pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EmberMike

« Reply #675 on: January 15, 2013, 21:27 »
+1
It sounds like the suspected source of the images is ThinkStock. Anyone know if that's confirmed?

Still trying to digest all of this, but so far, I have a few unpleasant thoughts. Primarily the thought that even though I'm not directly impacted by this and likely won't be any time soon (very few vectors seem to be ending up in this program), I still feel a bit dirty continuing to do business with istock/getty. Or more dirty today than I did yesterday, anyway.

This is the very same program that was first announced back in August, right? The one in which people were asked to nominate images from TS?

I bring this up only because it makes this feel more like a long-running initiative, something that was planned and worked on for a long time, maybe as long as a year already. Meaning that Getty will be hard-pressed to abandon it or modify it in any way that makes it less profitable. They're heavily invested in it, and they need a return.

And judging by the treatment of independent artists with regard to TS (no opt-out), I suspect this may go the same way. As in, if you want to do business with getty, this is one of the costs of admission.

Lastly, I hate to say "I told you so", but back when TS became no longer optional for independents, I did say that the day would come for exclusives, too. This isn't exactly it, but it's a start. It's very similar. If you want to be on partner sites, you'll need to take a chance on having some images show up in this free collection as well. The only way out is going to be to stop doing business with any and all Getty sites.

I really do hope that this all gets changed in a way that makes it realistic for contributors to remain involved. But realistically, istock has almost never changed anything they've done to reduce the negative impact that these things have on us. I wouldn't be surprised to see this program continue on with maybe just some slight changes. A few bucks more paid to the contributor per image or something like that.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 21:30 by EmberMike »


Pinocchio

« Reply #676 on: January 15, 2013, 21:49 »
0
@EmberMike: It seems that many images were sourced from TS, but this thread has also documented images from vstock and zoonar amongst other agencies that distribute through Getty; there are also Vetta images.  I don't have an easy summary, but if you read the whole thread, long as it is, you'll get those answers.  Key posts were made by jsnover and sjlocke.  sjlocke has a text file with all the details on hos own web site.  sjlocke established a discussion board for folk with portfolios at http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php; I haven't looked at it, but I expect there will be lots more information there.

Regards

« Reply #677 on: January 15, 2013, 21:56 »
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a right to give away my works for free via third party partners. And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to. Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.
And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?

Pinocchio

« Reply #678 on: January 15, 2013, 21:56 »
0
@embermike:
1. I have not seen reports of vectors being included, but DRIVE users discussed requesting some.
2. The earliest reference to this "deal" that I know of is on Alamy, August 10, 2011.

I'm not expecting an outcome iStock contributors of any flavour are going to like.  There are many in this thread who have already started deactivating images to keep them out of this "deal", and many more who are concerned about the consequences of usages that do not comply with model release conditions.

I'm a very small contributor, waiting to see what happens and concerned about those few images that sell well for me.

Regards

« Reply #679 on: January 15, 2013, 22:00 »
0
@embermike:
1. I have not seen reports of vectors being included, but DRIVE users discussed requesting some.

Raster version of one of my vectors is there.

Pinocchio

« Reply #680 on: January 15, 2013, 22:03 »
0
@panoramic: I think your quick summary is effectively accurate, even though Getty has not publicly asserted they can give your work away for free as far as I know.  If you have a big, valuable port you need to take the time to read this whole thread, as well as the 3 Discussion Threads related to Google Drive in the iStock forums, together with recently opened threads here.

Regards

EmberMike

« Reply #681 on: January 15, 2013, 22:04 »
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a right to give away my works for free via third party partners. And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to. Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.
And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?

From my limited understanding, yes, it seems that way. And that is exactly what I'm struggling with. I'm not impacted by this right now. Do I roll the dice and hope that somehow my images are never included in this program or some other new deal related to this program?

Essentially I have to decide if I'm going to gamble and just hope I manage to avoid this program, or take the risk out of the equation and cut ties with getty. Of course to do that I need to forfeit current and future earnings from istock. But I guess either way there's a cost. I leave my images on istock and it could cost me my livelihood if getty ever decides to put my work into this or some other shady deal in which the value of my images is destroyed. 

Pinocchio

« Reply #682 on: January 15, 2013, 22:05 »
0
Panoramic, if one of your images is there, I think you need to do the same reading I recommended to EmberMike.

Pinocchio

« Reply #683 on: January 15, 2013, 22:10 »
0
Any image that is part of this deal will lose all future commercial value - in my opinion.  Posts at iStock suggest more content will be included in this and other similar deals; no deals identified, no timeline mentioned.  Check threads by mr_erin at iStock.  The effect of this deal threatens to make a mockery of Getty's oft-repeated claim they're committed to protecting copyright of their contributors.

« Reply #684 on: January 15, 2013, 23:02 »
+1
New thread started by Mr Erin seems to indicate that there is some movement and they are working with Getty to amend this deal:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1

Weve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.

Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.

We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves.


Then he goes on to repeat the bullet points we've all seen at the top of the last thread.


To my reading it's starting to sound as if it may be a major cock-up. Perhaps somebody agreed to something, possibly chasing a bonus target, when they didn't understand (or care about) the implications. Why otherwise would Istock/Getty be 'meeting with Google' when it is a done deal that was supposedly a win-win-win for all concerned?

At this point I'm favouring cock-up over conspiracy although possibly that's the optimist in me. It simply didn't make any business sense from the start, other than for Google. Hopefully we'll find out before D-Day.


Therefore why Erin stated the following in his first Google drive post:

"There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement"

This does not sound like a one time cock-up affair if you consider that additional content was going to be added over a period of time.  Those planned deals would probably involved communication across a wider administrative spectrum by both companies....more than just somebody.

« Reply #685 on: January 15, 2013, 23:13 »
+2
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out.  I guess we're either going to get enough spin to make a whirling dervish look stationary, or there's a serious problem.  The rest of the world knew Google had asked Drive users to propose ThinkStock images as long ago as August 10 last year when a discussion about it started on an Alamy thread that was updated this past weekend.  Seems to me the whole stock world is watching this drama unfold.

Regards

I believe there is a serious problem. It's kind of obvious to me, but other signs, apart from iStock taking very long time to respond is that we haven't seen any posts at all from some very serious contributors that participate both in micros and macros... which can only mean they've lawyer-ed up.

Again, to me, the delay is far more indicative of a mistake that they are trying to extract themselves from rather than a deliberate and major change in policy. If the latter had been the plan then we should have expected a carefully worded statement, issued at the time, of how beneficial to all the new policy would be. Nothing like that has happened.

gostwyck, I am totally with you here. From the very beginning it looked to me like a major f**kup by sales - I worked for a major software company for a number of years, I know how it's done. Now that doesn't mean it's not a serious problem for Getty at this point. I don't know what I would prefer - deliberate malicious intent or plain old incompetence... probably malicious intent since that at least implies some planning and logical thinking  ;). But looking back at everything that happened ever since Getty acquired Istock all I see is incompetence and failure to understand and adjust to changing times and new technology. The funny thing is, they think they do... but all they'we done so far is bought a thriving company with vibrant artist community and turned it into a nightmare.

« Reply #686 on: January 15, 2013, 23:22 »
0
Funny thing got an email today with this video - totally in sync with my feelings about Getty/Istock  ;)  It's called EXODUS  ;D
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/news/featured/exodus/

« Reply #687 on: January 15, 2013, 23:52 »
+1
Since mr_erin's reply was about acknowledging they need to make sure copyrights are protected, I'll bet they "fess up" to mistakenly erasing the metadata and agree to re-instate it.  Then they'll say, "see we care about you so everything's good now."  Then they go back to pushing more images (all with the proper metadata of course) over to Google or whoever for unlimited free usage.

I suspect the legal issue of erasing copyrights in metadata is the only place they think they have a liability so they'll correct that.  I think they believe they are on firm footing with the rest of the deal.

« Reply #688 on: January 16, 2013, 00:10 »
+2
Haha, replace Government with Getty, and....

« Reply #689 on: January 16, 2013, 00:36 »
+8
The following post is by landbysea from the iStock forum. I think this is extraordinarily well said:


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2

"I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some  cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material  result  of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives."

« Reply #690 on: January 16, 2013, 00:45 »
+3
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at

http://kga.me/gds

Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.

I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.

« Reply #691 on: January 16, 2013, 00:49 »
0
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at

http://kga.me/gds

Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.

I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.


good job ;)
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 00:51 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #692 on: January 16, 2013, 01:22 »
+1
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at

http://kga.me/gds

Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.

I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.


If anyone is thinking of downloading and using these files for anything other than their stated Google Drive uses, you should be aware that Getty is making a big deal of the fact that they own PicHunter. It's possible these files have been embedded with some sort of code that will enable Getty, through PicHunter, to track illegal uses, and sue you. Be very careful.

rubyroo

« Reply #693 on: January 16, 2013, 03:06 »
+2
Too many great posts here to acknowledge them all - just well said people!  I'm getting RSI from clicking hearts.

That's a terrific quote by landbysea, Cybernesco.  Thanks so much for posting it here.

Something that really screams at me in both the posts we've seen from iStock so far is this line:

"our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors"

I can't help feeling that the interested parties in that list are placed very consciously in that order, with contributors firmly at the end of it.  Although in this case, they might as well not have included us on the list at all.

rubyroo

« Reply #694 on: January 16, 2013, 03:21 »
0
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at

http://kga.me/gds

Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.

I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.


Thanks so much for doing that.  Can someone help me out here?  If the metadata is stripped, how come hovering over the thumbnails gives you the name of the author - which you can click to see other instances in the google min-port.  You can also search google by clicking the google link that shows up.

I'm wondering now if this was supposed to be some sort of initial test for their Picscout and ImageIRC facilities - since they keep banging on about that. 

Given that they can provide active links for the mini-port and google results on hovering, surely it wouldn't be too hard to have that active link connect back to actual portfolios on iStock and Getty (although they'd probably only want to link to TS if they linked to a sales site, especially as JK said in that interview that they wanted to push TS aggressively).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 03:26 by rubyroo »

Microbius

« Reply #695 on: January 16, 2013, 04:02 »
+1
I think they just demonstrated they don't even understand the issues involved. The problem is that even if the deal works exactly as intended and all the copyright data is there, they have still effectively made the images worthless by giving them away for free by the tens of thousands to Google users, all for $12. +1 for cybernesco's quote from landbysea on the IStock forum.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

« Reply #696 on: January 16, 2013, 04:07 »
+1
If they talk to Google would it be that difficult to add some box to Google Drive that would appear before inserting image to doc saying "I understand that this image is to be used .......and I'll be shot if I use this image otherwise......blah blah", tick off the box, ok..."  meanwhile - before some acceptable agreement is done? It's a question of few minutes.

rubyroo

« Reply #697 on: January 16, 2013, 04:22 »
+1
I totally agree Microbius, and that's a terrific idea JM.  Actually I wish that sort of warning was available on all sites to really drive copyright issues and license agreements home to people.

« Reply #698 on: January 16, 2013, 04:30 »
0
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at

http://kga.me/gds

Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.

I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.


Thanks for posting that. That's terrifying... thousands and thousands of HR images and big work for free !!! :-(

I was reading the threads for 2 or 3 days and couldn't believe it, but now...
I will think of de-activating my files for D-Day, and from now on, i stop uploading anything to istock.

« Reply #699 on: January 16, 2013, 04:47 »
+1
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a right to give away my works for free via third party partners. And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to. Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.
And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?
They do compensate people with $12 per image used :)  If they added two zeroes at the end of that, it might be adequate compensation, given that they've used highly commercial images.  I'm not even sure if non-exclusives get the full $12?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25076 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
25551 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