Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 259529 times)

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #1025 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:24 »

Quote from: CJ6 on January 23, 2013, 11:46

...Are the people in charge under such an enormous pressure from stock owners that they're really doing everything they can for short term gains?

Yes. The owners care not a whit about you or me or what happens to us now or ever. You are a non-entity to them. They give not a thought about you. Their only concern is what happens on their balance sheets. Their only demand is more profit$, no matter how it gets done. That is all. Good day.

polar · « **Reply #1026 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:27 »

Quote from: elvinstar 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.

Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?

klsbear · « **Reply #1027 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:30 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 23, 2013, 11:57

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.

I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here and here.

Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.

If this (below) is how Getty takes care of RM I wouldn't fee all that confident about just how safe those images are. $2.08 for extensive, untracked use is right there in the same camp as $12 for untracked use under the special premium access time limited license. Seems like they don't care who they trample on.

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Files Class Action Against Getty Images on Behalf of Professional Photographers Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

According to Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, Premium Access is not a rights managed product. "Getty has shirked its responsibility as a picture archive to track the use of plaintiffs' images, and to set pricing per use in good faith on a commercially reasonable basis." As a result, photographers have lost the ability to track the uses being made of their images.

Among the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit are some of the world's leading photographers. Their photographs have been licensed by Getty to major media clients for as little as $2.08 for extensive, untracked use. According to Nelson "Getty's prices have severely undercut the market for comparable photographs, damaged the future market for these photographs, and violated both the Rights Managed Image Distribution agreements Getty signed and the Uniform Commercial Code."

Quote

http://www.kreindler.com/Recent-Developments/Kreindler-Kreindler-LLP-Files-Class-Action-Against-Getty-Images-on-Behalf-of-Professional-Photographers.shtml

ShadySue · « **Reply #1028 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:35 »

Quote from: polar on January 23, 2013, 18:27

Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites?

No doubt, but presumably people who care don't post pics to FB without watermarks.

Poncke · « **Reply #1029 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:36 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on January 23, 2013, 18:24

Quote from: CJ6 on January 23, 2013, 11:46

...Are the people in charge under such an enormous pressure from stock owners that they're really doing everything they can for short term gains?

Yes. The owners care not a whit about you or me or what happens to us now or ever. You are a non-entity to them. They give not a thought about you. Their only concern is what happens on their balance sheets. Their only demand is more profit$, no matter how it gets done. That is all. Good day.

But it doesnt make sense if the place goes bankrupt. Thats not in the investors interest either

polar · « **Reply #1030 on:** January 23, 2013, 18:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2013, 18:35

Quote from: polar on January 23, 2013, 18:27
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites?
No doubt, but presumably people who care don't post pics to FB without watermarks.

I'm not the one posting my images, so I have to do something about this.

cthoman · « **Reply #1031 on:** January 24, 2013, 01:46 »

Quote from: polar on January 23, 2013, 18:27

Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?

Not at all. You can still easily find the copyright holder for an image (especially stock art) by doing a quick search in Google images. Orphaned works laws are more about keeping old works alive rather than usurping living copyright holders rights.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1032 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:29 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 24, 2013, 01:46

Quote from: polar on January 23, 2013, 18:27
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?

Not at all. You can still easily find the copyright holder for an image (especially stock art) by doing a quick search in Google images. Orphaned works laws are more about keeping old works alive rather than usurping living copyright holders rights.

Sometimes you can, but I tried to track down the origin of two popular environmental blog images yesterday and they returned such a huge number of results that I still don't know if they are public domain or if they have been licensed from somewhere. It would take hours to go through every site on every page of the search.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #1033 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:34 »

Quote from: w7lwi 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.

Thanks! and youre right. This time around, its zip. However this does not affect dayrate, commissioned photography, THANK GOD!

basically for all those here who thought the world revolved around micro alone. Think again and FAST.

Microbius · « **Reply #1034 on:** January 24, 2013, 04:04 »

Just a request. It would be great if people wouldn't quote 5+ other posts when they reply to someone, maybe just the last one? It makes it an incredible PITA to try and read through a thread, especially when the quotes often only concern one or two people.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1035 on:** January 24, 2013, 05:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 24, 2013, 03:29

Quote from: cthoman on January 24, 2013, 01:46
Quote from: polar on January 23, 2013, 18:27
Then doesn't this make orphan works out of thousands and thousands of images that people post to Facebook and other websites? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this create exactly the same kind of copyright-stripping problem we're fighting against in this Getty/Google deal?

Not at all. You can still easily find the copyright holder for an image (especially stock art) by doing a quick search in Google images. Orphaned works laws are more about keeping old works alive rather than usurping living copyright holders rights.

Sometimes you can, but I tried to track down the origin of two popular environmental blog images yesterday and they returned such a huge number of results that I still don't know if they are public domain or if they have been licensed from somewhere. It would take hours to go through every site on every page of the search.

It's very much hit and miss. Sometimes pics are easily found on iStock, sometimes not at all, even when searching off the iS page.
Alamy seems to somehow be blocking GIS - or at least I haven't found any traceable back to Alamy, so they're much less covered than e.g. iS.
Don't know about the success rate of other agencies.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #1036 on:** January 24, 2013, 08:44 »

Ok, I need some guidance please as I'm still new here. Should I include a link to the post I refer to below?

An Alamy contributor did some experimenting with PicScout and the ImageIRC browser extension and reported that when ImageIRC finds a fingerprinted image it displays a list of all the sources from which that image can be licensed. So, at least some Alamy images have been fingerprinted, but Alamy was not identified as a source for any of the images this fellow looked at - no irony here. Seems as though PicScout is going to have an impact on all the agencies.

Regards

Anyka · « **Reply #1037 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:34 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on January 24, 2013, 08:44

An Alamy contributor did some experimenting with PicScout and the ImageIRC browser extension and reported that when ImageIRC finds a fingerprinted image it displays a list of all the sources from which that image can be licensed. So, at least some Alamy images have been fingerprinted, but Alamy was not identified as a source for any of the images this fellow looked at - no irony here. Seems as though PicScout is going to have an impact on all the agencies.
Regards

Could it be that these sources were all Getty-related ?

Pinocchio · « **Reply #1038 on:** January 24, 2013, 10:19 »

Quote from: Anyka on January 24, 2013, 09:34

Quote from: Pinocchio on January 24, 2013, 08:44
An Alamy contributor did some experimenting with PicScout and the ImageIRC browser extension and reported that when ImageIRC finds a fingerprinted image it displays a list of all the sources from which that image can be licensed. So, at least some Alamy images have been fingerprinted, but Alamy was not identified as a source for any of the images this fellow looked at - no irony here. Seems as though PicScout is going to have an impact on all the agencies.
Regards
Could it be that these sources were all Getty-related ?

Anyka, the post (which is publicly accessible) made specific mention of the owner's (a private individual) web site being one of the sources displayed, so at this stage it appears they're at least trying to be fair and not direct all licensing through Getty exclusively. In the US and those countries that have legislation similar to the US anti-trust legislation I would expect that any attempt to route all licensing through Getty exclusively would provoke a lawsuit - and please remember I'm no lawyer!

I know from Photoshelter that fingerprinting was limited to images that were both priced and publicly visible.

As far as I can tell at this point we all need to know
a) What terms and conditions does PicScout/Getty plan to apply to this "service",
b) the fee, if any, we would pay to PicScout/Getty to "reward" them for finding a buyer for your image, and
c) how you get your images fingerprinted (or not).

The ImageIRC plugin seems to be freely available from Mozilla; I found it there but have not installed it yet, just because I don't know if it's to be trusted. I don't know which other browsers they support.

Regards

dhanford · « **Reply #1039 on:** January 24, 2013, 10:28 »

Is believe there are photos from Thinkstock from non-exclusives that were "purchased" by Google? What about the image owners for those photos? They sell THEIR photos on many other sites to make a living. How does the copyright work in these type cases?

- Just posted this to the iStock forum. Not sure if it's been addressed before. If anyone has info, please redirect me. - thanks.

cybernesco · « **Reply #1040 on:** January 24, 2013, 10:36 »

From iStock admin oldladybird:

A couple of you have brought up Wix in this thread. From what we can see, there is an APP that lets users upload their Google Drive content directly to their Wix site. Doing it within that context, is ok.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827745

cybernesco · « **Reply #1041 on:** January 24, 2013, 10:59 »

EmberMike · « **Reply #1042 on:** January 24, 2013, 11:26 »

Quote from: cybernesco on January 24, 2013, 10:36

From iStock admin oldladybird:

A couple of you have brought up Wix in this thread. From what we can see, there is an APP that lets users upload their Google Drive content directly to their Wix site. Doing it within that context, is ok.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6827745

That's disappointing. So these extended redistributions are ok in the eyes of istock/Getty? Scary stuff.

Blammo · « **Reply #1043 on:** January 24, 2013, 14:38 »

The http://kga.me/ site has gotten a DMCA takedown notice.

Copy from kga.me
"Corporate Counsel at iStockphoto, Ronald Lo, issued a DMCA takedown notice (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM PST). I respectfully obliged (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM PST)."

Here are a couple of other places you can use to find out if your images were involved in the Google Drive stock image deal: 1. Text list 2. Text + Image list

More information regarding Google Drive's stock images:

http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1044 on:** January 24, 2013, 14:40 »

That's BS. A, it is fair use of the thumbnails, imo, and B: hotlinking to the images is not against DMCA, afaik. What was the specific issue?

Please keep an up to date text list, as I don't see how that could be any issue, and I don't have the programming savvy to do that.

dcdp · « **Reply #1045 on:** January 24, 2013, 14:47 »

That is complete BS. Google does exactly the same thing when you do a Google Images Search.

lisafx · « **Reply #1046 on:** January 24, 2013, 14:47 »

Quote from: Blammo on January 24, 2013, 14:38

The http://kga.me/ site has gotten a DMCA takedown notice.

Corporate Counsel at iStockphoto, Ronald Lo, issued a DMCA takedown notice (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM PST). I respectfully obliged (Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM PST).

Wow! The very height of hypocrisy!

Blammo · « **Reply #1047 on:** January 24, 2013, 14:50 »

I hope who ever owns the site may give us some more info, because this is the BS!

jjneff · « **Reply #1048 on:** January 24, 2013, 14:52 »

Don't Back Down if what you are doing is legal!!!!!

Blammo · « **Reply #1049 on:** January 24, 2013, 14:53 »

It is legal, this is pure bully tactics from Getty.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 259529 times)

HughStoneIan

polar

klsbear

ShadySue

Poncke

polar

cthoman

BaldricksTrousers

ClaridgeJ

Microbius

ShadySue

Pinocchio

Anyka

Pinocchio

dhanford

cybernesco

cybernesco

EmberMike

Blammo

Sean Locke Photography

dcdp

lisafx

Blammo

jjneff

Blammo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors