images but I get an acceptance ratio on iS which is less than 50% of what I get from SS ( which is the second most pretentious agency in my book ). I get pretty much everything accepted on DT and FT. So from a buyer's perspective, it doesn't really matter WHO uploaded the photo, it's very likely the one he will get from iS - is of a GREAT QUALITY. So all in all, what does a TOP Contributor bring to the table and a bunch of other smaller ones don't already have there?
In my opinion, as I said before - the biggest impact on iStock business since the Google deal was in the buyer's section. I suppose that many, after reading about the hype created, decided not to purchase from iStock on a general principle, thinking that IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO considering they are Jerks to their contributors. Others that have read about it, simply got the idea NOW that there could be other great alternatives so rushed into the competition. iStock was pretty clear about how they don't really care much about contributors considering their policy of closing TOP accounts in left and right.
So all in all - it was a success, probably not just because a lot of users simply jumped boat ( and I have my suspicion that there were not that many as we all like to believe ) but rather of what happens to a lot of buyers as a result of all the hype around the web. And that's where it really hurts. Probably this whole FIASCO on the forums, blogs and everything created a much bigger mess than they anticipated.
It's great to see WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SAY in things. Considering this is probably the biggest THING in microstock recent history ( or entire history ) it's up to us to really make something about that COUNTS, because if this doesn't make it happen, what will ??
-
.
-
Had a photo approved at iStock in 2 hours yesterday. Normal wait has been as long as 6 days and recently about 3 days. The queue is not very long. Looks like not many are uploading. There is a distinct lack of activity in the forums.
The queue is normal, it's at about 70,000 images waiting approval. It's been like that for a long time now.
That's interesting news. How does one get this information? I must say that I was astounded at the quick turnaround. Obviously I jumped to the wrong conclusion.
-
.
-
A few other signs of success:
-lots of MSG posters are suddenly asking questions about submitting to sites other than iS, some have said that they are newly independent escapees from iS
-at SS, review times are longer than they have ever been, and the whole submission/review process seems to show signs of being stressed (I have been there since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it), could be caused by a flood images as ex-iS exclusives submit their whole ports to SS? DT review times are also very long.
-iS has hired a consulting group apparently to try to find out what is wrong (they might not have done that if nothing is wrong)
-some MSG posts have said that forum participation at iS has fallen dramatically. I wouldn't know, I started at iS in 2005 and am a gold illustrator, but I don't submit there any more or go to the site very often.
SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.
-
SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.
I respectfully beg to differ, I have two batches (both editorials) sitting there since Feb., 25th and another since March, 8th, respectively. There is also a thread on this in their forums: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129097 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129097)
I've been with SS since 2006 and this is the first time I'm waiting longer than seven days for commercial or two days for editorial photos - something is definitely different than it was before...
-
I just had several videos approved within a week. I am exclusive to video there, but previously i hade waited over 4 weeks...so big improvement a great surprise.
-
My opinion was that not enough images were taken down - so I simply calculated the most optimistic scenario possible with the 1 mil figure. 1 mil out of 15-20 mil - is still not that much to hurt a company this huge. So if you guys say it's really actually 50K proves my point even more. We actually know about 2-3 top contributors that have quit ( or have had their accounts closed ) - so there's the 50K. Where do you get the 50K figure ? I'm not saying it's not true, just curious what you base your answer on. I still say that this is like a drop in an ocean no matter if it's 50K, 70K or even 200K. My bottom line was that we should do something MORE than that if we want the efforts to count.
What I am saying is that in this business ( and mostly all of them to be honest ) it all comes down to SALES not how many images it holds. iStock is pretty huge now whether we like it or not, so for them it doesn't really matter if there's 20 mil images up there, or 18 mil or 25mil. The sales will KEEP COMING IN simply because there are TOO MANY contributors so any buyer is very much likely to find what he needs.
I was happy to see you guys have a positive and optimistic feeling about what happened on Feb 2nd or around the Google deal events and I really want to believe WE HAVE SOME SORT OF SAYING in things like this.
But let's think about it for a second, this was one of the lamest stunts in the industry. If you ask ALL contributors about it, I'm sure that more than 95% would genuinely NOT BE OK with it. Seems that this thread has 43K views, to be honest I don't understand how that works really, since the forum has only 32K users - I suppose the guests are counted in there also as I know that as a registered user you only bring that number up with 1 no matter how many times you visited the thread. So let's optimistically assume that over 40K people have seen this thread, there are also other threads in here ... Also there are numerous blogs, websites, facebook groups etc and other forums where these things are shared... we could say this had a pretty big exposure worldwide.
Bottom line : if this whole "historical and groundbreaking" scandal didn't manage to create a bigger impact than 50-70K images taken down, where do we stand really ? What can be done in the long run then ... This is what worries me...
Just that the wait times on the other agencies have increased, it could also mean that a lot of iS users decided not to be exclusive anymore so they rushed to upload their big folios at SS and others. I still don't understand something - why does a company as big as iStock want exclusives ? Maybe I'm thinking small here, but if each agency has about 15-20M images - who cares about exclusives ? I think the decision of NOT BEING AN EXCLUSIVE anymore - doesn't hurt iStock that much as it does the actual exclusive user that's gone non-exclusive now.
-
Bottom line : if this whole "historical and groundbreaking" scandal didn't manage to create a bigger impact than 50-70K images taken down, where do we stand really ? What can be done in the long run then ... This is what worries me...
Yeah, I have to agree here. I thought we would see more results from the feb 2 protest. I will admit I am disappointed nothing seems to have changed yet. But I do think this is a long game and the real damage to Istock may not be fully apparent for a few months or a year.
Just that the wait times on the other agencies have increased, it could also mean that a lot of iS users decided not to be exclusive anymore so they rushed to upload their big folios at SS and others. I still don't understand something - why does a company as big as iStock want exclusives ? Maybe I'm thinking small here, but if each agency has about 15-20M images - who cares about exclusives ? I think the decision of NOT BEING AN EXCLUSIVE anymore - doesn't hurt iStock that much as it does the actual exclusive user that's gone non-exclusive now.
It looks like Getty has come to the same conclusion as you that exclusive content isn't that important anymore. At least judging by they way they've treated their exclusives the past year or more. However I think they have made a big mistake by not supporting and retaining their exclusives.
This is one of the areas where the effects are not going to be obvious for a few months. The advantage to Istock of having exclusives was that they had a very large pool of good content that was not available anywhere else. Now that much of that content will be available via their (cheaper) competitors, Istock's remaining buyers will have one less reason to stay there.
And lets be honest, the exclusive content was one of the LAST advantages Istock had. Their customer service and site functionality have tanked at the same time their prices have skyrocketed.
-
.
-
.
-
I'm pretty sure they still want exclusives, maybe something good will come out of the survey and from some long time exclusives leaving. They are still paying a much higher royalty rate than Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, and 123RF among others.
I hope you're right. I am sure you are in a better position to know what they're up to than I am.
If they do want to retain exclusives they are doing a pi$$ poor job of it lately.
(edited for spelling)
-
We certainly didn't get any feeling they wanted to keep exclusives. Maybe they want to keep some but not others?
-
I dont know , i live from this , i dont make much , i need all I can get but i still have some self respect and im not uploading there already long period of time... and im not planing to start.
Yesterday i took some time to start taking files down about 20 and i plan to take that much every week while growing portfolio on other sites and cut the loss somehow.
I was out form the game , but as i understand all files on istock are available at thinkstock right ?
Are there any other collections filling that site ? Any ex stockexpert portfolios or something because I think i recall something like that.
I plan take all I have from there at reasonable time slowly even if it means deleting my full istock portfolio.
I apologize to people who all ready did that , im a bit lazy and my zodiac sign is cancer so I don't like big changes by nature...
-
.
-
Ok if stockexpert files went there can someone give me a tip how to take them down ?
-
.
-
And lets be honest, the exclusive content was one of the LAST advantages Istock had. Their customer service and site functionality have tanked at the same time their prices have skyrocketed.
I'd say it was THE LAST advantage. I can't imagine why buyers would come to iStock without enough exclusive content to be a differentiator.
-
I'm pretty sure they still want exclusives, maybe something good will come out of the survey and from some long time exclusives leaving. They are still paying a much higher royalty rate than Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, and 123RF among others.
Only if you compare apples to oranges (exclusive to non-exclusive).
Dreamstime pays exclusive contributors 60%, FT pays 35% - 63%. SS and 123RF don't have exclusive programs.
And all of their non-exclusive rates are much better than IS's.
-
.
-
Lobo has a new update:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&page=1)
Copyright protection is absolutely central to our business and we remain committed to doing all we can to support and maintain your intellectual property rights. We've been working closely with Google to improve the way in which the images are presented in Google Drive. Our agreement with Google allows for the images to be made available to Google users for personal or commercial use--however, the individual user's rights are restricted, and clarifications addressing use are now live in the Google Drive’s interface.
Google Drive copy changes:
1. Now when you search for an image to insert into a document in Google Drive, the following language appears directly under the search field for visibility:
"Results shown are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive, and may not be independently redistributed or sold. Learn more."
2. You will see the revised language (below) when you click on "Learn More."
"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."
The Program Policies link takes you to a page restricting pornographic or otherwise unlawful uses, etc., describing these restrictions in detail.
Still Pending: image metadata is in the process of being included.
We truly appreciate your patience in waiting for these changes to be implemented. We will post another update when all is complete.
-
well I've posted a reply at iS, but honestly I'm feeling like anyone who dares to complain will be discriminated against in terms of sales, search and file acceptance.
-
SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.
I respectfully beg to differ, I have two batches (both editorials) sitting there since Feb., 25th and another since March, 8th, respectively. There is also a thread on this in their forums: [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129097[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129097[/url])
I've been with SS since 2006 and this is the first time I'm waiting longer than seven days for commercial or two days for editorial photos - something is definitely different than it was before...
I just looked at the SS forum "General Shutterstock Submit Discussion" and the top 3 threads are ALL about long review times at SS. One has 81 posts. In the Illustrators Forum, a thread on the subject of long review times has 61 posts, three times as many posts as any other thread on the first page.
Personally, I have 4 vectors waiting for review at SS since February 25. I have been at SS since 2005 and nothing remotely like this has happened there as far as I can recall. If this isn't a sign of stress on the SS reviewing system, what would be?
-
Things have definitely changed. A few days ago I emailed support, and haven't received an answer, and something tells me I won't get one.
Bad signs.
-
The long review times on SS are probably because so many exclusives have left istock exclusivity recently. Hopefully it will be temporary but I'm not that bothered about review times.
-
.
-
the reviews are huge for over 1 year, maybe more, not because of exclusives, its a decision from SS, there is no other explanation
p.s. please go and minus my post because I have said something that is not happening for months or you guys can get a life ;D
-
I laid out my concern on "commercial use" after Lobo asked me to explain. Go ahead and read it on the thread, we will see what happens to me :-)
-
You explained it very well. Nothing bad will happen to you ;)
It is strange though that the obvious needs to be explained at all. 12 dollars for potentailly millions of small to medium business users is just an unacceptable deal. It is a free promotion deal, even bigger than with Microsoft.
I would gladly volunteer files if they would let me, but it does look like they want to continue doing deals like this in the future.
-
A few other signs of success:
-lots of MSG posters are suddenly asking questions about submitting to sites other than iS, some have said that they are newly independent escapees from iS
-at SS, review times are longer than they have ever been, and the whole submission/review process seems to show signs of being stressed (I have been there since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it), could be caused by a flood images as ex-iS exclusives submit their whole ports to SS? DT review times are also very long.
-iS has hired a consulting group apparently to try to find out what is wrong (they might not have done that if nothing is wrong)
-some MSG posts have said that forum participation at iS has fallen dramatically. I wouldn't know, I started at iS in 2005 and am a gold illustrator, but I don't submit there any more or go to the site very often.
SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.
Editorial taking 21 days, I am at two weeks for normal images. The forum is full of people reporting insane long review times. SS has said the queues are longer due to unforeseen issues.
-
A few other signs of success:
-lots of MSG posters are suddenly asking questions about submitting to sites other than iS, some have said that they are newly independent escapees from iS
-at SS, review times are longer than they have ever been, and the whole submission/review process seems to show signs of being stressed (I have been there since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it), could be caused by a flood images as ex-iS exclusives submit their whole ports to SS? DT review times are also very long.
-iS has hired a consulting group apparently to try to find out what is wrong (they might not have done that if nothing is wrong)
-some MSG posts have said that forum participation at iS has fallen dramatically. I wouldn't know, I started at iS in 2005 and am a gold illustrator, but I don't submit there any more or go to the site very often.
SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.
Editorial taking 21 days, I am at two weeks for normal images. The forum is full of people reporting insane long review times. SS has said the queues are longer due to unforeseen issues.
I guess the next thing we see now is a post by an iS cheerleader saying that the cause is 'ebb and flow'. ;)
-
.
-
My SS wait times are as usual - around 5-6 days.
-
This saga is a long way from over; one unhappy contributor summed the situation up in a nutshell (my bold):
"Posted By gladassfanny:
Actually Lobo, Trust Is the crux of the main complaint. Contributors trusted iStock/Getty to do the right thing when representing them. The Getty/Google deal squandered that trust. Since the deal was revealed (actually unmasked), a lot of dancing has taken place on the part of the company.
The changes in the licensing agreement remind me of applying lipstick to a pig to make it look better. It is still a pig when one is finished.
The deal is the deal, and it is an extremely bad one for contributors and for the industry.
Your game, your rules, but the Google Drive deal writes a book about the practices of Getty/iStock and it is not a positive one."
Here's the permalink: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&messageid=6864225 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&messageid=6864225)
I'm surprised this post has survived this long. It will be interesting to see if iStock has the courage to deal with this honestly.
Regards
-
Cobalt wrote: "Google bought a license. The RF license does not expire."
One point - the regular IS license does not expire. We do not know what the license to Google consists of, and they refuse to tell us.
-
Cobalt wrote: "Google bought a license. The RF license does not expire."
One point - the regular IS license does not expire. We do not know what the license to Google consists of, and they refuse to tell us.
I know I've read several times that the Google license is "time-limited" but I've never seen any information from Getty about how limited "time-limited" is.
Someone posted on iStock in January that his/her statement read:
"Posted Fri Jan 11 5:46AM
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"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023)
-
Customer Name: Google eCommerce & Google Dri...
Google eCommerce? Their Shopping portal?
-
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!
The tailgate photos are still available. Not sure about the pharmacy or student ones though. Screengrab: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B496JyYdzyPLOW9mMFpYUUJXb0k/edit?pli=1
-
The part that truly baffles me is not that contributor action resulted in a low number of deactivations, it's that iStock has let the relationship with their suppliers plummet to the point where many simply won't upload to them anymore.
That, in an industry where the contributors are also customers or have the power to refer customers?
I don't know how many “quieter” contributors out there have done the same, but I stopped submitting to iStock more than a year ago. There was really no need to deactivate files – they are simply not getting any fresh content.
As mentioned in a post above, looking at a comparison between IS and SS on Alexa tells the story well. Surely it's not that hard to figure out that their downward trend will not cease unless iStock takes a 360 degree turn in how they treat all their suppliers?
-
I have never really understood this premium access time limited sale.
Does it mean that the files can only be used for a limited time - a year for example and then have to be removed?
Or does it mean the customers access to the files at ultra cheap prices is time limited, i.e. "download all you want for 5 dollars a file for three months".
If the files on Google drive automatically dissapear after a year, this would at least lower the damage to the artist.
-
It's a shame there's still no sign of positive action from iStock/Getty to fix this mess.
There's an interesting parallel from 2006, when users of Vox (the now defunct blogging site) were allowed to use low resolution iStock images in their blog.
I think at first there was a lot of concern because there wasn't much attribution to artists.
Things were changed, and this thread was opened, asking contributors to think about it and respond...
www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38036&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38036&page=1)
So..
- the images were clearly marked with an iStock logo and the artist's name
- very low resolution images were used
- images linked back to iStock, and if a purchase was made, the artist would get a referral bonus
- artists could opt out if they weren't happy with the deal
Fast forward to now, and what a huge contrast in the approach. It's a bit different because the images were licenced to Google (using a licence which is kept secret from the owners of the work).
As with the Vox deal, it's about enabling end users to use our images for free.
But this time..
- instead of the deal being discussed before it was made, we were told nothing until people noticed that it had already happened
- there was no opportunity for artists to opt out
- extremely high resolution images are being used
- even if the end user wishes to give proper credit to the artists, they can't because they have no way of knowing who created the image
As a bare minimum, using a similar solution of watermarking the image itself with the artists name and agency seems like a good, simple idea. Shouldn't be too technically demanding for either Getty or Google to manage.
Getty keep saying things like "Copyright protection is absolutely central to our business and we remain committed to doing all we can to support and maintain your intellectual property rights."
I think they'd find it tough to argue that they're doing all they can to support and maintain our intellectual property rights if they're happy to put 12,000 images on the web, without any possiblity of copyright protection. Guess that might explain why they're still refusing to say anything at all about it.
-
Getty puts your name and a large watermark on the istock and getty site themselves. But when they send your files out to partners, it looks like you get orphaned. My files from getty house are still on Masterfile, Corbis and F1online but my name is nowhere. Even if the buyer wanted to give me image credit on his blog, newspaper article etc...he couldn´t do it, because my name is not there.
istock does the same with Thinkstock. All files there are missing the name of the copyright holder.
They have said several times they wanted to change that, but nothing happened. Only on gettyimages itself has the watermark been significantly improved. But they always had the name there, so Getty wasn´t the problem.
Thinkstock is a site they fully own and market heavily. They have full control over what they do there, so they can´t blame it on unwilling partners.
It is just not right. These are our files and not their private property.