pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mattdixon

« Reply #300 on: January 12, 2013, 08:38 »
+2
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 piqu 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.


« Reply #301 on: January 12, 2013, 08:38 »
0
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.

« Reply #302 on: January 12, 2013, 08:39 »
+1
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.

« Reply #303 on: January 12, 2013, 08:46 »
+2
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.

« Reply #304 on: January 12, 2013, 08:48 »
+3
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.

« Reply #305 on: January 12, 2013, 08:50 »
0
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.

« Reply #306 on: January 12, 2013, 09:08 »
0
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.

« Reply #307 on: January 12, 2013, 09:09 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 14:13 by Sadstock »

« Reply #308 on: January 12, 2013, 09:19 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #309 on: January 12, 2013, 09:22 »
0
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.

« Reply #310 on: January 12, 2013, 09:26 »
0
Changing user icons to a common protest version has worked in the past.

« Reply #311 on: January 12, 2013, 09:28 »
0
Informing influential photo blogs is a good idea too - places like Photo District News etc. are always looking for ways to generate traffic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #312 on: January 12, 2013, 09:31 »
0
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.

« Reply #313 on: January 12, 2013, 09:33 »
0
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?

aspp

« Reply #314 on: January 12, 2013, 09:54 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 09:57 by aspp »

« Reply #315 on: January 12, 2013, 09:57 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #316 on: January 12, 2013, 10:17 »
+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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 11:07 by ShadySue »

lisafx

« Reply #317 on: January 12, 2013, 10:55 »
+4
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). 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 11:00 by lisafx »

« Reply #318 on: January 12, 2013, 11:20 »
0
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.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #320 on: January 12, 2013, 11:26 »
0
http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html


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.

« Reply #321 on: January 12, 2013, 11:29 »
0
http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/introducing-save-to-drive-extension.html


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

« Reply #322 on: January 12, 2013, 11:33 »
+2

mattdixon

« Reply #323 on: January 12, 2013, 11:35 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #324 on: January 12, 2013, 11:41 »
0
Matt, I really liked your suggestion in the Istock thread here:

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. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25078 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
25553 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
6846 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