Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258799 times)

aspp · « **Reply #200 on:** January 11, 2013, 17:28 »

Kevin should delete her off topic posts.

jjneff · « **Reply #201 on:** January 11, 2013, 17:28 »

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.

dhanford · « **Reply #202 on:** January 11, 2013, 17:34 »

Seriously, I can see her taking off her heels and putting on her boots and coat. "One last post and out the ...."

KB · « **Reply #203 on:** January 11, 2013, 17:37 »

Quote from: leaf on January 11, 2013, 14:26

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)?

jm · « **Reply #204 on:** January 11, 2013, 17:44 »

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.

Pixart · « **Reply #205 on:** January 11, 2013, 17:49 »

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

cmannphoto · « **Reply #206 on:** January 11, 2013, 17:52 »

Another option, is Gary Elsner

http://www.garyelsner.com/

somethingpretentious · « **Reply #207 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:05 »

Quote from: jjneff on January 11, 2013, 17:28

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...

cathyslife · « **Reply #208 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:13 »

Quote from: mlwinphoto on January 11, 2013, 15:49

Quote from: jsnover on January 11, 2013, 14:34
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.

fritz · « **Reply #209 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:16 »

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #210 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:17 »

I just searched for Luis Santos and counted 80...and I still had many pages to go.

somethingpretentious · « **Reply #211 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:34 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #212 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:35 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 11, 2013, 18:17

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?

cathyslife · « **Reply #213 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:38 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 11, 2013, 18:35

Quote from: cclapper on January 11, 2013, 18:17
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.

lisafx · « **Reply #214 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:39 »

Quote from: somethingpretentious on January 11, 2013, 18:34

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!!

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #215 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:43 »

Quote from: somethingpretentious on January 11, 2013, 18:34

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?

lisafx · « **Reply #216 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:45 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 11, 2013, 18:43

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #217 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:49 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #218 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:53 »

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

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.

somethingpretentious · « **Reply #219 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:54 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 11, 2013, 18:43

Quote from: somethingpretentious on January 11, 2013, 18:34
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)...

lisafx · « **Reply #220 on:** January 11, 2013, 18:59 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 11, 2013, 18:53

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?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #221 on:** January 11, 2013, 19:02 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 11, 2013, 18:49

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

sharpshot · « **Reply #222 on:** January 11, 2013, 19:13 »

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?

KarenH · « **Reply #223 on:** January 11, 2013, 19:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 11, 2013, 18:53

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

elvinstar · « **Reply #224 on:** January 11, 2013, 19:18 »

Quote

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258799 times)

aspp

jjneff

dhanford

KB

jm

Pixart

cmannphoto

somethingpretentious

cathyslife

fritz

cathyslife

somethingpretentious

Jo Ann Snover

cathyslife

lisafx

gostwyck

lisafx

cathyslife

ShadySue

somethingpretentious

lisafx

luissantos84

sharpshot

KarenH

elvinstar

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors