MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What would you have done if Getty had asked us ?  (Read 3461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 02, 2013, 10:33 »
0
This morning, while I was deactivating, I noticed how many good stock images had no downloads at all.  I already knew that of course, but I noticed it again. 
I'm sure we all have files like that.  They are good stock material, but just had bad luck :  accepted during the weekend, or just not sold the first week and then they disappear into the black depths of Best Match.
Some of these files even have bad luck on all agencies (one of my favorite vintage photos has never EVER sold  :( ).
Now suppose Istock/Getty had told us - in August - about the Getty/Google deal.  Suppose they had asked 1 image per contributor, and we would be paid 12$ + no stripping of metadata.  Would you have submitted a good file, one of the non-sellers, but still good stock?  I would (I think).
The difference is huge of course :  no deceiving, no bestsellers, no stripping of metadata, and the choice would've been ours, not the Google-drive-users.  And only 1 file per contributor "opted in".
 


« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2013, 10:43 »
+2
I'm not keen on giving images away.  I'd rather Google opened their own stock site and paid us directly, as I'm sure they could pay more than the 20% we would get from Getty.  They could pay us $50 and still save $10 on each image.  That would be more tempting but I still wouldn't want to give them images that have the potential to make many thousands, like some of the ones Getty gave them.

The other option would be for Google to pay us through AdSense.  There must be a way for people to use our images for free but we make something every time they get AdSense earnings on their sites.

I hope Google think again about dealing with Getty/istock.  Having seen the reaction this deal has had, perhaps they will come up with something better for us?  Cutting out the agency that pays such a small commission and has kept it's contributors in the dark about this deal would be beneficial all round.

« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2013, 10:51 »
0
I don't think Google would be tempted to deal with 12000 contributors directly, just to save $10 per image.  Would be nice of course, but not really practical.

« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2013, 11:12 »
+1
Of course there is the possibility that Google just buys Getty, it is not unusual for Internet companies to acquire content this way.  They can then just say "new owners, new rules" . . . . . . . .

« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2013, 11:17 »
+1
Of course there is the possibility that Google just buys Getty, it is not unusual for Internet companies to acquire content this way.  They can then just say "new owners, new rules" . . . . . . . .
Yes, anything is possible with giants like Google.  The idea alone is pure horror.

« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2013, 11:19 »
0
But to answer your question, sure I would put one image up . . . . . . .

« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2013, 11:58 »
+1
Not me.  Getty already takes 84% of what a customer pays.  No chance I'm going to do anything that benefits them far more than it does me.

« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2013, 12:50 »
+1
I have always supported promotional deals, well at least before the current  Microsoft/Google Fiasco. I am sure i would have donated several useful images for a project if someone I trust had explained to me that this would be important for the business.

Ive had a free image of the week and in January also the free video of the month. As long as it is my choice, I am always supportive.

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2013, 13:04 »
0
I am sure i would have donated several useful images for a project if someone I trust had explained to me that this would be important for the business.
You have the advantage, as you know who is was trustworthy there.
I know no admins, so trust none; though I'm sure several individuals are trustworthy in themselves. I have no idea who just goes along with the puppeteers and would parrot the party line.
I also would want it clearly explained not just 'that' it would be important for the business, but exactly why and how it would benefit 'the business' and hopefully me as a tiny part of 'the business'.

« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2013, 13:17 »
0
I have a few times done free image of the week at various sites (iStock never took me up on my offer) but it's always been to benefit the site - part of being a team player. Even if there were a promise that the metadata (and thus the link back to the source of the image) would stay in place, I can't see how this would benefit a stock agency, so I'd probably not participate.

If I could be persuaded that there was a benefit to the agency, and if that were an agency that were not actively pulling the rug out from its contributors' feet, I'd donate one image as long as I had a choice about which one.

« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2013, 14:12 »
0
As it was announced as a deal with Thinkstock in Google's August blog post, I would have thought the images were coming from Thinkstock as well.

With any of my images on Thinkstock (one or more) I wouldn't have had a problem with the deal. Compared to what I get for a Thinkstock download, the $12 would have made up for 30-40 downloads which most images don't reach on Thinkstock.

Obviously I'm also judging the issues of this deal less critical than others, I just don't think their way of image selection was well done, especially with regards to iStock content.

tab62

« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2013, 14:18 »
0
bottom line- they should have gotten the 'Green Light' from us...

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2013, 14:18 »
+4
Now suppose Istock/Getty had told us - in August - about the Getty/Google deal.  Suppose they had asked 1 image per contributor, and we would be paid 12$ + no stripping of metadata.  Would you have submitted a good file, one of the non-sellers, but still good stock?  I would (I think).
The difference is huge of course :  no deceiving, no bestsellers, no stripping of metadata, and the choice would've been ours, not the Google-drive-users.  And only 1 file per contributor "opted in".

I'd have probably been willing to submit a decent zero seller to the deal, assuming that the image was credited to me so anyone who liked it or wanted to see similar could download it at Istock or elsewhere. 

I have a few in the Microsoft deal through Fotolia, and was willing to agree to it because I was ASKED, it was just a couple of images, and I was given approval over which ones. Not to mention that the images in MS Word linked to the same image on Fotolia so they could download a larger size or see what else I had to offer if they wanted. 

« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2013, 15:01 »
+3
I have a few in the Microsoft deal through Fotolia, and was willing to agree to it because I was ASKED, it was just a couple of images, and I was given approval over which ones. Not to mention that the images in MS Word linked to the same image on Fotolia so they could download a larger size or see what else I had to offer if they wanted.
Yes, being ASKED and having the CHOICE which files makes a huge difference.

« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2013, 16:12 »
0
I would have passed.

« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2013, 16:36 »
+4
12 Dollars divided over 425 users would be 2.8 cents per license.

12 Dollars divided over 425 MILLION users is...0.00000028 USD per user for the license.

Even for a thinkstock file, this is just completly insane!

This is a free promotion that basically puts your file into the public domain. It just doesnt make any sense.

But if someone had told me before that they are looking for free files to be available online to anyone, I would have still chosen something to support my agency.

Thanks to the Microsoft deal, i know that a file that is widely distributed can be killed by it. Like I mentioned before - I had a file with 655 000 downloads, i.e. it was popular and well used, but 0 Downloads on istock. Not one single user thought they might need it in a larger size or a designer that saw it used by a friend for free thought it was worth buying this file for a client design.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 16:45 by cobalt »

« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2013, 01:53 »
0
I'm not trying to change your mind, but I think free downloads are done by a different kind of customers.  A while ago I clicked "free" instead of "delete" on a Dreamstime message about a file that had not been selling for 2 years.  After that, it was downloaded thousands of times.  No hard feelings with Dreamstime of course, because it was ME who decided to click on "free" and I could CHOOSE which file!

« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2013, 02:25 »
+1
12 Dollars divided over 425 users would be 2.8 cents per license.

12 Dollars divided over 425 MILLION users is...0.00000028 USD per user for the license.

Well, the difference in our assessment comes from our judgment what "users" means. To me, "users" don't pay me any money, only "image buyers" do.

And in addition the 425 million you mention is just "potential users" because they have Gmail - probably 90% never used Google Drive, of the rest probably 90% never use an image, of the rest 90% are using images they find on Google Images etc. And of the tiny rest of them, how many would choose my image among the 12,000 available...

If you follow up your route of argumentation, then please take the amount of royalties you made with one of your images and divide that by 9 million because that's the number of iStock accounts.

If there was any agency out there able to find 425 million image buyers, we wouldn't be discussing here because we were too busy uploading all our pics to them.

« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2013, 04:53 »
0
Michael when a company licenses files for their team, it is a simple multi user license, it doesnt mean that everyone in the team will use it immediately, but the files are available for them to use. It is the same with google. Maybe not all of the 425 million will chose my file for their first document, but they have the right to do so.

The 9 million accounts on istock dont have the right to use my files. They need to buy a license first.

« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2013, 06:49 »
+3
Aside from all the comments from a contributor's side, in my eyes it is dumb business deal for Getty. The images they sold for a pittance were Vetta and Agency images. Given the royalties paid to contributors, Google paid between $30 and $60 for the images. The same files Getty or iStock cost 4 or more times as much. Given the terms of the license, Google should have been paying much more than a normal Extended License. So hundreds of dollars per image. Or they could have just linked back to Getty and if 1 in 4 images was actually purchased by buyers, Getty would have made far more money. It's just dumb, dumb, dumb.

« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2013, 08:56 »
0
Michael when a company licenses files for their team, it is a simple multi user license, it doesnt mean that everyone in the team will use it immediately, but the files are available for them to use. It is the same with google. Maybe not all of the 425 million will chose my file for their first document, but they have the right to do so.

That's correct. Though the appropriate license would not be the Multi-Seat but the Electronic Items license. Go dig it up and read, anyone could buy this license for any of your files and do almost exactly what Google does. It's not a big stretch. Then there is only the price but we have seen steep discounts in the past and if someone wants to buy 1 million credits. You wouldn't be scared if I would do that because I don't have 425 million potential users? Yeah, maybe but legally it's totally the same for me to come up with an iPad app and include your images in the templates.

So the most problematic thing is the image selection - as Dave said, the iStock images involved are the premium content, higher priced collections. Most of the imagery at Google Drive is wholly owned content from back then, or "bottom feeders" as someone else called them recently.

« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2013, 21:00 »
+1
Aside from all the comments from a contributor's side, in my eyes it is dumb business deal for Getty. The images they sold for a pittance were Vetta and Agency images. Given the royalties paid to contributors, Google paid between $30 and $60 for the images. The same files Getty or iStock cost 4 or more times as much. Given the terms of the license, Google should have been paying much more than a normal Extended License. So hundreds of dollars per image. Or they could have just linked back to Getty and if 1 in 4 images was actually purchased by buyers, Getty would have made far more money. It's just dumb, dumb, dumb.
As dumb as it looks at first glance, I wonder what we don't see? Like how free google adsense credits were they given at our expense?

Edited:  When I say "our expense" it should really say "at the expense of those with photos in the deal" (since I haven't found a photo in the deal) but it is definitely "our" long-term problem.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3577 Views
Last post June 10, 2011, 09:54
by luissantos84
47 Replies
10655 Views
Last post October 02, 2011, 08:18
by Sammy
7 Replies
2291 Views
Last post November 26, 2013, 20:45
by riffmax
4 Replies
1261 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 16:43
by Semmick Photo
2 Replies
546 Views
Last post June 06, 2019, 21:04
by melking

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results