MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256468 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: January 11, 2013, 19:19 »
+4
...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 does both - they own 21% of Shutterstock. Here's an article about the difference.

I like a quote from this article:

"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 equitys 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."


« Reply #226 on: January 11, 2013, 19:21 »
0
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.

It's Command-f on the Mac

lisafx

« Reply #227 on: January 11, 2013, 19:22 »
0
...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.  :)

« Reply #228 on: January 11, 2013, 19:22 »
0
iStock Update thread.  The previous thread is locked. Discussion now is here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1

« Reply #229 on: January 11, 2013, 19:23 »
+2
Quote
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.

« Reply #230 on: January 11, 2013, 19:23 »
0
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 theyre used.
Googles 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.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #231 on: January 11, 2013, 19:25 »
0
..
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 19:28 by alexmk »

lisafx

« Reply #232 on: January 11, 2013, 19:29 »
+3
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. 

« Reply #233 on: January 11, 2013, 19:30 »
+3
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.

« Reply #234 on: January 11, 2013, 19:30 »
+1
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.

« Reply #235 on: January 11, 2013, 19:32 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #236 on: January 11, 2013, 19:37 »
+3
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.

« Reply #237 on: January 11, 2013, 19:40 »
+1
You know the deal that Google did with music 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 and here

This sort of approach could make a 20% cut of the sale generous!

« Reply #238 on: January 11, 2013, 19:43 »
+2
Keep hoping that that Sean launches his site for other artists.......

« Reply #239 on: January 11, 2013, 19:46 »
0

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 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 $$$. 

« Reply #240 on: January 11, 2013, 19:50 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #241 on: January 11, 2013, 20:01 »
+3
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.
 >:(

« Reply #242 on: January 11, 2013, 20:05 »
+2
"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!

« Reply #243 on: January 11, 2013, 20:34 »
+1
any getty owned content in there?

more deals to come is a major concern even when your own files are not included.


« Reply #244 on: January 11, 2013, 20:43 »
+1
Im 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 clicks or other great innovative bright ideas, Im going to bed this is to depressing to cope right now.

« Reply #245 on: January 11, 2013, 20:59 »
0
...  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.

« Reply #246 on: January 11, 2013, 21:02 »
+1
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...

« Reply #247 on: January 11, 2013, 21:10 »
0
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?

« Reply #248 on: January 11, 2013, 21:25 »
+1
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.

« Reply #249 on: January 11, 2013, 21:33 »
0
Thanks a lot for the page Sean. I find 6 images there from my flickr images now. I hope they will not increase anymore.


 

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
25563 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