MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256367 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #800 on: January 18, 2013, 09:57 »
0
I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.

It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.



Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.

You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.

So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums????   

That is just a guess.. assuming that $12 was a 20% payment, the original fee would be $60.


« Reply #801 on: January 18, 2013, 10:36 »
0
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums????

We get %20 per RF license.  Assuming this is paid at that rate, that makes $60.


« Reply #803 on: January 18, 2013, 11:32 »
+2
Or they could always go though this link http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=262 :)

« Reply #804 on: January 18, 2013, 12:18 »
0

« Reply #805 on: January 18, 2013, 12:27 »
0
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio

Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them.  Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.

« Reply #806 on: January 18, 2013, 12:32 »
+3
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio

Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them.  Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.

Yes, i am being offered a bypass, they looked at my istock port and are happy with it, just got to show some ID now. Very nice email, and quick reply, made me feel good :)

« Reply #807 on: January 18, 2013, 12:37 »
0
That nice to hear Susan.  I know it must be scary leaving exclusivity, but it is really great to be respected also.

I hope that down the road Jon and SS maintain their integrity/reputation.  They haven't disappointed me yet. 

« Reply #808 on: January 18, 2013, 12:41 »
0
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive.  Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference.  She has a lot of meat, so to speak.

« Reply #809 on: January 18, 2013, 12:42 »
0
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio

Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them.  Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.

Yes, i am being offered a bypass, they looked at my istock port and are happy with it, just got to show some ID now. Very nice email, and quick reply, made me feel good :)

This is fantastic Susan!! Very happy to see that you guys will be fairly treated!! One GREAT reason for the exclusives to get away from this nightmare.

« Reply #810 on: January 18, 2013, 12:57 »
+4
It's nice to have a site making sensible decisions.  Hope for all of us that use them that it stays that way for a long time.

lisafx

« Reply #811 on: January 18, 2013, 13:20 »
-1
It's nice to have a site making sensible decisions.  Hope for all of us that use them that it stays that way for a long time.

Enthusiastic +1 on both counts (although I can only give you one ;) )

« Reply #812 on: January 18, 2013, 13:25 »
+2
So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums????

We get %20 per RF license.  Assuming this is paid at that rate, that makes $60.

Holy cow,  I should have negotiated for them.  They should have "googled"  this question "google cash on hand 2012".  I can tell them it is $50,000,000,000.

I can't believe they would sell this type of portfolio for $300,000  for unlimited downloads to the #1 used website.  Paying the contributors $60,000.  Considering how much damage this portfolio is going to due to getty's stock sites. 

It's hard to believe the getty guys who absolutely stole istock from bruce for 50mil when it was worth at least 1 billion would not get a great deal.  Must be back end hidden money to getty.   This must have done to boost their balance sheets before their latest sale to caryle.   Who expected the sale to be higher considering the loss of getty stock sales to the competition.  not me!

We are not being told the real details here.



« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 14:40 by pro@stockphotos »

« Reply #813 on: January 18, 2013, 13:32 »
+1
its probably just a small part of an overall cooperation deal. I am sure getty would love to be the exclusive supplier for google adwords with images.

that is just such a juicy fruit hanging there, I understand that they would try to do many, many things to be able to pick it.

But handing over our IP should not have been part of that deal. and I think we can all see that even if they succeed in becoming a part of google adwords, that the artists would not be participating. Another 10 dollar "special license" and off go the files to google adwords.

Or something like that.

« Reply #814 on: January 18, 2013, 14:49 »
+2
If anyone wants a summery of the situation, Sjlocke just made a nice post
http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/

« Reply #815 on: January 18, 2013, 15:24 »
+4
If anyone wants a summery of the situation, Sjlocke just made a nice post
http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/


Well done, Sean.  A million hearts for you!  Also you deserve a platinum crown embedded with rubies, diamonds and an attachment with two beer can holders.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 15:26 by Mantis »

rubyroo

« Reply #816 on: January 18, 2013, 15:27 »
0
Yes.  Brilliant post.  Well done Sean, and I hope they'll say something useful soon so that you can get back to doing what you love best.  Thanks so much for taking the time and standing up for principles as strongly as you do.

« Reply #817 on: January 18, 2013, 15:36 »
0
how desperate are we? ;D

« Reply #818 on: January 18, 2013, 15:49 »
0
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio

Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them.  Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.

Possibly although a LOT of stuff that gets accepted on IS routinely gets rejected by SS with its extremely random and inconsistent review process!


« Reply #819 on: January 18, 2013, 16:04 »
0
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio

Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them.  Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.

Possibly although a LOT of stuff that gets accepted on IS routinely gets rejected by SS with its extremely random and inconsistent review process!

I was wondering if it meant that they were ready to give a free pass to defecting exclusives, since the SS inspection is generally tougher these days than the iS one. They wouldn't want to put exclusives off hanging up the crown by rejecting their initial application, would they?

« Reply #820 on: January 18, 2013, 16:30 »
0
I also wonder what someone like sandralaise (sp) is planning to do....even though she is not exclusive.  Her port is mighty nice and powerful and big. I've said this once, when images are pulled from Istock they have to be meaty to make any kind of difference.  She has a lot of meat, so to speak.


Sandralise, is blisfully unaware of this sh*t storm. She only has about 300 images left on istock having tired of them a couple of years ago, I believe. She no longer reads the istock forum either.

« Reply #821 on: January 18, 2013, 16:48 »
0
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers

I was wondering if it meant that they were ready to give a free pass to defecting exclusives, since the SS inspection is generally tougher these days than the iS one. They wouldn't want to put exclusives off hanging up the crown by rejecting their initial application, would they?

I wouldnt class SS as tougher just a LOT more random.  There are big difference in accepted styles too.  IS really want fairly untouched and minimally processed images whereas SS want completely finished, processed images.  I quite often have to submit 2 images of one photo - a severely edited SS and a barely edited IS of the same.

« Reply #822 on: January 18, 2013, 16:49 »
0
The thumbnails used to link to the full size.  Did you change that?

eta: Never mind, it looks like it was just the ones I was looking at.  I also see meta data now listed for each image that does include, at least, the name of the contributor - for mine at least.

etaa:  However, when I find the image myself on Google and download the full res, the meta is not there.  Where did you find your full rez images to have ones with the meta?  Are they removing it when they insert it in an application?

Yes, Google deletes all image meta data when you click the Select button or double click a thumbnail to insert the larger file into your document.

To download a thumbnail with meta data...

If you want a link to the thumbnail with meta data copy the url in the 'Location' field. For visual reference click on link #2 above.

Here is a link to the thumbnail with meta data:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6E39j_cy4EE/ULTQ2bUBFOI/AAAAAAABr_k/vrN-Tel3ul8/h120/143919444.jpg

To get the high resolution file with meta data simply alter the thumbnail url above. Change 'h120' to 'h3200'.

Here is a link to the high resolution file with meta data:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6E39j_cy4EE/ULTQ2bUBFOI/AAAAAAABr_k/vrN-Tel3ul8/h3200/143919444.jpg

« Reply #823 on: January 18, 2013, 16:57 »
0
Ahhhh.  Interesting.  I'm going to post this in the IS forum, if you don't mind...

« Reply #824 on: January 18, 2013, 17:05 »
0
Ahhhh.  Interesting.  I'm going to post this in the IS forum, if you don't mind...
I don't mind at all.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25068 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
10966 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
25544 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
5589 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors