Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258667 times)

Microbius · « **Reply #700 on:** January 16, 2013, 04:51 »

Quote from: Kenny on January 16, 2013, 00:45

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.

I'm a bit torn here, my images are in there too. I appreciate you are trying to help, but you also don't have the right to have those images on your site, even if the deal was legit (which I would dispute) you shouldn't be using them outside Google Drive. Could you at least lower the resolution and watermark them?

It is one more place where the unscrupulous can stumble upon my work through a Google image search and pinch it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #701 on:** January 16, 2013, 04:55 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 15, 2013, 20:54

Quote from: lisafx on January 15, 2013, 20:13
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

We’ve 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.

I think they bent over backwards to do a deal with Google, as they know Google could easily crush their business if they wanted to. It can't just be a cock-up, as they aren't going to deal with a company bigger than Google. They've been working on this for months. Surely it must of been several people at various levels of management putting together and giving the go ahead for a deal like this? They might be trying the old trick of going too far and then given us some small changes to try and make it look like they care but we aren't going to fall for that again are we?

It's either well planned or complete incompetence and I don't see how I can trust them again either way.

cobalt · « **Reply #702 on:** January 16, 2013, 05:00 »

I just posted this question in the new google thread. Does anyone know if registered works were chosen for MS or Google deals?

cobalt

Posted 7 mins ago
Quote

I have a question for the community and maybe one of the admins can answer this question. A photographer from the German community last week gave me a "lecture" on the differences of copyright law around the world. My background is something else, but apparently it was a required class wherever he studied. According to him, German copyright, or "Urheberrecht" is vastly different from the US copyright and offers a lot more protection to teh artist. It cannot be sold or transferred, it "sticks" for life to the artist and his creations as long as he resides in Germany.

Even stronger, according to him, are all files registered under US copyright law. I have never registered anything before and I am now looking into it.

So my question to the community and getty would be: are there any registered works in the MS/Google free redistribution deal?

Would registering unpublished works before uploading and then adding the registration number to each file (or a sentence making it clear the work is registered) prevent files to be "elected" for these "deals".

If registered works are not chosen for free re- distribution, then maybe this would give us a practical solution going forward. We could register whatever believe needs to be exempted and Getty could select from the others.

The best solution would be the simple one: create a lightbox, allow us to chose "donation images" and fullfill your marketing speak truthfully about "user generated content donated to the media community"

Getty themselves encourage registration, they even have a special field for it upon uploading. maybe here on istock we have been too negligent to do it.

So - would registering have any effect on if that file gets chosen? You clearly said you don´t choose RM files. How about registred works? can they be selected and distributed to millions of unregistred users? Does it influence the value of their protection in any way?

rubyroo · « **Reply #703 on:** January 16, 2013, 05:23 »

Do you think we can ask for reparations for being sent crazy by all these shenanigans?

I just raised a spoonful of cornflakes to my mouth and blew on it, as if it was hot soup!

(Definitely going bonkers)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #704 on:** January 16, 2013, 07:24 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 16, 2013, 04:02

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

The copyright data is only in the exif of the thumbnails, as far as I can see.

Mantis · « **Reply #705 on:** January 16, 2013, 07:25 »

Quote from: cybernesco on January 16, 2013, 00:36

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."

That is a very effective and passionate statement.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #706 on:** January 16, 2013, 07:27 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 16, 2013, 04:51

I'm a bit torn here, my images are in there too. I appreciate you are trying to help, but you also don't have the right to have those images on your site, even if the deal was legit (which I would dispute) you shouldn't be using them outside Google Drive. Could you at least lower the resolution and watermark them?

It is one more place where the unscrupulous can stumble upon my work through a Google image search and pinch it.

Since you can "publish the documents to the web", including an inframe link, and there is nothing about hotlinking or showing attribution in any agreement, I don't see this as an invalid use.

See, I just did it myself in two seconds:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJrYhEWzN4j4G8_xiXUYGlnGtyZTeNOtELCKW_CJu_I/pub

Microbius · « **Reply #707 on:** January 16, 2013, 07:35 »

Oh right, that site was published from Google Drive? I hadn't realized, I thought the photos had been pulled out of Google Drive and placed in a website created elsewhere.

So you can set up a stock library containing all our work from Google Drive? God that sucks that Getty has given our work away like that.

It would still be good of anyone here not to put our work on the internet in such an easily searchable way at high resolution, but it sounds like if the agreement is valid it isn't actually illegal (shocking!!!!)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #708 on:** January 16, 2013, 08:03 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 16, 2013, 07:35

Oh right, that site was published from Google Drive? I hadn't realized, I thought the photos had been pulled out of Google Drive and placed in a website created elsewhere.

So you can set up a stock library containing all our work from Google Drive? God that sucks that Getty has given our work away like that.

It would still be good of anyone here not to put our work on the internet in such an easily searchable way at high resolution, but it sounds like if the agreement is valid it isn't actually illegal (shocking!!!!)

No, but I'm just saying I don't see much difference. He could have easily created a page with iframes linking to all the images. or just hotlinked to them.

Microbius · « **Reply #709 on:** January 16, 2013, 08:13 »

I agree that the way the deal was done leaves it open to misuse and doesn't protect our work or make terms clear enough to normal Drive users but as far as I understand it from this end the license negotiated only allows Drive users to use the photos in Drive created documents.

The difference is that he is not licensed to use the images in other ways, am I incorrect?

panoramic · « **Reply #710 on:** January 16, 2013, 09:08 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 16, 2013, 04:47

Quote from: panoramic on January 15, 2013, 21:56
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?

I think you miss the point. I'm not talking here about fair compensation.
This time they sold to google one of my works ( for 12 $) . They claim it's legal. If selling one image like that is legal, next time they can include 100 or 10000 or 1000000 of my images in similar deal. It will also be completely OK and legal for them. Today they make 6000 images avilable for free download on Google. Tomorrow the whole getty and istock collections can be included, if they want to. Why not? What bothers me is not the money or compensation. I don't want to find out one day that whole my port is availble online for free to google or microsoft clients. In this case all my buyers from Shutterstock an Fotolia will stop buying my images. They will go to Google instead. And there is no way for my to prevent it.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #711 on:** January 16, 2013, 09:09 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 16, 2013, 08:13

I agree that the way the deal was done leaves it open to misuse and doesn't protect our work or make terms clear enough to normal Drive users but as far as I understand it from this end the license negotiated only allows Drive users to use the photos in Drive created documents.

The difference is that he is not licensed to use the images in other ways, am I incorrect?

Well, I used it in a Google created document and published it on the web. Hotlinking is not illegal, sooo.....

Once could also claimed fair use, possibly.

Also, we don't know of any license, aside from the general terms buried in the Google EULA which is hard to find, and is in conflict with the statement on the search that says they have a commercial use license, period.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #712 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:13 »

iStock say they're "looking at" the site with the list of images and full sizes, so I wonder if temporarily making it go away might be expedient, legal or not?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #713 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:22 »

Someone else blogging about why you shouldn't use the Google Drive stock images

gostwyck · « **Reply #714 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:31 »

It's all ok everyone! I've dug out an interview with Johnny Klein in which he stresses just how hard he works to protect the IP of Getty contributors;


Jonathan Klein on Intellectual Property

It's particularly interesting what he has to say from 2.40 onwards. Enjoy.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #715 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:38 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 16, 2013, 12:13

iStock say they're "looking at" the site with the list of images and full sizes, so I wonder if temporarily making it go away might be expedient, legal or not?

The site uses thumbnails to link to the original full size images. I don't see the issue. I mean, that's how the internet works, right?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #716 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 16, 2013, 12:38

Quote from: jsnover on January 16, 2013, 12:13
iStock say they're "looking at" the site with the list of images and full sizes, so I wonder if temporarily making it go away might be expedient, legal or not?

The site uses thumbnails to link to the original full size images. I don't see the issue. I mean, that's how the internet works, right?

I'm not arguing whether they're right or not, or even how unreasonable it is that they told contributors they had to do the leg work to find misuse of images from the Microsoft promotional giveaway where here they are volunteering to look into something probably OK but which they think might cause them grief

Just suggesting that getting into spats with them for the 20 seconds they're paying attention to something like this might be best avoided.

jm · « **Reply #717 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:50 »

"We are aware of this site and are looking at it now. No need to post links to it."

Has anybody told them these images are on Google Drive? They will look at it. Now. :-)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #718 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:56 »

that's where our money is going

rain jackets

fritz · « **Reply #719 on:** January 16, 2013, 12:58 »

OK, I got the massage form Getty. This is how I see on this scandal.

We(Getty)are so powerful so we can do whatever we want and you're nothing but poor miserable contributors depending on us. We need $$$ we need millions, we need billions no,no, we need trillions $$$ and we will do everything to increase our profit. We are going to make a deal(if is's necessary) even with the devil just to make our profit bigger and bigger.
It's so simple and I don't have to be super smart to figure out the point.

lisafx · « **Reply #720 on:** January 16, 2013, 16:08 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 16, 2013, 12:22

Someone else blogging about why you shouldn't use the Google Drive stock images

Really excellent blog article JoAnn. He's summed up the situation very nicely. I will probably link to his blog in any further media contacts I send out. Thank you for posting!

sshaw · « **Reply #721 on:** January 16, 2013, 16:15 »

Is anyone keeping an eye on the ASA? I wouldn't put it past them to make changes quietly to the agreement to support deals like this at this point.....

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #722 on:** January 16, 2013, 16:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 16, 2013, 16:08

Quote from: jsnover on January 16, 2013, 12:22
Someone else blogging about why you shouldn't use the Google Drive stock images

Really excellent blog article JoAnn. He's summed up the situation very nicely. I will probably link to his blog in any further media contacts I send out. Thank you for posting!

He says "What this agreement does not allow, and what Google is effectively engaging in, is the free redistribution of these images without attribution and further compensation."

However, nobody except Google and Getty knows what the agreement allows or does not allow. He's just guessing that Getty are adhering to high standards and Google are being the bad guys.

Poncke · « **Reply #723 on:** January 16, 2013, 17:28 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 16, 2013, 04:51

Quote from: Kenny on January 16, 2013, 00:45
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.

I'm a bit torn here, my images are in there too. I appreciate you are trying to help, but you also don't have the right to have those images on your site, even if the deal was legit (which I would dispute) you shouldn't be using them outside Google Drive. Could you at least lower the resolution and watermark them?

It is one more place where the unscrupulous can stumble upon my work through a Google image search and pinch it.

I was thinking the same Mantis. When downloaded from that site there is absolutely nothing stopping them, no licence, nothing. With all due respect.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #724 on:** January 16, 2013, 17:59 »

MP just posted a new blog post

http://www.microstockposts.com/photographers-plan-to-remove-images-from-istockphoto/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258667 times)

Microbius

sharpshot

cobalt

rubyroo

Sean Locke Photography

Mantis

Sean Locke Photography

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

Microbius

panoramic

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

jm

luissantos84

fritz

lisafx

sshaw

BaldricksTrousers

Poncke

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors