MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256355 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #350 on: January 12, 2013, 14:08 »
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


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


-----------------------------
Upload date will show ownership of course, but for whatever reason, U.S. law gives an additional level of compensation for violation of "registered copyrights".  Lot's more money.  Not defending the why here, just sharing the fact that there is such a thing as "registered copyright" for those that might not know about this. 



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #351 on: January 12, 2013, 14:09 »
0

lisafx

« Reply #352 on: January 12, 2013, 14:11 »
0
JoAnn, great points above. 

I believe the DMCA notices are important.  I also believe that it is essential to make as big a stink as possible about this publicly. Once buyers get the idea these "free" images may cost them thousands in legal fees for unauthorized use, it should have a chilling effect. 

« Reply #353 on: January 12, 2013, 14:11 »
+1
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.
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?

lisafx

« Reply #354 on: January 12, 2013, 14:13 »
0
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?

Great idea.  No need for photoshop.  Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload.  Simple :)

« Reply #355 on: January 12, 2013, 14:22 »
+2
You're invited to leave your comments here: http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html


I added my comments:

"This cozy little deal between Getty and Google may well not hold up as none of the copyright holders agreed to this virtual giveaway of their work.

Users of Google Drive want to think very carefully about whether they want to risk using these images commercially. Getty can blather all they want about how they think they have the right to enrich themselves with an invalid contract with Google - "Don't be evil"?? Really? - but that doesn't make it the case.

Copyright owners are not going to allow theft to be reclassified as a valid licensing deal - Google Drive end users really wouldn't want to get caught up in this legal wrangling, especially when there are plenty of legally safe ways to license stock images."

« Reply #356 on: January 12, 2013, 14:23 »
0
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?

Great idea.  No need for photoshop.  Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload.  Simple :)
Don't do that Lisa :  I just checked Istock, and the best dog poop pile image has more than 10 downloads, so they might accept your photo!  May-be if you shot it out of focus, with dark shadows and a logo on it?

« Reply #357 on: January 12, 2013, 14:32 »
0
You're invited to leave your comments here: http://googledrive.blogspot.ca/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html


I added my comments:

"This cozy little deal between Getty and Google may well not hold up as none of the copyright holders agreed to this virtual giveaway of their work.

Users of Google Drive want to think very carefully about whether they want to risk using these images commercially. Getty can blather all they want about how they think they have the right to enrich themselves with an invalid contract with Google - "Don't be evil"?? Really? - but that doesn't make it the case.

Copyright owners are not going to allow theft to be reclassified as a valid licensing deal - Google Drive end users really wouldn't want to get caught up in this legal wrangling, especially when there are plenty of legally safe ways to license stock images."



I will save this google blog page once in a while in case it gets deleted. Maybe some of you could do the same as well.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 14:37 by cybernesco »

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #358 on: January 12, 2013, 14:37 »
+4
The ONLY thing that might give them pause is if the biggest contributors totally pulled their ports. But they have the most to lose, so who could blame them if they didn't.

On the flip side, they also have the most to loose if iS/Getty continue with this strategy.  Particularly if it is expanded (as they have said they are considering) and if the "new" ideas they say they are developing also include giving away even more images. 

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but given Getty's total disregard for contributors, particularly their disdain for MS independents, I would not be at all surprised that this is a deliberate strategy to weaken all competition and ultimately position IS back in a number one role.  It's not beyond the possibility that they would dump all of their independent contributor's work into this freebie scheme.  Although that would seemingly hurt IS, they have the resources to tide IS over for a few years while other agencies struggle against a flood of free images.  That's not an uncommon business strategy for some division of a major corporation trying to break into a new market that is already dominated by one or two strong competitors.  They price their product so cheap that the competition cannot match their prices and slowly loose market share or, as has happened before. go entirely out of business.  At this point the company begins to raise their prices back to levels necessary to show and maintain a reasonable profit level.  How many companies can you think of who have gone out of business because they have been unable to compete because of price competition.  That's a normal part of free enterprise capitalism, but the way Getty is going about it somehow doesn't seem to make it morally right.

« Reply #359 on: January 12, 2013, 14:39 »
+2
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).

Same here. I will be happy to donate to the cause. This low blow affects all of microstock, not just contributors at istockgetty.

« Reply #360 on: January 12, 2013, 14:40 »
+2
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).

Same here. I will be happy to donate to the cause. This low blow affects all of microstock, not just contributors at istockgetty.

I would donate to the cause as well

lisafx

« Reply #361 on: January 12, 2013, 14:40 »
+4
FWIW, here's a portion of the letter I am sending to relevant media outlets:


Okay, now I've taken it down so nobody can accuse me of libeling anyone or continue to split hairs.  Guess we should all go back to cowering in fear and wringing our hands lest the baddies come after us. ::)
 

Anyone who likes can feel free to PM me and I will share the text with you.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 15:49 by lisafx »

« Reply #362 on: January 12, 2013, 14:41 »
0
I've gone from over 3000 to just 545 images on iStock, plus the stuff I'm slowly removing from StockXpert. 

Images I selectively "deleted" from StockXpert over a year ago... as a test... are still being sold there.  You may want to search Thinkstock for your "deleted" shots.  I think the only way to edit a StockXpert port is to close the account entirely. 

« Reply #363 on: January 12, 2013, 14:47 »
+4
Everyone is angry but I do suggest that you be careful about what you post in public forums, especially the Google forum. Allegations of illegal actions against a major company on the forums of one of its major partner companies could be very problematic indeed. I really doubt that anybody here is able to say with certainty that Getty has done anything outright illegal.

On the other hand, believing the spin put out by istocklawyer could be almost as big a mistake. His mandate is to produce opinions that shut down any legal problems for Getty/istock (or, if that isn't his brief, I would be very surprised).

Don't libel istock and don't swallow the garbage they are feeding you. That is my, unlawyerly, advice.



Pinocchio

« Reply #364 on: January 12, 2013, 14:50 »
0
I've gone from over 3000 to just 545 images on iStock, plus the stuff I'm slowly removing from StockXpert. 

Images I selectively "deleted" from StockXpert over a year ago... as a test... are still being sold there.  You may want to search Thinkstock for your "deleted" shots.  I think the only way to edit a StockXpert port is to close the account entirely.

This is good advice.  I had a similar experience with an iStock image I deactivated; two months later it was still on ThinkStock and Photos.com.  To their credit, iStock Contributor Relations removed it when I approached them (I had to provide PP site image numbers).  If you plan to close your iStock account, I suggest you first deactivate all your images, and verify that they're no longer on the PP sites, and only then close the account itself.

Regards

« Reply #365 on: January 12, 2013, 14:59 »
+3
I just sent a tweet to Jon Oringer pointing to this thread:

@jonoringer You see the furor over Getty's deal with GoogleDrive for free stock? Bad news IMO http://bit.ly/W0AhD4

I think they might take the wrong route and try to do the same as Getty, but it's not as if info about this fiasco is currently private, so if he were so inclined he'd figure this out on his own anyway. We need some sort of heavyweight to help fight back.


« Reply #367 on: January 12, 2013, 15:25 »
-1
WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE ARTISTS.

You might want to check your facts. $12 is no much but it's not nothing as well.

« Reply #368 on: January 12, 2013, 15:31 »
0
WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE ARTISTS.

You might want to check your facts. $12 is no much but it's not nothing as well.

Apparently not everybody has received the $12 ... yet anyway.

lisafx

« Reply #369 on: January 12, 2013, 15:34 »
0
WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE ARTISTS.

You might want to check your facts. $12 is no much but it's not nothing as well.

Apparently not everybody has received the $12 ... yet anyway.

Michael, reread my letter.  You have quoted me out of context.  If you reinsert that quote back into the paragraph you got it from, you will see it refers to Google members being able to download the images from the google docs site with no compensation to the artists for any of those usages.   That hasn't changed has it? 

The $12 paid to SOME artists when the deal started is compensation, however pitiful, but it has nothing to do with the zero that is paid to artists when the image is used from google docs. 

ETA:  Nevermind.  I have removed the letter because apparently picking it apart is considered, by some, to be a better use of their time than actually doing something about this situation. 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 15:51 by lisafx »

« Reply #370 on: January 12, 2013, 15:41 »
0
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue.  Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.

lisafx

« Reply #371 on: January 12, 2013, 15:43 »
0
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue.  Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.

Well, the letter has already gone out, but I changed the wording to make it less confusing for anyone reading the forum.  Removed the letter altogether as its wording is a distraction from the more important issue of doing something to get this situation some public attention. 

I would urge anyone interested to contact the media with whatever wording you feel is appropriate. 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 15:53 by lisafx »

« Reply #372 on: January 12, 2013, 15:44 »
+1
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue.  Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.

I think the removal of copyright metadata from these 6000+ images are the real transgression here!

« Reply #373 on: January 12, 2013, 15:55 »
+1
Personally, I think the no compensation bit is twisting the facts. Most people apparently got the $12 as compensation for all future downloads and maybe those saying they didn't get paid have missed something in their accounts. I think that is one of the weakest possible lines to pursue.  Call it nominal or insignificant or inadequate - but "no compensation" is possibly going too far.

I think the removal of copyright metadata from these 6000+ images are the real transgression here!

Yes, I think you may well be right. It negates the advice by Google to its users to check the usage rights and requires a deliberate decision to strip the data. Therefore it would seem that someone has deliberatly orphaned the images and possibly done it for commercial gain.

« Reply #374 on: January 12, 2013, 16:08 »
0
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?

 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25066 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
10965 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
25540 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
5588 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors