pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256386 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #825 on: January 18, 2013, 17:11 »
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.

I sent her a note with a pointer to Sean's blog and the D-Day post here, so now she knows :)


« Reply #826 on: January 18, 2013, 17:14 »
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.

I sent her a note with a pointer to Sean's blog and the D-Day post here, so now she knows :)

Sandra was two years ahead of us when it comes to action!

« Reply #827 on: January 18, 2013, 17:18 »
0
Sandra was two years ahead of us when it comes to action!

With respect to iStock, but she could still get caught by having images with Blend, Image Source and the other macro agencies which distribute through Getty. I think it's worth her seeing to what extent she's affected outside of iStock as well.

EmberMike

« Reply #828 on: January 18, 2013, 17:37 »
+1

From a post at istock, it appears that some additional royalties were paid last month for another round of images slated to go over to Google, but those images have yet to actually appear on Google Drive yet. Meaning there is probably a new batch of images already queued up and ready to go over to Google, and we have no way of knowing which images yet.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 18:02 by Kenny »

« Reply #830 on: January 18, 2013, 18:04 »
0

« Reply #831 on: January 18, 2013, 18:08 »
+1
No. I don't believe it. Mr.Erin wrote "There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans" so it is not possible.  :-\

Well - I'm sorry but I'm afraid that I can't wait till D-Day...

« Reply #832 on: January 18, 2013, 18:58 »
+1
Thank you Kenny.

I can't believe what a bunch of duplicitous scum Getty is. They're silent in the forums all week as they're busy adding more content - KNOWING all the fuss.

Is this their idea of sorting things out with Google???

« Reply #833 on: January 18, 2013, 19:07 »
+2
wow... clicking on these links hoping not to win this lottery again... well that tells you how they are "listening".

<edit> hmm maybe we shouldn't wait till Feb 2 after all...
« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 19:14 by Elenathewise »

« Reply #834 on: January 18, 2013, 19:22 »
0
.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 17:29 by cobalt »

« Reply #835 on: January 19, 2013, 03:51 »
+3
I wonder why they haven't come clean and told us what other deals they have made with Google?  Is it so bad that it's better not to say anything?  If people are getting $6 now, have they already given Google a 50% discount?  Every time I think it can't get any worse, they prove me wrong.

« Reply #836 on: January 19, 2013, 07:45 »
0
liliboas just added a comment on the shutterstock blog asking for help if she moves her portfolio. Good for her! I am surprised so many others are so quiet.

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography

This is such a serious issue, I am surprised how many voices are missing. And istock is stalling, no comments at all.

Maybe this is indeed their way of dissolving the exclusive program without announcing it.
 :-\


eta

no comments from istock and more files moving to google. I think I really have to start deactivations. It seems nothing their admins say has a real meaning. Or it has a hidden double meaning. But I don't live my life in doublespeak.


This is a great example of a meaty portfolio.  If she pulls her content THAT would be like throwing a pie into the pieman's face.

« Reply #837 on: January 19, 2013, 08:14 »
+6
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549

I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.

Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.

Point.

Legal action:

Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.


Second step: Lawsuit.

It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....

« Reply #838 on: January 19, 2013, 09:33 »
+4
I bet that a lot of copyright lawyers are lining up to go after this deal as infringement. Hopefully, an injunction to stop further sales to Google, is around the corner.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 09:46 by rimglow »

« Reply #839 on: January 19, 2013, 09:48 »
0
I bet that a lot of copyright lawyers are lining up to go after this deal as infringement. Hopefully, an injunction to stop further sales to Google, is around the corner.

Boy, I hope you are right.

« Reply #840 on: January 19, 2013, 10:12 »
0
liliboas just added a comment on the shutterstock blog asking for help if she moves her portfolio. Good for her! I am surprised so many others are so quiet.

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/former-exclusives-interested-in-joining-shutterstock?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock,+photos,+stock,+photography

This is such a serious issue, I am surprised how many voices are missing. And istock is stalling, no comments at all.

Maybe this is indeed their way of dissolving the exclusive program without announcing it.
 :-\


eta

no comments from istock and more files moving to google. I think I really have to start deactivations. It seems nothing their admins say has a real meaning. Or it has a hidden double meaning. But I don't live my life in doublespeak.


This is a great example of a meaty portfolio.  If she pulls her content THAT would be like throwing a pie into the pieman's face.


I knew liliboas when she had more uploads than downloads at over 1500 uploads.  She blew up with 60K xmas downloads at the peak a couple of years back.  Last xmas  her great new images did not sell.  It is a no brainer Istock is dead.   

They wanted it this way, getty that is.

« Reply #841 on: January 19, 2013, 10:26 »
0
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549

I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.

Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.

Point.

Legal action:

Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.


Second step: Lawsuit.

It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....


I'm glad someone here was able to capture that because the deleted it within about 30 minutes.  I'd noticed it and had to step away from my computer; when I came back it was gone.

« Reply #842 on: January 19, 2013, 10:32 »
0
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549

I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.

Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.

Point.

Legal action:

Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.


Second step: Lawsuit.

It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....


Good capture, Stan.

« Reply #843 on: January 19, 2013, 10:42 »
0
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549

I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.

Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.

Point.

Legal action:

Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.


Second step: Lawsuit.

It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....


I'm glad someone here was able to capture that because the deleted it within about 30 minutes.  I'd noticed it and had to step away from my computer; when I came back it was gone.




I just reposted the following on IS forum:



A friend of mine is a lawyer and said the following:


 


"


Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.


Therefore......


"


Getty if you delete the above mentioned without giving us an explanation, this will represent a further admission of guilt...
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 10:48 by cybernesco »

« Reply #844 on: January 19, 2013, 12:01 »
0
Just in case my response to a poster on IS gets deleted I am re-posting it here


"Posted By NicolasMcComber:
Google is not reselling our images... They're just making them available (distributing them) for free to their millions of users for commercial use  as long as they use their software to build their documents. That's what's different. Previously, third parties didn't have the right to duplicate and distribute the images on the web by simply buying a custom license for each image... let alone for commercial purposes, which really threatens the market.
"


In this context, although they are being distributed for free, those images are adding perpetual value to google just like if they were selling them. A Google user don't need to spend money on their stuff (such as google translate, maps, calendar ect. ) to be worthy, as advertisers will pay them so much per so many users. Therefore, just the fact that google users are coming back, because of these images, is sufficient payment for such a powerhouse as Google. Only mammoth internet companies such as google, facebook, microsoft ect.. can be huge enough with so many millions users, to afford such a scheme and still make money.


As well if these images are to be used for commercial purposes, can the Google drive document be printed-out on nice photo papers and resold?

« Reply #845 on: January 19, 2013, 13:56 »
+1
We didn't hear a word from them since monday but they delete posts with word "lawsuit".
It seems that they are not that sure about themselves anymore. Good.

« Reply #846 on: January 19, 2013, 14:02 »
0
its a company board. you cannot allow people to discuss on the companies own board what is the best way to sue them. you really cant blame them for deleting any of that. disuccions about lawsuits against google and getty should be hold outside, here on msg, private boards or social media groups.

Microbius

« Reply #847 on: January 20, 2013, 05:56 »
0
Agreed, there's no way they will be leaving anything like that up. People need to be told there are places like MSG out there where you can speak in an uncensored way. A lot of exclusives don't even know the forum is here.

« Reply #848 on: January 20, 2013, 05:58 »
+1
Except it turns out it was the guy who posted it who deleted, in order to give a more considered comment later.

Quote:
 did write: Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.

..and i am a lawyer. I deleted the post because i wanted to be more accurate. They can not grant right to buyer to resell and most important to REDISTRIBUTE or make available for further usage (for free) other than the byer, simply because it is not stated in the agreement that we signed.


The final byers in this deal are not aquainted with the permitted usage conditions.

Also, models who signed and read thew model releases never agreed to the fact that the usage is at will (porn??)
 
Many many legal issues here...

In Serbia we would do it firstly, by lawsuit demanding a court to pronounce that the action by wrongdoer is illegitimate. Because contract is law....for the parties that signed it,that is. (It is not important the fact that we "agreed" to the conditions, because it is normal for big companies to present a contract finished to the less powerful party. This in no way means that the parties are not equal!!! We are.


Second step would be to calculate what the damage was...and demand reimbursment. But the damage is less important in this case, right? We want this nonsense to end.

PS..has anyone opened FB page as a backup way to communicate...smile..
?

Sorry for my englishsmile

(Edited on 2013-01-19 21:25:13 by Marko_Marcello)

/quote

« Reply #849 on: January 20, 2013, 06:03 »
+1
Agreed, there's no way they will be leaving anything like that up. People need to be told there are places like MSG out there where you can speak in an uncensored way. A lot of exclusives don't even know the forum is here.

Well, it was advertised often enough through all controversial issues in the past, actually even pointed to by admins and moderators. They (we) always knew there is no way to control the internet. But still there is a limit what can be tolerated inside a company. I don't think they will happily let you stand in the hall of your local bank shouting loud how they keep cheating you or how the other bank across the street is much more customer friendly. In real life most people would know that wouldn't be a smart move to do. ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25074 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
25547 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