MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #325 on: January 12, 2013, 11:41 »
0
In the istock forums is a new thread about the risk to models and our liability as photographers. I usually dont 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.


« Reply #326 on: January 12, 2013, 11:49 »
+1
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 wouldnt 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

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?



lisafx

« Reply #327 on: January 12, 2013, 11:52 »
+2
Another excellent post from the Istock thread, from 2ndlookgraphics:

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. 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 11:58 by lisafx »

« Reply #328 on: January 12, 2013, 12:03 »
+2
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?

lisafx

« Reply #329 on: January 12, 2013, 12:07 »
+2
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. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #330 on: January 12, 2013, 12:16 »
0
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'.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 12:25 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #331 on: January 12, 2013, 12:18 »
0
Changing user icons to a common protest version has worked in the past.

Only temporarily.
They moved the goalposts in the end anyway.

« Reply #332 on: January 12, 2013, 12:19 »
0
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..
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 12:25 by cybernesco »

« Reply #333 on: January 12, 2013, 12:38 »
0
Can't we do one of these 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.

« Reply #334 on: January 12, 2013, 12:59 »
0
Thanks God! Lobo can't moderate here!!!

« Reply #335 on: January 12, 2013, 13:00 »
+4
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. ..."

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #336 on: January 12, 2013, 13:04 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 13:47 by ShadySue »

« Reply #337 on: January 12, 2013, 13:05 »
+2
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.   

« Reply #338 on: January 12, 2013, 13:11 »
+3
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.

« Reply #339 on: January 12, 2013, 13:13 »
0
^^ I like that idea! Submit cell phone photo.

« Reply #340 on: January 12, 2013, 13:35 »
+2
^^ 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.

« Reply #341 on: January 12, 2013, 13:40 »
0
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=3627
http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #342 on: January 12, 2013, 13:45 »
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!

« Reply #343 on: January 12, 2013, 13:53 »
0

aspp

« Reply #344 on: January 12, 2013, 13:54 »
+2
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=3627
http://www.photoattorney.com/?s=dmca&x=0&y=0


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://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Copyright%20registration%2005%2010%2004.htm

« Reply #345 on: January 12, 2013, 13:57 »
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!

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!

« Reply #346 on: January 12, 2013, 13:59 »
+1
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.

« Reply #347 on: January 12, 2013, 14:05 »
0
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?


lisafx

« Reply #348 on: January 12, 2013, 14:05 »
0
You're invited to leave your comments here: http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html


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.

« Reply #349 on: January 12, 2013, 14:07 »
0
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.


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 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 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...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25074 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
25547 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
6845 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