Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258744 times)

EmberMike · « **Reply #1000 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:37 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 12:04

Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.

Ridiculous.

Everyone said SS would go the way of istock once they had an IPO and had investors to answer to. So far, SS is operating in completely different ways than istock. In fact, I say they're improving. Contributor communication is better than ever, sales are up, things are going well. Completely unlike what happened to istock.

istock is the exception, not the rule. Most other companies are wise enough to not follow istock/Getty's example here.

cthoman · « **Reply #1001 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:41 »

Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 12:34

The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital camera and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.

The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.

Nice simple explanation. You get a heart.

jjneff · « **Reply #1002 on:** January 23, 2013, 12:57 »

The delay on this is troubling. I can't see a whole lot of good coming out of this for us.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #1003 on:** January 23, 2013, 13:00 »

Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 12:34

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 12:20
Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 12:06
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 11:47
Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2013, 11:30
Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2013, 11:07
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 11:03
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.

Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.

Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.

What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.

What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.

What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....

Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal

Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.

I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.

best.

The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.

The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.

Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it.
I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.

Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world.

The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really.
Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here.

cybernesco · « **Reply #1004 on:** January 23, 2013, 13:26 »

Quote

Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it.
I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.

Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world.

The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really.
Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here.

Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it?

Yes it does one is evolution and the other one is illegal

That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.

I am 56 years old and I always have been an avid computer and internet user since its beginning and I am absolutly certain there is no way in 1993 anybody could have predicted the last 8 years . It would have been impossible to predict the convergence of two industries which are the internet and digital cameras to give opportunities to such a wide audience. Furthermore, the speed of the internet in this is very important. In 1993, most of us had dialed-up from 16 to 56kbs (kilo byte per second) . Have you ever tried to upload just a 1MB file at between 16 and 56kbs.... Do you think in 1993 we knew how fast internet would be now?

aspp · « **Reply #1005 on:** January 23, 2013, 13:28 »

Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 12:34

The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.

Not defending this deal but IIRC Bruce only started charging when the bandwidth and other site costs went through the roof. Microstock started out as a free model.

eta: brevity

rimglow · « **Reply #1006 on:** January 23, 2013, 13:44 »

From the iStock forum:

oldladybird

Posted 48 mins ago
Regarding the images you've seen added to the Google Drive library over the past few days, I can confirm that no additional iStock content has been added since the initial batch.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=23

ShadySue · « **Reply #1007 on:** January 23, 2013, 13:53 »

I wasn't sure if that covered all iStock content available at TS or Getty.

Kenny · « **Reply #1008 on:** January 23, 2013, 13:55 »

Quote from: rimglow on January 23, 2013, 13:44

From the iStock forum:

oldladybird

Posted 48 mins ago
Regarding the images you've seen added to the Google Drive library over the past few days, I can confirm that no additional iStock content has been added since the initial batch.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=23

Can the oldladybird confirm the total number of images added to Google Drive's stock image library?

jjneff · « **Reply #1009 on:** January 23, 2013, 14:03 »

This is just crazy, she posted and ran. So the last batch had no iStock content.... the next batch has it all?? How many photos are going to be given away? Nothing. Are they really in talks with Google?? Who can trust a company like this!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1010 on:** January 23, 2013, 14:14 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 11:03

So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

If your RMs don't sell long enough they will be made RFs and treated as such, which might mean TS or Google. And, of course, your photographers' choice collection can always be sent there, if Google wants them.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #1011 on:** January 23, 2013, 14:19 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 23, 2013, 12:12

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 12:04
Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg.
Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.

I don't really see the whole "if one does it, they'll all do it" philosophy. These agencies (while similar) clearly have different strategies.

Agreed - that would mean one lemming takes them all out. At least one has to be a little smarter than to follow the crowd?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1012 on:** January 23, 2013, 14:21 »

Quote from: jjneff on January 23, 2013, 14:03

This is just crazy, she posted and ran. So the last batch had no iStock content.... the next batch has it all?? How many photos are going to be given away? Nothing. Are they really in talks with Google?? Who can trust a company like this!

I think they must have had quite a shock at the reaction to this, so I would guess yes they really are having talks. (It would be vindictive of me to think that the talks might have begun with Getty ringing up saying "What .'s going on over there, can't you keep your amateur snappers in line, people are starting to ask questions about what they're saying")

jjneff · « **Reply #1013 on:** January 23, 2013, 14:30 »

Oh I think talks are going on but it's not about what we think! They are taling on ways to make more money for themselves with OUR content. Don't forget Getty knows how to bleed people dry and then tell them they are working for the artist. Keep in mind who you are dealing with. Track record anyone? This is just the facts from what we know of from the past. It's time we learn from the past before we repeat it!

Blammo · « **Reply #1014 on:** January 23, 2013, 14:47 »

Give Larry a piece of your mind.

https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts

Phil · « **Reply #1015 on:** January 23, 2013, 15:03 »

Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 13:26

Quote
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it.
I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.

Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world.

The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really.
Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here.

Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it?

Yes it does one is evolution and the other one is illegal

That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.

I am 56 years old and I always have been an avid computer and internet user since its beginning and I am absolutly certain there is no way in 1993 anybody could have predicted the last 8 years . It would have been impossible to predict the convergence of two industries which are the internet and digital cameras to give opportunities to such a wide audience. Furthermore, the speed of the internet in this is very important. In 1993, most of us had dialed-up from 16 to 56kbs (kilo byte per second) . Have you ever tryed to upload just a 1MB file at between 16 and 56kbs.... Do you think in 1993 we knew how fast internet would be now?

in 1994 a coworker brought in a 2mb jpg picture he'd been given. Zipped across two floppy disks it took ages to extract and unzip onto the hard drive. It then took the pentium 90 machine about 30-40 minutes to bring it up on screen. It was pic of red bird that had been scanned. I can picture the software but cant remember what it was called, I remember we discussed the new acdsee software

At the end of the year, parliament house in canberra put 5 pcs on seperate network in the parliamentary library and gave them a link to the internet (I think it was a shared dialup connection, but have been a 64k isdn link). 5 internet machines for 3000-4000 staff, I never once saw all 5 being used and often none were being used.
- Funny the things you remember

Poncke · « **Reply #1016 on:** January 23, 2013, 15:16 »

Not sure if it matters but getty was founded in 1995.

polar · « **Reply #1017 on:** January 23, 2013, 16:12 »

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.

I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?

The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.

jm · « **Reply #1018 on:** January 23, 2013, 16:23 »

Quote from: polar on January 23, 2013, 16:12

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.

I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?

The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.

You're right - I didn't know about it. I just tried to upload image to FB and download it and IPCT data disappeared.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #1019 on:** January 23, 2013, 16:28 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 23, 2013, 15:16

Not sure if it matters but getty was founded in 1995.

Well the Getty-Stone deal went through around 93, we have sales-reports as proof, Image-Bank I think was in 94 or 95?

BTW. I was Iris drumscanning in 89. Digital is far from something new.

Poncke · « **Reply #1020 on:** January 23, 2013, 17:19 »

Quote

Posted By secablue:
And the plot thickens... I have one of my Websites hosted by WIX, who have just announced that I can now use any GoogleDrive document in my web site via a special App connecting GoogleDrive to WIX... so now Google are writing contracts for our photos to be used by another business!!!

Is Getty aware that it was Google's intention not only to give work away for free via GoogleDrive, but also contract it to others? Hmmm... is it even legal for our work to be contracted on for use by another party not associated with the original sale of the image?

(Edited on 2013-01-23 09:58:38 by secablue)

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827163

http://www.wix.com/lphtml/apss-lp?utm_campaign=em_new_apps_1_22_2013_en&experiment_id=em_new_apps_1_22_2013_en

jm · « **Reply #1021 on:** January 23, 2013, 17:29 »

...and one more thing I don't understand - why are the images on Google Drive that large? Or am I the only one one with resolution of monitor 1920 x 1200? Even if we agree with this deal I think that 1600 px wide images would be more than enough.

EmberMike · « **Reply #1022 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:06 »

Quote

Is Getty aware that it was Google's intention not only to give work away for free via GoogleDrive, but also contract it to others? Hmmm... is it even legal for our work to be contracted on for use by another party not associated with the original sale of the image?

Probably not on both points (awareness and legality) but all the more reason these deals stink. It's a slippery slope, giving redistribution rights to a completely separate company (Google). And then knowing that Google cuts various deals of their own to give access to their products and services to yet even more companies, it is very clear that this whole mess does really kill the value of an image and make copyright impossible to enforce. Images will be spread not just into the Google Drive user base but also well beyond that and into other offerings through other companies. It's still "Google Drive", but it's Google Drive via Wix, Google Drive via XYZ Company, etc. It will further and further erode the value of an image until the image is truly worthless and is so widespread that it appears to be public domain to the user.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that images going through the Google Drive program get redistributed again and again and then come back to istock, where someone claiming ownership tries to upload them and sell them as their own.

elvinstar · « **Reply #1023 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:08 »

Quote from: jm on January 23, 2013, 16:23

Quote from: polar on January 23, 2013, 16:12
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.

I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?

The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.

You're right - I didn't know about it. I just tried to upload image to FB and download it and IPCT data disappeared.

I would think that this is fairly common on any website where you upload photos. The original image containing the IPTC data is not being served. When the file gets uploaded, one or more sizes are automatically created and those files contain only the image data, not the IPTC.

w7lwi · « **Reply #1024 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:09 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 12:20

Quote from: cybernesco on January 23, 2013, 12:06
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 11:47
Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2013, 11:30
Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2013, 11:07
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 11:03
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

but wasn't RM down and micro UP?

Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.

Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.

Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.

What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.

What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.

What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....

Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal

Of course its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.

I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.

best.

No difference? When microstock came in, photographers suffered and were reduced to lower earnings. Perhaps some at pennies, but at least something. With this new scheme of images being given away, photographers get zero, nada, zip, nothing. And all the volume in the world won't help that. Admittedly some big name and up-and-coming photographers will still be able to find contract work and some of the trads may be able to hang on with specialty images. Everyone else needs to go with plan B, or C, or whatever. That's the difference.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 258744 times)

EmberMike

cthoman

jjneff

ClaridgeJ

cybernesco

aspp

rimglow

ShadySue

Kenny

jjneff

BaldricksTrousers

Pinocchio

BaldricksTrousers

jjneff

Blammo

Phil

Poncke

polar

jm

ClaridgeJ

Poncke

jm

EmberMike

elvinstar

w7lwi

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors