pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #400 on: January 12, 2013, 21:26 »
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 ...?


http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/msg289486/#msg289486


« Reply #401 on: January 12, 2013, 21:30 »
0
https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject

Luis - you knew it and didn't warn us!  :)

not the only one there that is active in this forum, I believe I had in mind posting it here but I was thinking that idea wouldn't take place... I have forgotten it pretty quickly :-\

« Reply #402 on: January 12, 2013, 21:47 »
+1
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.


Just deactivated all of mine with model released humans and will put a fork in the rest of my port still left on Istock Photo. 

I won't even leave the few photos I had left on this disgusting site as place holders should they ever find ethical high ground. The place is run by a box of sociopaths with nary a concern for it's contributors or the models it just tossed into the pit without protection.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 21:50 by gbalex »

« Reply #403 on: January 12, 2013, 21:55 »
+1
https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject

Luis - you knew it and didn't warn us!  :)


not the only one there that is active in this forum, I believe I had in mind posting it here but I was thinking that idea wouldn't take place... I have forgotten it pretty quickly :-\


A few of us commented coming from the link on msg ;) and were generally pessimistic but didnt know the details

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/has-anyone-seen-this-google-is-curating-their-own-stock-photo-library/msg267148/#msg267148

half my port is gone, wow it is boring especially on a slow hotel connection. They should make the deactivate screen more interesting ;)
 
* censorship, putting *'s in when I say *. *, *, *  ;D
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 22:10 by Phil »

« Reply #404 on: January 12, 2013, 22:53 »
+14
Hi everyone,

I just wanted to comment about this issue as it truly upsets me. I want to step away from being a stock site owner and speak from a (former) contributor point of view.  It is very disturbing to hear that deals are made without the consent or proper compensation of the contributor. Stock agencies do not own the images...you do.

When you join an agency, you are trusting them to sell your images safely and securely on their site...not to be distributed to unknown partner sites or in undisclosed deals.

This free image fiasco not only hurts contributors, but it is also damaging to the whole stock image industry. If the Google deal continues, then there will be no reason for people to buy images...anywhere.

My sympathies go out to all contributors involved.


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #405 on: January 12, 2013, 22:59 »
0

This free image fiasco not only hurts contributors, but it is also damaging to the whole stock image industry. If the Google deal continues, then there will be no reason for people to buy images...anywhere.

hope you've got a very large welcoming mat Kelly, and lots of technical hires and new servers waiting in the wings ;-)

« Reply #406 on: January 12, 2013, 23:00 »
0
Thanks for the words of support Kelly!

« Reply #407 on: January 12, 2013, 23:41 »
0
https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4?e=EmbedsDocumentObject

Luis - you knew it and didn't warn us!  :)


not the only one there that is active in this forum, I believe I had in mind posting it here but I was thinking that idea wouldn't take place... I have forgotten it pretty quickly :-\


A few of us commented coming from the link on msg ;) and were generally pessimistic but didnt know the details

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/has-anyone-seen-this-google-is-curating-their-own-stock-photo-library/msg267148/#msg267148

half my port is gone, wow it is boring especially on a slow hotel connection. They should make the deactivate screen more interesting ;)
 
* censorship, putting *'s in when I say *. *, *, *  ;D


yep a topic open by Dan, gotta be people from GL, thanks Kelly too!

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #408 on: January 13, 2013, 01:24 »
0
  It is very disturbing to hear that f the Google deal continues, then there will be no reason for people to buy images...anywhere.


we've all thought the past few months were the beginning of the end; it's like witnessing a train crash and we can't do a thing about it. can we?

« Reply #409 on: January 13, 2013, 01:59 »
0
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.


They've already delivered their "proof" in the form of the assertions in the lawyer's statement. Now the ball is in our court.  If you want them to try to prove they are right (and give you the chance to prove they are wrong) there is one, and only one, way to do it: sue them. Unless you are planning to do that then bold demands for proof are meaningless.

« Reply #410 on: January 13, 2013, 02:11 »
-1

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.

OK, I agree with that. So all those who are sure enough of their ground to sue istock and have the cash to do it should go ahead with the take-down notices.

Those who aren't ready to sue should bear in mind that iS might close your account if they consider you are harrassing "an important partner" with legal notices, which might or might not matter to you.

« Reply #411 on: January 13, 2013, 02:27 »
+6
Vannphoto:

When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.

How many potential customers have been lost because they can now access large, unwatermarked images at no charge? Where is the incentive?

All of the agencies on the right directly compete for the same thing...image buyers. If the free image offering continues then the impact could be industry wide. I feel as helpless as you.

Microbius

« Reply #412 on: January 13, 2013, 03:10 »
+1

OK, I agree with that. So all those who are sure enough of their ground to sue istock and have the cash to do it should go ahead with the take-down notices.

Those who aren't ready to sue should bear in mind that iS might close your account if they consider you are harrassing "an important partner" with legal notices, which might or might not matter to you.


A DMCA Takedown is a good faith declaration that you don't believe the infringer has the right to display the work. If you genuinely are the copyright holder and believe the content is displayed without your permission (i.e. it goes against the terms of your contract with IStock) then as far as I can work out there is no reason not to send a DMCA. Of course IStock could close your account, but I don't think they can (successfully) sue if it is not done maliciously, but because you genuinely believe your work is being infringed. That's what I take from the wording of most DMCA takedowns in any case. The one photoattorney recommends includes these words:

http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html

"I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder."


Of course Google will probably then just give a counter-notice (if they think they are in the right) and then you will have to sue or drop the case.

Anyway, it could at least let them know that as the copyright holder you don't believe they have the right to give your work away

I'm not a lawyer or anything. this is all just my opinion!

« Reply #413 on: January 13, 2013, 03:12 »
+3
Vannphoto:

When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.
I think you meant to sat "largest and most VILLIFIED stock agency..." I see no respect for Getty from anyone. 

Microbius

« Reply #414 on: January 13, 2013, 03:13 »
+1
Vannphoto:

When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.
I think you meant to sat "largest and most VILLIFIED stock agency..." I see no respect for Getty from anyone.

Beat me to it! largest, but not respected for a long time!

« Reply #415 on: January 13, 2013, 03:43 »
0
Quote
Are these images only Istock/TS? Or do they include other micro site images? One of mine is in there but that image has been deactivated on Istock years ago.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818717

This is another thing that I'm afraid of. I deactivated some of the MR images on iS site but I really can't be sure that it means that they can't appear on Google Drive in near future yet from TS or photos.com - as mentioned also in this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/account-closed-over-1yr-ago-still-selling-images-with-no-payment/

« Reply #416 on: January 13, 2013, 03:51 »
0
Quote
Are these images only Istock/TS? Or do they include other micro site images? One of mine is in there but that image has been deactivated on Istock years ago.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818717

This is another thing that I'm afraid of. I deactivated some of the MR images on iS site but I really can't be sure that it means that they can't appear on Google Drive in near future yet from TS or photos.com - as mentioned also in this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/account-closed-over-1yr-ago-still-selling-images-with-no-payment/


Before we knew we were getting screwed and we put up with it. Unfortunately its only now we have discovered that it was unprotected and it is only luck or time before catching something  ;)

Microbius

« Reply #417 on: January 13, 2013, 03:57 »
+4
Vannphoto:

When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us. Agencies are in the business of selling images, not giving them away.

How many potential customers have been lost because they can now access large, unwatermarked images at no charge? Where is the incentive?

All of the agencies on the right directly compete for the same thing...image buyers. If the free image offering continues then the impact could be industry wide. I feel as helpless as you.
I wish there were more agencies like GL out there, can't sing your praises enough. Thanks for your support.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #418 on: January 13, 2013, 04:31 »
0
Vannphoto:

When the largest and most respected stock agency starts giving away images, it not only tarnishes the reputation of this industry but punishes the rest of us.

again we are trapped. at the moment this scandal is still just known within the stock community, do we dare let it go wider? will that help? will we look like greedy, spoilt brats? (despite the fact we get 25c per sub dl, most ppl think we earn much more) the music industry beat this (to a degree) but they didn't have an army of amateur musicians willing to upload free content.

rubyroo

« Reply #419 on: January 13, 2013, 05:16 »
0
Thank you so much for joining the discussion Kelly.  I have been wondering how agency owners are feeling about this move and it is very good to hear your views.  I wish the other agency owners would step in and show support for contributors and the industry as you have.  This whole industry works better when we're all on the same side with the same objective, and unfortunately in many cases it's turned into a 'them and us' scenario.   

I would love to see the agency owners actually work together in some way and create an association to defend the industry against unfair practices.  It would then be clear to all of us that those who didn't sign up to it were too self-serving to do so.  It would be great to see something positive for all of us come out of this.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 05:21 by rubyroo »

« Reply #420 on: January 13, 2013, 05:24 »
+1
From laughingmango on the istock forum "contact PACA about this matter. from what I can see Istock is not a member, but Getty Images is.



PACA Code Of Ethics


The Picture Archive Council of America, through its worldwide membership, vigorously supports a standard of business practice that sustains the highest degree of honesty, integrity and fair play with clients, contributing artists, other stock agencies and vendors. PACA has a commitment to the protection of intellectual property and represents the highest quality of images, service and membership support.

http://www.pacaoffice.org/

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=14#post6819085
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 05:44 by suemack »

rubyroo

« Reply #421 on: January 13, 2013, 05:27 »
0
Oh wow Sue.  I'm speechless. 

« Reply #422 on: January 13, 2013, 05:37 »
+1
This link works

http://www.pacaoffice.org/about.shtml [nofollow]

Picture Archive Council of America

« Reply #423 on: January 13, 2013, 05:42 »
0
Thank Redzaal!


« Reply #424 on: January 13, 2013, 05:53 »
+1
Very interesting looking at the Officers and Staff of PACA. Getty are not just members. Vice President and the Education & Communications Officer are both from Getty 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25081 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
25559 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