MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256462 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: January 11, 2013, 15:27 »
0
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.


« Reply #176 on: January 11, 2013, 15:35 »
+2
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. ;)

rubyroo

« Reply #177 on: January 11, 2013, 15:40 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 15:45 by rubyroo »

« Reply #178 on: January 11, 2013, 15:41 »
0

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.

« Reply #179 on: January 11, 2013, 15:47 »
+6
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.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #180 on: January 11, 2013, 15:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #181 on: January 11, 2013, 15:52 »
0
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)

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


« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 15:08 by jbryson »

« Reply #182 on: January 11, 2013, 15:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #183 on: January 11, 2013, 15:58 »
0
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.

« Reply #184 on: January 11, 2013, 16:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #185 on: January 11, 2013, 16:07 »
0
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 15:08 by jbryson »

« Reply #186 on: January 11, 2013, 16:12 »
0
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.

« Reply #187 on: January 11, 2013, 16:20 »
+2
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. ;)

« Reply #188 on: January 11, 2013, 16:33 »
+1
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

« Reply #189 on: January 11, 2013, 16:35 »
+1
Haha. That's exactly what we are waiting for whole day.  :-\


« Reply #190 on: January 11, 2013, 16:36 »
+1
Nice to know the clocks are working up there  :o

« Reply #191 on: January 11, 2013, 16:37 »
0
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. 

« Reply #192 on: January 11, 2013, 16:46 »
+2
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.

« Reply #193 on: January 11, 2013, 16:50 »
0
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.
 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 10:34 by jbryson »

« Reply #194 on: January 11, 2013, 16:51 »
0
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.

« Reply #195 on: January 11, 2013, 16:55 »
+1
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.

« Reply #196 on: January 11, 2013, 16:56 »
0
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


I noticed that there are a lot listed as "n/a" 

« Reply #197 on: January 11, 2013, 17:06 »
+1
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...

« Reply #198 on: January 11, 2013, 17:06 »
+3
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.

rubyroo

« Reply #199 on: January 11, 2013, 17:15 »
0
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?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25082 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
10967 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
25561 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
6847 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
5590 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors