Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258425 times)

Microbius · « **Reply #900 on:** January 21, 2013, 03:56 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 21, 2013, 03:50

I just don't understand why they wouldn't do this with the images they own? If they did have to use contributors images, why wouldn't they ask them first? And why wouldn't they tell us about it last week, as it might stop some people removing their images. It's already being talked about, so it's not a secret. So I think this is unlikely.

IMHO Doing it with images they own would be right thing. My guess would be that they didn't simply because they didn't give a sh*t, and didn't give taking our images for this experiment a second thought.
They can't clarify now because they know people are getting lawyered up and also because it was pretty awful thing to do, so owing up will make things worse, not better.

jm · « **Reply #901 on:** January 21, 2013, 04:13 »

Quote

After reading everything out there on this and talking to old friends that were exclusive for years. I think it's a non Issue.Like I've said for years. 10,000 submitters could leave tomorrow.and ya know what? 10,000 new ones will replace them and Us in 3/6 months with the same Images give or take. The sites know this guys. Wondering why some of you don't.Thats why they call this crowd sourcing.

I don't like this argument. Number of iStock contributors is not limited - so all good Microstock artist who wanted to jump in bed with iStock - they already are or were their contributors. Number of good photographers on this planet who are interested in microstock business is not unlimited. I'm sure that there are thousands of "artists" who would like to replace leaving contributors but millions of images from children running around with iPhones or hobbyists with D3200 and tungsten lamp (no offense) cannot replace images from contributors like Sean or Lisa. They can keep or increase number of images but not their quality. The only possibility how to replace this quality is to convince good photographers that didn't want to become iS contributors but this is probably impossible these days.

cobalt · « **Reply #902 on:** January 21, 2013, 04:22 »

The microstockgroup has been around 30-32k members for quite a while. I don´t see it growing by 10 000 people a year.

The number of people doing stock full time is extremely limited.

istock has already lost several very good artists who had a unique trademark style - like simonox.

sure, they can get loads of people shooting ducks in the park with their iphone - but real, planned stock with models, lighting, locations, processing...no amateur will do that.

Microbius · « **Reply #903 on:** January 21, 2013, 04:27 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 03:14

Quote from: rinder99
After reading everything out there on this and talking to old friends that were exclusive for years. I think it's a non Issue.Like I've said for years. 10,000 submitters could leave tomorrow.and ya know what? 10,000 new ones will replace them and Us in 3/6 months with the same Images give or take. The sites know this guys. Wondering why some of you don't.Thats why they call this crowd sourcing.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

I agree with what others have said here. The decline in traffic to IStock over last couple of years shows how dependent on user support crowd sourced sites are.

runamock · « **Reply #904 on:** January 21, 2013, 05:09 »

rubyroo · « **Reply #905 on:** January 21, 2013, 06:25 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 21, 2013, 03:32

Okay, I am not sure if this has been explicitly stated said yet because all these threads are getting a bit hard to keep up with!

After watching this video, finding out the Google images are stamped, given the purchase of Picscout and so on I would stake money on this being the situation.

Getty want to test out their new business model, discussed in the video, of getting their images out to the maximum number of people then perusing payment via image tracking. Hence picking images that are specifically wanted by the maximum number of Google users.

They are gambling that they will be able to get the main payment from users posting stuff to Facebook and the like.

Rather than doing the decent thing and using their solely owned content to test the viability of their new model, they have acted a if they are the copyright owners of our content and gone against what could be reasonably assumed in their terms.

It all seems to add up, and suddenly makes a lot more sense in this context.

ETA or even worse case scenario, they aren't hoping for more money from these images, but think it is worth the sacrifice just to test the tracking technology

Thanks Microbius. Your thinking is very much in line with my own on this, but I haven't been able to sit down and put it together cohesively due to other issues I'm dealing with.

As you say, if this is correct it would make more sense to have used their wholly owned content. For me the big puzzle remains over the line that seems to have been crossed on the copyright issue, and why on earth they wouldn't use this as an opportunity to link back to their own sites to generate more sales. From their own perspective I'd have thought that would be a huge and missed opportunity.

I suppose I'll just have to remain confused until they come back and say something concrete.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #906 on:** January 21, 2013, 07:29 »

Maybe google wasn't willing to have the link back.

Microbius · « **Reply #907 on:** January 21, 2013, 07:40 »

Could be, Getty could be trying to sell the idea of the new way to monetize the content to Google, and they are checking out the feasibility between them. Link backs could pollute the stats for income from these specific images?

Or Getty is trying to hide from the end user that these are the same images they could be paying a lot of money for, thus devaluing their collection? Keeping the markets separate?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #908 on:** January 21, 2013, 07:41 »

Quote from: Kenny on January 20, 2013, 23:34

The latest export from Google Drive to kga.me/gds resulted in 3,085 new images. Current total is now 11,781! Here's a text list of the images that were added http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt

Wow, they are now putting up to 3k x 3k up there!

Dark_Angel · « **Reply #909 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:10 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2013, 07:41

Wow, they are now putting up to 3k x 3k up there!

OMG!! Just when you think it cannot get any worse...

fotorob · « **Reply #910 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:11 »

I seriously think the new owners of Getty Images try to get some quick cash without worrying about the harm done after the sold the company again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html

gostwyck · « **Reply #911 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2013, 07:41

Quote from: Kenny on January 20, 2013, 23:34
The latest export from Google Drive to kga.me/gds resulted in 3,085 new images. Current total is now 11,781! Here's a text list of the images that were added http://kga.me/google-drive-stock/new-jan-20-2013.txt

Wow, they are now putting up to 3k x 3k up there!

It looks like at least some of the new images are Getty's wholly-owned content. Banana Stock was bought by Jupiter, for example, who in turn were bought by Getty.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #912 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:26 »

Quote from: fotorob on January 21, 2013, 08:11

I seriously think the new owners of Getty Images try to get some quick cash without worrying about the harm done after the sold the company again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html

Since this deal was done last summer under H&F, I think they were the ones looking for the quick cash before they dumped it on Carlyle.

rubyroo · « **Reply #913 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:40 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 21, 2013, 07:40

Could be, Getty could be trying to sell the idea of the new way to monetize the content to Google, and they are checking out the feasibility between them. Link backs could pollute the stats for income from these specific images?

Or Getty is trying to hide from the end user that these are the same images they could be paying a lot of money for, thus devaluing their collection? Keeping the markets separate?

Good points from both you and BT. It all sounds feasible to me. Thanks for these.

gostwyck · « **Reply #914 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:46 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on January 21, 2013, 08:26

Quote from: fotorob on January 21, 2013, 08:11
I seriously think the new owners of Getty Images try to get some quick cash without worrying about the harm done after the sold the company again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html

Since this deal was done last summer under H&F, I think they where the ones looking for the quick cash before they dumped it on Carlyle.

How do you know that? Can you link to your source?

Being as Getty management and family now own almost 50% of Getty (Carlyle own just over 50%) it is hardly in their interest to destroy their own business __ or indeed to have invested so heavily into it if they knew that it was in the process of being destroyed by H&F.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815

Sorry but the Carlyle/H&F angle here is just a red herring. These are Getty actions for reasons that are as yet unclear. One assumes that the Getty family would only have invested so heavily in the business (in Aug 2012) if they had a 'Big Idea' up their sleeve which they expected to provide growth.

jbryson · « **Reply #915 on:** January 21, 2013, 08:53 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 08:46

Quote from: cmannphoto on January 21, 2013, 08:26
Quote from: fotorob on January 21, 2013, 08:11
I seriously think the new owners of Getty Images try to get some quick cash without worrying about the harm done after the sold the company again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html

Since this deal was done last summer under H&F, I think they where the ones looking for the quick cash before they dumped it on Carlyle.

How do you know that? Can you link to your source?

Being as Getty management and family now own almost 50% of Getty (Carlyle own just over 50%) it is hardly in their interest to destroy their own business __ or indeed to have invested so heavily into it if they knew that it was in the process of being destroyed by H&F.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815

Sorry but the Carlyle/H&F angle here is just a red herring. These are Getty actions for reasons that are as yet unclear. One assumes that the Getty family would only have invested so heavily in the business (in Aug 2012) if they had a 'Big Idea' up their sleeve which they expected to provide growth.

Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.

ShadySue · « **Reply #916 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:02 »

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 08:53

Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.

Don't know about Getty, but at iStock:
"Where iStockphoto becomes aware of the breach of a license agreement by a user of Exclusive Content, it agrees that it will take initial steps in accordance with its usual business practices for the exclusivity program to request that the offending party refrain from its prohibited use of such Exclusive Content. iStockphoto will use commercial efforts to further assist in the protection of your intellectual property rights, at your request and expense."
(Which IME means they send an email and that has fulfilled their 'usual business practices')
and also
"The Supplier agrees that iStockphoto shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an "Infringer") for any violation of a license agreement or alleged infringement of other rights of the Supplier. The Supplier hereby releases iStockphoto from any and all claims the Supplier might have, either directly or indirectly, arising out of or in connection with a determination by iStockphoto to proceed or not to proceed against any Infringer in any instance. iStockphoto hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal or enforcement action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate iStockphoto for lost licensing fees or statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery ( including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by or on behalf of iStockphoto in connection with such action, be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. In the event iStockphoto elects not to proceed against an Infringer, the Supplier shall have the right to proceed against such Infringer for such license violation or infringing action. The Supplier hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate the Supplier for lost licensing fees or include statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis), be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above."

gostwyck · « **Reply #917 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:09 »

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 08:53

Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.

Sorry but that has to be one of those 'internet myths' that go on forever. If there were any truth to it then you'd find plenty of 'evidence' as there are folk out there apparently devoting their lives to the 'Getty Extortion Letter' issue;

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

The hypothesis that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' but traceable images for the sole purpose of seeking damages from infringements, as their primary source of revenue, is utterly bizarre.

jbryson · « **Reply #918 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:12 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 09:09

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 08:53
Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.

Sorry but that has to be one of those 'internet myths' that go on forever. If there were any truth to it then you'd find plenty of 'evidence' as there are folk out there apparently devoting their lives to the 'Getty Extortion Letter' issue;

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

The hypothesis that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' but traceable images for the sole purpose of seeking damages from infringements, as their primary source of revenue, is utterly bizarre.

I wish it were a myth because it's frankly embarrassing. However, the only reason I ever googled it was because I heard about it from a designer who was adversely affected by it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #919 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:14 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 09:09

The hypothesis that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' but traceable images for the sole purpose of seeking damages from infringements, as their primary source of revenue, is utterly bizarre.

Truem, but the fact that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' images, is utterly bizarre.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #920 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 20, 2013, 23:21

.....

The link didn't work for me.

Ok, obviously I'm not good at linking - sorry. You can google the article title - that's how I verified it was still there yesterday.

And My Error is: the trailing . Fresh URL, no dot: http://rising.blackstar.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-shooting-stock.html

Regards
Lionel

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #921 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:01 »

Interesting read : http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/01/09/kiosked-offers-automatic-solution-to-monetize-images

cobalt · « **Reply #922 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:29 »

well spotted!

there is definetly a race to establish an "industry standard" when it comes to this. It is another form of digital wallet payment systems.

but the question is - who will pay?

making images traceable is one thing, convincing websites to install the technology so they can pay for the images used, is something else.

lisafx · « **Reply #923 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:04 »

I see lots of Hemera images among the new uploads. Anyone with images still in StockXpert finding their images included?

FWIW, it looks like the additional images added over the last few days are largely from wholly owned collections, not from Istock contributors. Am I reading that correctly?

Possibly they are hesitant to upload anymore content from Istock contributors because of the threats of legal action?

Poncke · « **Reply #924 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:31 »

Quote from: Microbius on January 21, 2013, 03:32

Okay, I am not sure if this has been explicitly stated said yet because all these threads are getting a bit hard to keep up with!

After watching this video, finding out the Google images are stamped, given the purchase of Picscout and so on I would stake money on this being the situation.

Getty want to test out their new business model, discussed in the video, of getting their images out to the maximum number of people then perusing payment via image tracking. Hence picking images that are specifically wanted by the maximum number of Google users.

They are gambling that they will be able to get the main payment from users posting stuff to Facebook and the like.

Rather than doing the decent thing and using their solely owned content to test the viability of their new model, they have acted a if they are the copyright owners of our content and gone against what could be reasonably assumed in their terms.

It all seems to add up, and suddenly makes a lot more sense in this context.

ETA or even worse case scenario, they aren't hoping for more money from these images, but think it is worth the sacrifice just to test the tracking technology

Wait, so they are counting on people using the images outside Google Docs and then charge them for the use? Thats just evil and will never get any significant results imo. Thats bully tactics, or legally called incitement

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258425 times)

Microbius

jm

cobalt

Microbius

runamock

rubyroo

BaldricksTrousers

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

Dark_Angel

fotorob

gostwyck

cmannphoto

rubyroo

gostwyck

jbryson

ShadySue

gostwyck

jbryson

ShadySue

Pinocchio

MicrostockExp

cobalt

lisafx

Poncke

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors