MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256455 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: January 12, 2013, 16:08 »
0
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.

I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.

I wasn't wasting my time picking your letter apart. I was just pointing out that something (actually there were others) in your letter were factually wrong. If that's okay for you for the sake of getting a point across, you can go ahead. But I'd think providing pure facts would sound bad enough, it doesn't need any effort or unfortunate wording to make it look worse.


« Reply #376 on: January 12, 2013, 16:23 »
+7
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.

There is such a thing as being too careful. And I think it's time we stop doing that. After all the discussions and meaningless lawyers official talk here are just 2 solid facts: 1) My images are being given away for free to general public 2) I as a copyright holder did not consent to that, and was not even notified.
That's illegal. Let them prove it to me otherwise.

« Reply #377 on: January 12, 2013, 16:27 »
+1
Useful info for those affected...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1999431312/two-easy-steps-for-using-a-dmca-takedown-notice-to-battle-copyright-infringement
Its useful but what I read there has me thinking.

Quote
The same provision of copyright law that allows for the takedown notice also allows the alleged infringer to file a counter notice. After sending your takedown notice to the ISP, the ISP will notify the alleged infringer of the notice. The infringer then can send a counter notice to the ISP declaring that the infringer has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled and other requirements of Section 512 (g). At that point, the ISP is caught in the middle. By law, the ISP must repost the infringing material to its original location.

Unfortunately, the only option then to stop the infringement is to file a lawsuit asking the court to enter an injunction stopping the use of the copyright material. Since the infringer can easily move the use of the copyrighted material to another ISP, its best to include a copyright infringement claim in the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are expensive and significant damages usually can only be recovered if your image is registered. Fortunately, most infringers dont take the time to file a counter notice. But be sure to register the copyrights to your photos so that you have all of the tools necessary to fight copyright infringement.


That will give all power to Google, and they will probably put a team of agents on the case and send out counter notifications to the ISPs in a much faster rate and larger scale then all the affected photographers can do.

Also, I do not get why an image needs to be registered. Copyright is copyright in my opinion, registered or not.


Google is not infringing anybody's copyright in this, so the whole idea is nonsense. You authorised iStock to license it and iStock licensed it via Getty to Google, which is - apparently - complying with whatever terms there were in the special unrevealed license.  So any dispute would be with the distributors - iStock and Getty - over whether they have violated the terms of the distrubution agreement you have with them. Until you prove that they have violated the terms, Google is in the clear.

At least, that is how I see it.


-----------------------------------------------
Not sure that I agree that Google is off the hook.  Think of this 1) Contributor sends Google a DCMA notice asserting that Google does not have the right to use the image the way Google is using it.  2) Google refuses to take it down saying they have a valid license.  3) Istock/Getty lose a court case brought by the contributor and are found to have licensed content outside the scope of the contributor agreement, meaning in part they infringed the copyright of the contributor.  4) Google can say "well we thought we had a valid license", but they A) still failed to comply with a legitimate DCMA notice and are still on the hook for that failure and B) distributed infringing material after being told by the owner that Google did not have a valid license.  Google's recourse is to go after Istock/Getty for misrepresenting their ability to license the images the way they did.




« Reply #378 on: January 12, 2013, 16:35 »
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?

Haha, with a GOOGLE logo on it!

« Reply #379 on: January 12, 2013, 16:45 »
0
Not sure that I agree that Google is off the hook.  Think of this 1) Contributor sends Google a DCMA notice asserting that Google does not have the right to use the image the way Google is using it.  2) Google refuses to take it down saying they have a valid license.  3) Istock/Getty lose a court case brought by the contributor and are found to have licensed content outside the scope of the contributor agreement, meaning in part they infringed the copyright of the contributor.  4) Google can say "well we thought we had a valid license", but they A) still failed to comply with a legitimate DCMA notice and are still on the hook for that failure and B) distributed infringing material after being told by the owner that Google did not have a valid license.  Google's recourse is to go after Istock/Getty for misrepresenting their ability to license the images the way they did.

Ideal scenario would be to convince Google that >Istock/Getty misrepresented their ability to license the images the way they did< and make them to go over to contributors side.
Well - I know that it sounds too fancy but it may not be impossible.

KB

« Reply #380 on: January 12, 2013, 17:14 »
+2
http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google

I like Todd Klassy's comments, including this one:
We need an industry wide revolution; something that is strong enough to lure all photographers away from existing stock photo companies, grab attention, and establish sound legislation and business practices that bring an end to the things that have been crippling the industry for the past 10 years; image theft, the vultures stealing profits in stock photography companies, and educating amateurs that their photos are worth money.

The first thing I would do would be to hire in-house counsel, including possible a intellectual property attorney that either works for or worked for the RIAA, and a former sales & marketing executive at Getty, Shutterstock, etc. Followed by an intensive membership drive. Tell me that wouldn't shake things up in the photo industry.


But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.

« Reply #381 on: January 12, 2013, 17:34 »
0
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?

read this topic, I had 10 as independent, 12$!!!!!!!

« Reply #382 on: January 12, 2013, 17:41 »
+4
http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google

I like Todd Klassy's comments, including this one:
We need an industry wide revolution; something that is strong enough to lure all photographers away from existing stock photo companies, grab attention, and establish sound legislation and business practices that bring an end to the things that have been crippling the industry for the past 10 years; image theft, the vultures stealing profits in stock photography companies, and educating amateurs that their photos are worth money.

The first thing I would do would be to hire in-house counsel, including possible a intellectual property attorney that either works for or worked for the RIAA, and a former sales & marketing executive at Getty, Shutterstock, etc. Followed by an intensive membership drive. Tell me that wouldn't shake things up in the photo industry.


But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.


I'd join and pay union fees, or whatever organization that would be. We just need a leader.... Sean Locke? ;-)

mlwinphoto

« Reply #383 on: January 12, 2013, 17:44 »
+1
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 :)

Perfect.  My back yard is full of it (105 pound yellow lab on a high fiber diet).

« Reply #384 on: January 12, 2013, 17:47 »
0

« Reply #385 on: January 12, 2013, 17:53 »
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 :)

Perfect.  My back yard is full of it (105 pound yellow lab on a high fiber diet).
Got three Golden Retrievers  :o ;D ::)

lisafx

« Reply #386 on: January 12, 2013, 18:50 »
+4
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.

I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.

I wasn't wasting my time picking your letter apart. I was just pointing out that something (actually there were others) in your letter were factually wrong. If that's okay for you for the sake of getting a point across, you can go ahead. But I'd think providing pure facts would sound bad enough, it doesn't need any effort or unfortunate wording to make it look worse.

Good for you for removing images.  I hope that turns out to be more effective than it was when others did it in the past.  I don't see that and getting media attention as mutually exclusive. 

Once more, I was trying to give a brief overview.  Having worked doing intake at the ACLU years ago, I know that these organizations get a lot of letters and it is important to be brief and concise to capture their interest, otherwise you risk being filed in the circular filing cabinet.  I also linked to all relevant facts, blogs, and discussions in case they want to do further reading.  Nothing was misrepresented, as I have now explained twice and at length. 

If you still don't agree, then we will just have to agree to disagree and turn our respective efforts to more constructive pursuits than bickering over semantics :)


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #387 on: January 12, 2013, 19:01 »
0
But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.
The queue is up c2000 again since lunchtime GMT
I have no idea if that means that people are stil uploading like crazy  or if the inspectors are on a go-slow.

rubyroo

« Reply #388 on: January 12, 2013, 19:31 »
0
Not sure if someone already posted this and I missed it - I've only just found it.  They were discussing the Google Drive deal back in August 2012 on the Alamy forum:

http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=182438

« Reply #389 on: January 12, 2013, 19:32 »
+1
I remember a few old conversations alluding to free images. It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the current situation.

Yuri
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money-!/msg137814/#msg137814

"Well there is a point to my plans and you are getting closer to it. You will see in 6-8 months from now. Your observations are more knowledgeable than I think most people here will realize. Free you say.... and yes... the concept of free is very interesting in my eyes. "


ellenboughn
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-admits-his-losing-money-!/msg138005/#msg138005

"PS "Free" actually will have excellent financial rewards to market leaders in the future and it won't have anything to do with selling ancillary products or links. I predict that it will drive all models from RM to micro. I'm not prepared to reveal what that might be as it is in its infancy and not worth getting all riled up about. And NO I won't be making money because of it or promoting it or anything. "

rubyroo

« Reply #390 on: January 12, 2013, 19:35 »
0
Gosh.  Yes.  Now you mention it.... I remember both those statements at the time they appeared.  It all seemed curious then - and still is to me (until I can figure out how on earth these deals benefit photographers).

Of course - if they'll only benefit 'the market leaders' then perhaps the rest of us are meant to be left eternally in the dark.  ::)

aspp

« Reply #391 on: January 12, 2013, 19:43 »
0
Hypothetically ... could a stock agency charge a client a fee for putting together a deal - like a contract fee ? ie separately billed from the actual licensing fees ?

That's a question not a supposition or conjecture.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #392 on: January 12, 2013, 19:49 »
+2
Hypothetically ... could a stock agency charge a client a fee for putting together a deal - like a contract fee ? ie separately billed from the actual licensing fees ?

That's a question not a supposition or conjecture.

I'm sure they absolutely could.

« Reply #393 on: January 12, 2013, 19:57 »
+5
If you read my post late Friday then you must know Getty is steering towards a pay per click for your images. I said it then that it is garbage and I will say it again. You won't make a living off of Ad Sense! Now we must not let this die because they have numbers to play with and little risk unless we act fast and furious. They could care less about the artist, they are only focused on how to earn money for themselves with the content! I will be pulling my crown by the end of the month and most likely my images as well! People say asking Google to take down images won't work. Just Dot It! People say raising a stink on social media won't work. Just Do It! People said I would never make it as a stock video producer. I Did It! This affects all content not just photos. Do something and stop being a VICTUM. I am truly DISGUSTED!

« Reply #394 on: January 12, 2013, 20:19 »
+4
But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.
The queue is up c2000 again since lunchtime GMT
I have no idea if that means that people are stil uploading like crazy  or if the inspectors are on a go-slow.

Some people might not be aware of what's going on. Istock has contributors from around the world, not everyone reads forums. If every time they try to upload an image a warning would pop up - "By uploading this image you're giving Getty rights to give your images away for free" - I bet the queue wouldn't be that long:)

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #395 on: January 12, 2013, 20:28 »
0
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?
No, not me

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #396 on: January 12, 2013, 20:40 »
0
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?

read this topic, I had 10 as independent, 12$!!!!!!!

Sorry, confused by your answer.
Do you mean you had ten files chosen for $12 a piece, ten files chosen for $12 total, or ...?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #397 on: January 12, 2013, 20:49 »
0
BTW, if RR wants to see how iStock has affected contributors, on the extreme off-chance she gives one iota, she should read latest posts in the Race threads over there and compare them to almost any random earlier threads. Previously they were always upbeat without being too woo-way; now they're mostly as dismayed and disillusioned as the rest of us.

« Reply #398 on: January 12, 2013, 20:49 »
0
.. you must know Getty is steering towards a pay per click for your images. ... You won't make a living off of Ad Sense!

But they'll all be doing that, eventually, simply because they can.  The subscription model is already erasing any notion of a "commission" on a "sale";  the payment we receive for a download is an arbitrary, token amount.   People who are portraying SS as the good guys, and IS as the bad guys, are going to be disillusioned in the long run.

We still think of these companies as agents;  they probably want to recast themselves as publishers; actually they are neither.  They're just sellers of images, who have gotten possession of our material under terms of a hopelessly vague agreement which they can modify, unilaterally, at any time. 

All this was inevitable once "inventory" became obsolete. We give these people not a product that we produce, but the molds and tooling to duplicate that product endlessly.   We really have no way of knowing what quantities they sell or at what price; we rely on their ethics - which are now, obviously, obsolete as well.

Things could be different only if images were digitally signed and we gave agencies the right to sell a specific number of copies.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 21:12 by stockastic »

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #399 on: January 12, 2013, 21:19 »
0
I don't recall seeing this link to the iStock forum regarding model released images being caught up in this fiasco.  If I missed it, forgive me for the double post link.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350501&page=1

Looks like a lot of IS contributors are deleting their MR images, particularly those of friends and families.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25080 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
25555 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