MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256415 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #750 on: January 17, 2013, 08:40 »
0
Ongoing on a rolling programme, then.  :(


« Reply #751 on: January 17, 2013, 09:18 »
+1
If we had enough people doing this, we could all "vote" for the same BAD photos.  If we would all suggest our worst photo, then define about 50 (or more) of them of different MSG'ers, then each of us would vote on 10 of them.  I bet Google automates part of this and will add the top 1000 to their collection ...?

LOL! What an idea! Let's create the 'Google Crap Collection'!

EmberMike

« Reply #752 on: January 17, 2013, 10:03 »
+3
Interesting comment in that APhotoEditor article, about the issue of model releases and images not being used in any defamatory way, in porn, etc. Since Google is essentially redistributing images, and no license info goes along with the images, how can they enforce that part of the agreement any more? Makes it dangerous for models to work with istock photographers and might hurt existing relationships between photographers and their regular models. I'd imagine that models won't be too pleased to find out that their images can be redistributed without any licensing and without protection from defamatory use.

It really is getting to the point of "death by a thousand cuts" as another commenter put it. It's not just the one issue of redistribution. It's the poor compensation, the lack of consent, the copyright issues, the meta issues, the model release issues, everything. Plus all of the other cuts Getty/istock have given us over the last couple of years.

« Reply #753 on: January 17, 2013, 11:28 »
+1
This Google-Getty deal is on the news, hopefully more sites will talk about this wonderful deal...

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/01/getty-signs-deal-google-gives-photographers-pittance

« Reply #754 on: January 17, 2013, 11:35 »
+1
This Google-Getty deal is on the news, hopefully more sites will talk about this wonderful deal...

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/01/getty-signs-deal-google-gives-photographers-pittance


This is nice, tweet and like guys, tweet and like:) I did:)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 12:05 by Elenathewise »

B8

« Reply #755 on: January 17, 2013, 11:55 »
0
The link that blog article provides to check if you are images are on the Google site is a dead link: http://kga.me/gds/

« Reply #756 on: January 17, 2013, 12:00 »
0
The link that blog article provides to check if you are images are on the Google site is a dead link: http://kga.me/gds/


Works for me now, but yesterday it was offline for some time.

Poncke

« Reply #757 on: January 17, 2013, 12:06 »
+1
Here is an interesting comment on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/16/getty-hands-google-users-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/#comments

Quote
John Neff January 17, 2013 at 11:56 am
I have been a full-time video producer with iStock for 2.5 years. If they do this
with our photos what will they do with my high end medical clips? I am getting out as fast as possible and never looking back!

RacePhoto

« Reply #758 on: January 17, 2013, 12:16 »
+1
OK I wasn't convinced before but I am now. Getty is trying to kill Microstock. This is a real stab in the back and kick in the @$$ Talk about insults too, $12 and they basically gave away the images with all rights and no attribution. Bad Bad Bad.

Here is an interesting comment on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/16/getty-hands-google-users-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/#comments

Quote
John Neff January 17, 2013 at 11:56 am
I have been a full-time video producer with iStock for 2.5 years. If they do this
with our photos what will they do with my high end medical clips? I am getting out as fast as possible and never looking back!


« Reply #759 on: January 17, 2013, 13:29 »
0
Quote
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,

Wah wah woh wah wah, blah blah blah IS BS

« Reply #760 on: January 17, 2013, 14:03 »
0
OK I wasn't convinced before but I am now. Getty is trying to kill Microstock. This is a real stab in the back and kick in the @$$ Talk about insults too, $12 and they basically gave away the images with all rights and no attribution. Bad Bad Bad.

But ... only a tiny percentage of the images involved ... were actually 'microstock' images. Over 90% of the 7000 images involved were in fact 'macrostock', from Getty themselves and other macro agencies. Of the 700 microstock images that were included most of those were Vetta/Agency images and arguably not 'microstock' at all.

The far more logical conclusion, based on the images themselves, is that Getty is trying to kill Macrostock rather than microstock. Of course neither theory holds any water. The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.

« Reply #761 on: January 17, 2013, 14:47 »
0
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

« Reply #762 on: January 17, 2013, 15:06 »
+2
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D

Poncke

« Reply #763 on: January 17, 2013, 15:34 »
0
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Whats curious?

« Reply #764 on: January 17, 2013, 15:52 »
0
I think any photographers / artists affected by this should file a complaint with the FTC. (I have already done so)

They have an online form to file a complaint.
They won't take on individual cases but if they get enough complaints about one company it might prompt them to look into it.
Both Getty and Google have run afoul of them before so maybe this might do some good.

From their Site:
The Federal Trade Commission, the nation's consumer protection agency, collects complaints about companies, business practices, identity theft, and episodes of violence in the media.

Why: Your complaints can help us detect patterns of wrong-doing, and lead to investigations and prosecutions. The FTC enters all complaints it receives into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database that is used by thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement authorities worldwide. The FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints.
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov

Great idea!  Worth repeating. 

lisafx

« Reply #765 on: January 17, 2013, 16:04 »
0
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D

Marisa, hopefully you will join in the protest and delete some of your photos? 

« Reply #766 on: January 17, 2013, 16:09 »
0
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Whats curious?

the fact that she gave a ______ about iStock and said we haven't but still left her portfolio online which means she havent gave a ______ just like we haven't ;D

« Reply #767 on: January 17, 2013, 16:48 »
+1
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D

What's curious?

I dropped exclusivity with iStockphoto at the end of 2011 and have since been independent. I rarely check in on my files or make $ withdrawals, and never really got around to uploading much on other sites. Microstock is back to being a super-back-burning side thing for me. When I saw how things were going at iStockphoto and that contributors weren't willing to come together en masse to make a difference with HQ/Getty, I stopped giving a *. What was the point anymore? So I self-banned from the iStockphoto forums, and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again. And that's that. That's why you rarely, if ever, see me here talking microstock. I've even unsubscribed from public and private iStockphoto groups on Facebook. I really don't give a hoot anymore. It's way too late. No more stock steam. I focus now, instead, on selling the odd print via Etsy and contributing to the one agency I love that's by invite-only and that I feel cares about its contributors. It's not that I won't contribute to others or to iStockphoto even. It's just that I'm interested in other things now and use my extra energy for these things rather than trying to make a difference in iStockphoto forums. Microstock is not my day job, or even a hobby anymore, really. I quit that dream for reality, and am much happier for it.

« Reply #768 on: January 17, 2013, 16:52 »
0
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D

Marisa, hopefully you will join in the protest and delete some of your photos?

That requires time and energy that I can't promise. My latest protest-deleting project on Instagram is taking ages. I just can't be bothered with all these jokers right now. New job and joys, little free time. And that time is too valuable. The last thing I want to do when I get home is spend time on iStockphoto or Instagram. But maybe, Lisa. We'll see.

« Reply #769 on: January 17, 2013, 16:55 »
+2
It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ .

Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ .

that's curious having 2488 pictures at iStock ;D
Whats curious?

the fact that she gave a ______ about iStock and said we haven't but still left her portfolio online which means she havent gave a ______ just like we haven't ;D

I was exclusive from jump and dropped my crown in protest. That was my protest, at the end of 2011. I wanted to go independent and spread my work around, rather than keep it exclusively with iStockphoto; because I wasn't keen on how they were treating contributors. That's when I checked out of caring about trying to make a difference at iStockphoto.

Dig?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #770 on: January 17, 2013, 16:58 »
+1
So ... and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again.
That's probably illegal in several States.  ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

« Reply #771 on: January 17, 2013, 17:00 »
+3
So ... and asked that Lobo ban me on the backend to ensure I couldn't be tempted to get involved again.
That's probably illegal in several States.  ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I was hoping someone fun would pick up on the double entendre. ;) That I do miss about the iStock forums. We had some good times, y'all. #memories

« Reply #772 on: January 17, 2013, 17:05 »
0
Marisa I know your story and we actually talked in a few emails, maybe you have forgotten, anyway that wasn't the point here

it was about you telling that we haven't give a ___ back in 2011 but still leaving your portfolio online, sure you have all the reasons in the world and I respect that, next time just don't say we don't give a ___ because we actually did and do everyday, I have stopped uploading back in March 2012

aspp

« Reply #773 on: January 17, 2013, 17:29 »
0
The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.

Totally agree. It's also fixable. People messed up. I am opposed to this, not in principle, only because it seems like a lousy deal for the photographers. There seems to be nothing good about it.

But I am not at all convinced any longer by this point that some people have been making about model released content being put at risk. If you sell your work RF, especially via multiple agents and at subscription sites, then it is already out there in use from where it can be potentially be re - downloaded (stolen from other web uses) and misused. And the internet is too big and too international for anyone at an agency to do much about that. Professional RF models should know that risk and be paid accordingly or else should not care. Anything potentially sensitive should be either commissioned or very tightly controlled RM.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 17:33 by aspp »

« Reply #774 on: January 17, 2013, 17:30 »
+1
The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.

Hmm... It seems to me Getty is too slow and deliberate to make such mistakes. It's more likely a ploy of some sort. Getty and Google are like two alley cats sizing each other up and miaowing loudly before the real action starts. Remember that Klein a number of times made the point, "all it would take is for Google to flip a switch" and the stock photo market would be transformed. That is, Google allowing images in ads. It hasn't happened, but something else has, which we now can see, but only partially.

So at first glance it looks like 1-0 to Google. But you have to wonder... Isn't Getty playing a pusher to a potential junkie? The deal is so clearly underpriced. Getty would have known the reaction of iStockers would be severe, a negotiating tactic they can plausibly deny, but that can only drive prices higher in the future. Getty took an "own goal" in the first round for a bigger prize later on.


 

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