MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: fieldsphotos on September 26, 2016, 12:37
-
http://app.engage.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=1591793372&e=388535&elq=cd125ddc08344981b0aaa1a66378b2a6&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqTrackId=c081583c3958443ba1ff3bec826dbb26 (http://app.engage.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=1591793372&e=388535&elq=cd125ddc08344981b0aaa1a66378b2a6&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqTrackId=c081583c3958443ba1ff3bec826dbb26)
Got this in my e-mail this morning. A bit rich coming from the same company that sold our images to Google Drive for pennies to be used as clip art a few years ago. But whatever.
-
I thought it was ironic, considering the perfectly usable-on-the web unwatermarked thums on iS search.
-
A few years too late, but good for them if they do something about it. Hopefully whatever they do will affect all the other agencies too.
edit: I signed both petitions, just in case it helps.
-
Google’s Actions Getty's Actions Threaten Creative Livelihoods
Fixed that for ya.
-
What a piss take. Is there a petition to stop an agency giving away my copyright material to google to redistribute unlimited times in exchange for pennies? You can't make this sh*t up.
-
Getty caring about the livelihoods of photographers? Against Google... What weird times... I think the end is nigh...
-
In 2013 Getty willingly gave Google at least 6,000 of the best selling iStock contributor images to freely use and distribute as high resolution 'clip art' on the Google Drive site, but without any permission first from the copyright owners of the images.
As a result of that free Getty/Google deal it cost the contributor's hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, and reduced the future earnings potential of the free images down to $0.00.
So first Getty give Google over 6,000 iStock images for free thus, pressing the self destruct button, but now have changed their minds for some reason?
It's like when a government sells arms to a rogue dictatorship regime and then acts surprised when they fire their own weapons back at them later.
Pardon me, but I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
-
Fear not, I have added my email address, country and zip code to those Getty petitions. Now you can rest easy again and everything will be fixed up good as new in no time. You watch!
-
This is verbatim from the Getty petition they are flogging:
"In January 2013, Google drastically changed the presentation of results in image search. Instead of thumbnails, Google began displaying high resolution, large-format images. The new format also contained reduced information about the source, credit and copyright of the image."
I guess that wouldn't have anything to do with the Getty/Google deal when Getty gave Google free use of all those thousands of iStock contributor images.
What do you tell a kid that has 2 black eyes? Nothing, he's been told twice already.
-
I'm sure these 2 mindless corporate predators can work out a deal that protects the interests of creative people. LOL
-
Regardless how you feel about Getty you need to sign this and share the video!
-
Getty's concerned about protecting us from copyright violations? Then where's the image creators' share of all the money Getty collects when it send out extortion letters?
-
This is the pot calling the kettle black for sure but still worth signing. Video is good to share as well.
-
Getty's concerned about protecting us from copyright violations? Then where's the image creators' share of all the money Getty collects when it send out extortion letters?
Getty's concerned about protecting us from copyright violations? Then where's the image creators' share of all the money Getty collects when it sells people's images without their permission?
Isn't Getty being sued right now for a few billion for just that?
-
This is the pot calling the kettle black for sure but still worth signing. Video is good to share as well.
Agreed, video is well presented:
https://vimeo.com/134243936
-
Oh yeah, they are right. But as a previous post says, the hypocrisy does make you sick up into your mouth as you sign.
-
Would be easy for Google to have their own stock site, or buy one that already exists and make lots of money from image licensing, paying us and hopefully at a higher percentage than Getty. That would be a better solution than sending people to Getty sites where we might get as little as 15% or less, if the buyer gets a discount.
The sites should join forces on this. Are the other sites too frightened of Google?
-
Every search engine presents the images the same way. If Getty doesn't like it, they can exclude themselves from the search results, just like contributors can...oh wait, we can't delete our portfolios anymore.
-
Getty offers the lowest royalties around, offers our images for free use on blogs, and sends threatening letters demanding hundreds or thousands of dollars in payment that bypass the image creator completely. They're such hypocrites it's ridiculous. I honestly think they're pushing this issue because they're going to lose that billion-dollar lawsuit, and they may have to shut down their extortion division, and there goes a huge source of income for them (but not us) that's made possible in large part by Google image scraping.
-
For a Corp that is bust and bankrupt with the Bailiffs knocking on the door they enough make a noise.
-
I will not be surprised if Getty bypass contributors by getting a settlement lump sum
-
[url]http://app.engage.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=1591793372&e=388535&elq=cd125ddc08344981b0aaa1a66378b2a6&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqTrackId=c081583c3958443ba1ff3bec826dbb26[/url] ([url]http://app.engage.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=1591793372&e=388535&elq=cd125ddc08344981b0aaa1a66378b2a6&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqTrackId=c081583c3958443ba1ff3bec826dbb26[/url])
Got this in my e-mail this morning. A bit rich coming from the same company that sold our images to Google Drive for pennies to be used as clip art a few years ago. But whatever.
It's a highly acrimonious divorce.
-
I went ahead and signed, but the irony of Getty pretending to give a rats a$$ about contributors and our coprights was not lost on me. Still this Google practice is BAD and sales noticeably dropped off on multiple sites when they implemented it, and have not recovered.
-
Although Getty is to blame for devaluating photography among many others I see this an action in the right direction that will benefit all photographers that generate royalties. Google last implementations has hurt all of us and their very conscient actions that favour piracy and their benefit from it has to be stopped, if we don't want to loose our already very thin ground on our feet. I signed.
-
Signed.
-
I'm going to sign as well, despite Getty's hypocrisy.
-
I signed it and family members/friends have signed it.
-
Well, I don't know.
Getty and other stock agencies are the ones to display our work, and they fail to protect them with proper watermarks. Thumbnails have no watermark and Getty/Istock has the largest, in many cases poorly watermarked, image preview in the industry.
Getty's petition is like leaving ones wallet unattended in the middle of a busy market square and then crying and whining when somebody steals it.
-
I signed it, however I feel that Getty takes more out of the pie than most instances of infringement from our revenues.
Working with agencies that offer better royalties are the only sustainable way for me to continue to work today, If I relied on Getty alone I would have thrown in the towel years ago as my revenues would continue to decline month by month. Hopefully they will realize that paying us a fair share goes a long way to make the business stable and more rewarding for both parties in the long term.
-
On a happy note my VideoBlocks income is only a couple of hundred dollars off from my iStock/Getty income combined in Sept.
-
On a happy note my VideoBlocks income is only a couple of hundred dollars off from my iStock/Getty income combined in Sept.
Now that you sell in several places, are you still down from when you were exclusive, that is, say the average blended monthly income for 2015?
-
Nope I am up on my income by 20% now! Thrilled to say the least
-
All Getty images from Getty appears in the search with watermarks now. I believe we've had this discussion before. Getty doesn't want Google to display their watermarked image on the image search with a size larger than a thumbnail. They want people to go to Getty Images to view big watermarked thumbnail images. They can opt out of that of giving Google high res watermark images, but they're not doing that. They want Google to index it so they can get traffic.
What they want from Google is to fundamentally change the design of the image search to not show anything more than a tiny thumbnail and force the user to go to the original website to see a high res watermarked image. This will cause a usability nightmare and the chance of it happening is extremely low. This lawsuit has been going on for 4 years and the market has changed so much. If they think they can strong arm Google with a petition, good luck. It's like us trying to sign a petition to strong arm Getty into deleting our portfolios or give us a better split. Almost zero chance of happening.
-
All Getty images from Getty appears in the search with watermarks now.
Not so:
(http://www.lizworld.com/G-nwm.jpg)
However, that applies to pages linked to from the front page.
Search isn't working at all for me.
-
All Getty images from Getty appears in the search with watermarks now.
Not so:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/G-nwm.jpg[/url])
However, that applies to pages linked to from the front page.
Search isn't working at all for me.
You're right. Getty isn't doing their part to protect the images. People can easily just download it and use it on a website, but then again, maybe that's what Getty wants, so they can send lawyers after them and demand a high fee.
-
Signed
-
I'm really starting to believe that Getty want people to steal images from them. By not having watermarks, it make it really easy to pin to Pinterest or share a decent sized un-watermarked image on other social websites without knowing the source. Once someone downloads it and uses its on their website, Getty send the "enforcement" letters and demand large sums of money. They take advantage of people's ignorance of the stock photography market and the rights attached to it.
They've build a machine around sending these letters and they've gotten incredibly efficient at it. I'm sure this has become a good percentage of their revenue and they would hate to lose it. It's like a Venus Flytrap eating the unsuspecting insect nibble on the sweet nectar.
-
I'm really starting to believe that Getty want people to steal images from them. By not having watermarks, it make it really easy to pin to Pinterest or share a decent sized un-watermarked image on other social websites without knowing the source. Once someone downloads it and uses its on their website, Getty send the "enforcement" letters and demand large sums of money. They take advantage of people's ignorance of the stock photography market and the rights attached to it.
They've build a machine around sending these letters and they've gotten incredibly efficient at it. I'm sure this has become a good percentage of their revenue and they would hate to lose it. It's like a Venus Flytrap eating the unsuspecting insect nibble on the sweet nectar.
Sounds like you got it exactly right. They collect money from our violated copyrights, but do we ever GET any of the money?
-
Sounds like you got it exactly right. They collect money from our violated copyrights, but do we ever GET any of the money?
Do you even need to ask that question?
-
It's like when a government sells arms to a rogue dictatorship regime and then acts surprised when they fire their own weapons back at them later.
Nothing unusual. We all know at least one. ;)
-
I honestly think they're pushing this issue because they're going to lose that billion-dollar lawsuit, ...
What lawsuit?
-
http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/ (http://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-images-1-billion/)
-
Getty offers the lowest royalties around, offers our images for free use on blogs, and sends threatening letters demanding hundreds or thousands of dollars in payment that bypass the image creator completely. They're such hypocrites it's ridiculous. I honestly think they're pushing this issue because they're going to lose that billion-dollar lawsuit, and they may have to shut down their extortion division, and there goes a huge source of income for them (but not us) that's made possible in large part by Google image scraping.
+
Getty's concerned about protecting us from copyright violations? Then where's the image creators' share of all the money Getty collects when it send out extortion letters?
+
Crooks don't pay us when they collect for our pictures. Extortion division is right. I'm not signing anything to help them steal more from me. Google helps me sell and people find my work more then Getty ever does. Search works for me.
-
What they want from Google is to fundamentally change the design of the image search to not show anything more than a tiny thumbnail and force the user to go to the original website to see a high res watermarked image. This will cause a usability nightmare and the chance of it happening is extremely low.
When I do a search for websites all I see in the search results is a short link and brief description of the website. I don't see a huge preview of the page when I click on the link. It takes me straight to the website when I click on the link. This hasn't caused me any usability nightmare. Why should it be different for images? Further, they are currently allowing users to click on an image and see the full resolution image even if the image is only displayed as a small size on the website (Any website, like if someone licenses your image and then puts it onto their website. However, it doesn't take you to the website. They show you the image in their search engine). There was a discussion on these changes when they happened in 2013 here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/)
Other search engines have implemented these changes as well, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not saying Getty doesn't have selfish reasons, just that I agree that search engines have started to become more than search engines (for example by displaying images at high resolution instead of how they appear on the website).
-
It's like when a government sells arms to a rogue dictatorship regime and then acts surprised when they fire their own weapons back at them later.
Nothing unusual. We all know at least one. ;)
LMAO, well said bafan4u...
sold weapons to nicaragua, etc... endless list !!!
then came in to save the world . they're all probably locked-up in some infirmary playing virtual reality wargames
thank goodness for the world for that !!! ... for now ;)
-
What they want from Google is to fundamentally change the design of the image search to not show anything more than a tiny thumbnail and force the user to go to the original website to see a high res watermarked image. This will cause a usability nightmare and the chance of it happening is extremely low.
When I do a search for websites all I see in the search results is a short link and brief description of the website. I don't see a huge preview of the page when I click on the link. It takes me straight to the website when I click on the link. This hasn't caused me any usability nightmare. Why should it be different for images? Further, they are currently allowing users to click on an image and see the full resolution image even if the image is only displayed as a small size on the website (Any website, like if someone licenses your image and then puts it onto their website. However, it doesn't take you to the website. They show you the image in their search engine). There was a discussion on these changes when they happened in 2013 here: [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/[/url])
Other search engines have implemented these changes as well, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not saying Getty doesn't have selfish reasons, just that I agree that search engines have started to become more than search engines (for example by displaying images at high resolution instead of how they appear on the website).
Because mobile traffic makes up close to 60% of all web searches and most of us are data plans. This number will continue to increase. And since mobile phones have retina displays or 1080p displays, you can't simply show a tiny thumbnail anymore and force the user to go to another website. It must be a decent size resolution picture that doesn't look like crap. And I don't want any search engine to take me to any website that eats up data. If I'm interested in the source, I'll click on the provided link to the source.
Shutterstock, FT has seen increased exposure and downloads over the last few years. And I see their images rank very high on all the image searches. Many agencies are benefiting from this. Getty is the only one complaining because the world doesn't want to stand still for the status quo. The search engines are not going to roll back usability or technology for one company.
-
What they want from Google is to fundamentally change the design of the image search to not show anything more than a tiny thumbnail and force the user to go to the original website to see a high res watermarked image. This will cause a usability nightmare and the chance of it happening is extremely low.
When I do a search for websites all I see in the search results is a short link and brief description of the website. I don't see a huge preview of the page when I click on the link. It takes me straight to the website when I click on the link. This hasn't caused me any usability nightmare. Why should it be different for images? Further, they are currently allowing users to click on an image and see the full resolution image even if the image is only displayed as a small size on the website (Any website, like if someone licenses your image and then puts it onto their website. However, it doesn't take you to the website. They show you the image in their search engine). There was a discussion on these changes when they happened in 2013 here: [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/[/url])
Other search engines have implemented these changes as well, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not saying Getty doesn't have selfish reasons, just that I agree that search engines have started to become more than search engines (for example by displaying images at high resolution instead of how they appear on the website).
Because mobile traffic makes up close to 60% of all web searches and most of us are data plans. This number will continue to increase. And since mobile phones have retina displays or 1080p displays, you can't simply show a tiny thumbnail anymore and force the user to go to another website. It must be a decent size resolution picture that doesn't look like crap. And I don't want any search engine to take me to any website that eats up data. If I'm interested in the source, I'll click on the provided link to the source.
Shutterstock, FT has seen increased exposure and downloads over the last few years. And I see their images rank very high on all the image searches. Many agencies are benefiting from this. Getty is the only one complaining because the world doesn't want to stand still for the status quo. The search engines are not going to roll back usability or technology for one company.
Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (where they can't even get that size anyway). This is, I believe, what people are talking about.
"Shutterstock, FT has seen increased exposure and downloads over the last few years. And I see their images rank very high on all the image searches. Many agencies are benefiting from this." You have no data, and more importantly, a way of proving cause and effect. For instance, their increased exposure and downloads could be for completely unrelated changes (increased marketing, etc.).
"The search engines are not going to roll back usability or technology for one company." Maybe, but who is watching Google to make sure they don't cross lines from search engine to something more? Increasing usability could mean, as in this case, disregarding the protection of copyright.
I don't like Getty either and think they are hypocrites. I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
-
I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
i was thinking, in some sites it provides you to opt out on * your images being searchable by 3rd parties*.
would it work if getty, ss, etc provide us with this option?
then those of us who is not good with google motives, can choose not to be searchable by google.
would that work as a prevention??? i think flickr provides their portfolio holders with this...
so opt out will mean only those in flickr can find your images. i assume that means
google can't find it then.
am i correct???
-
I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
i was thinking, in some sites it provides you to opt out on * your images being searchable by 3rd parties*.
would it work if getty, ss, etc provide us with this option?
then those of us who is not good with google motives, can choose not to be searchable by google.
would that work as a prevention??? i think flickr provides their portfolio holders with this...
so opt out will mean only those in flickr can find your images. i assume that means
google can't find it then.
am i correct???
Google will still be showing all of your images that people have licensed and placed on their websites (this is actually where the large unwatermarked sizes usually come from). Customers don't always know to downsize their image for the web. By this I mean that the customer might place it on the website and it will look like a regular web-sized version (like the customer intended), but google will pick up and display your full size/resolution in the manner I described in my last post because the customer just uploaded the full size without first downsizing to the appropriate size (but whatever website/etc. they are using "places" it in the website in a smaller size appropriate for the page). The customer did not intend it to be displayed in full size because on their website it is not displayed that way, but Google is still able to pull the full size image. The customer does not even realize this has happened. Does that make sense?
FYI this is the manner I described in my last post: Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (which isn't displaying the image at that size).
-
Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (where they can't even get that size anyway). This is, I believe, what people are talking about.
Jayne, but who is watching Google to make sure they don't cross lines from search engine to something more? Increasing usability could mean, as in this case, disregarding the protection of copyright.
I don't like Getty either and think they are hypocrites. I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
Getty provides all the images that Google are displaying. If you have worked with HTML, you'd know that you can display a high resolution image in a small space, but it's still a high resolution image. Or you can make an image display at 200%, but that doesn't make it a high res image. Getty provides everything. Google isn't going behind a paywall and displaying those images.
Getty can choose to provide which images Google can index and they haven't done anything to prevent Google from indexing their images in different resolutions. They want Google to index it. Getty has been really vague on the details on purpose, because they know they can't win the PR battle if everyone knew the details.
Getty is as close to an 'evil' company as you can get. They're predatory and they intentionally harm people in the name of profit. If they really care about the livelihood of contributors, they would stop ****ing them over.
-
Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (where they can't even get that size anyway). This is, I believe, what people are talking about.
Jayne, but who is watching Google to make sure they don't cross lines from search engine to something more? Increasing usability could mean, as in this case, disregarding the protection of copyright.
I don't like Getty either and think they are hypocrites. I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
Getty provides all the images that Google are displaying. If you have worked with HTML, you'd know that you can display a high resolution image in a small space, but it's still a high resolution image. Or you can make an image display at 200%, but that doesn't make it a high res image. Getty provides everything. Google isn't going behind a paywall and displaying those images.
Getty can choose to provide which images Google can index and they haven't done anything to prevent Google from indexing their images in different resolutions. They want Google to index it. Getty has been really vague on the details on purpose, because they know they can't win the PR battle if everyone knew the details.
Getty is as close to an 'evil' company as you can get. They're predatory and they intentionally harm people in the name of profit. If they really care about the livelihood of contributors, they would stop ****ing them over.
Yes, I know how HTML works. Those high resolution images were not indexed as such until 2013. You had to go to the website and then click on the image on the website. If you had read the letters it explains much better than I tried to. Getty does not provide all the images google is displaying (I'm assuming you are talking about stock images). People who have licensed them put them on their websites. These used to only be the thumbnails you see now. However, now when you click on the image in the search, you can make it to the high resolution version without ever visiting the website and seeing copyright information (really, no one is going to pay attention to the tiny disclaimer at the bottom that the image may be copyrighted). This video they put out explains what I was trying to say: http://wherewestand.gettyimages.com/advocacy/?esource=2016_09_21_google_SEG&elqTrackId=862BB4F2CDD0B186A9CCDD8A5839F6F0&elq=20e255f2d6fe4f9880cb2095ef0cba77&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=3499 (http://wherewestand.gettyimages.com/advocacy/?esource=2016_09_21_google_SEG&elqTrackId=862BB4F2CDD0B186A9CCDD8A5839F6F0&elq=20e255f2d6fe4f9880cb2095ef0cba77&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=3499)
This also hurts the customers of stock images. They lose search traffic to their websites (why visit it when you can already see the image at the size you want?)
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain. Anyone who describes a company "as close to an 'evil' company as you can get" has already made of their mind everything the company does is 'bad.' Most of the stock sites have made at least some decisions that have hurt contributors in favor of their own profits (they are businesses so of course they will do so). Getty has probably made more that others. I agree, Getty has done some predatory actions, such as Shelma1 posted. I don't consider them as close to 'evil' as you can get though. When I think of an 'evil' company I think of Enron. Getty isn't even as bad as Walmart yet as far as hurting suppliers.
-
Yes, I know how HTML works. Those high resolution images were not indexed as such until 2013. You had to go to the website and then click on the image on the website. If you had read the letters it explains much better than I tried to. Getty does not provide all the images google is displaying (I'm assuming you are talking about stock images). People who have licensed them put them on their websites. These used to only be the thumbnails you see now. However, now when you click on the image in the search, you can make it to the high resolution version without ever visiting the website and seeing copyright information (really, no one is going to pay attention to the tiny disclaimer at the bottom that the image may be copyrighted). This video they put out explains what I was trying to say: [url]http://wherewestand.gettyimages.com/advocacy/?esource=2016_09_21_google_SEG&elqTrackId=862BB4F2CDD0B186A9CCDD8A5839F6F0&elq=20e255f2d6fe4f9880cb2095ef0cba77&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=3499[/url] ([url]http://wherewestand.gettyimages.com/advocacy/?esource=2016_09_21_google_SEG&elqTrackId=862BB4F2CDD0B186A9CCDD8A5839F6F0&elq=20e255f2d6fe4f9880cb2095ef0cba77&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=3499[/url])
This also hurts the customers of stock images. They lose search traffic to their websites (why visit it when you can already see the image at the size you want?)
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain. Anyone who describes a company "as close to an 'evil' company as you can get" has already made of their mind everything the company does is 'bad.' Most of the stock sites have made at least some decisions that have hurt contributors in favor of their own profits (they are businesses so of course they will do so). Getty has probably made more that others. I agree, Getty has done some predatory actions, such as Shelma1 posted. I don't consider them as close to 'evil' as you can get though. When I think of an 'evil' company I think of Enron. Getty isn't even as bad as Walmart yet as far as hurting suppliers.
Getty can block Google or any search engine from indexing their high resolution watermarked images. So why aren't they doing it? Because they risk the user not caring about their images at all if they can't see it clearly. They can opt out of having them indexed, but they are not opting out.
I'm tired of watching Getty's PR garbage. Already saw it 3 times. The reason why they're suing is because of the redesign in 2013, not because of any other reason. Everything else is PR garbage designed to sway the public and desperate contributors in a weak state of mind.
Image search engines are not going away...ever. That is something everyone needs to accept. The design of that image search is controlled by all the search engine companies and not by anyone else who doesn't like the design of it. If Getty don't like how that product works, they can opt out...and they can if they want to.
-
Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (where they can't even get that size anyway). This is, I believe, what people are talking about.
Jayne, but who is watching Google to make sure they don't cross lines from search engine to something more? Increasing usability could mean, as in this case, disregarding the protection of copyright.
I don't like Getty either and think they are hypocrites. I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
Getty provides all the images that Google are displaying. If you have worked with HTML, you'd know that you can display a high resolution image in a small space, but it's still a high resolution image. Or you can make an image display at 200%, but that doesn't make it a high res image. Getty provides everything. Google isn't going behind a paywall and displaying those images.
Getty can choose to provide which images Google can index and they haven't done anything to prevent Google from indexing their images in different resolutions. They want Google to index it. Getty has been really vague on the details on purpose, because they know they can't win the PR battle if everyone knew the details.
Getty is as close to an 'evil' company as you can get. They're predatory and they intentionally harm people in the name of profit. If they really care about the livelihood of contributors, they would stop ****ing them over.
We all know how bad Getty and their practices are. Now slowly people are realizing the same about Google. The European Union has already charged Google for the third time for antitrust charges. Germany is going very strong for this kind of abusive practices that Google Facebook Microsoft are doing over and over favouring piracy tax evasion privacy intromision etc.
All this shity corporation are slowly being cornered and hope they will be cut in pieces. Their dominancy of the market are bad for everybody for many of the reasons they are being chased now by authorities. I have no problem if they want to index my images as long as they do it with a small image and point to the source be it my agency or my page. In the moment they use their same image technology to show the image at their highest resolution without directing to the source they are encouraging piracy. I hope that the court sees that and action is taken.
-
Sounds like you got it exactly right. They collect money from our violated copyrights, but do we ever GET any of the money?
Do you even need to ask that question?
Should have used an emoticon. It was a rhetorical question.
-
Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (where they can't even get that size anyway). This is, I believe, what people are talking about.
Jayne, but who is watching Google to make sure they don't cross lines from search engine to something more? Increasing usability could mean, as in this case, disregarding the protection of copyright.
I don't like Getty either and think they are hypocrites. I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
Getty provides all the images that Google are displaying. If you have worked with HTML, you'd know that you can display a high resolution image in a small space, but it's still a high resolution image. Or you can make an image display at 200%, but that doesn't make it a high res image. Getty provides everything. Google isn't going behind a paywall and displaying those images.
Getty can choose to provide which images Google can index and they haven't done anything to prevent Google from indexing their images in different resolutions. They want Google to index it. Getty has been really vague on the details on purpose, because they know they can't win the PR battle if everyone knew the details.
Getty is as close to an 'evil' company as you can get. They're predatory and they intentionally harm people in the name of profit. If they really care about the livelihood of contributors, they would stop ****ing them over.
We all know how bad Getty and their practices are. Now slowly people are realizing the same about Google. The European Union has already charged Google for the third time for antitrust charges. Germany is going very strong for this kind of abusive practices that Google Facebook Microsoft are doing over and over favouring piracy tax evasion privacy intromision etc.
All this shity corporation are slowly being cornered and hope they will be cut in pieces. Their dominancy of the market are bad for everybody for many of the reasons they are being chased now by authorities. I have no problem if they want to index my images as long as they do it with a small image and point to the source be it my agency or my page. In the moment they use their same image technology to show the image at their highest resolution without directing to the source they are encouraging piracy. I hope that the court sees that and action is taken.
I personally think it's awful that these companies are barely paying any taxes. There's too many loopholes that these companies take advantage of it and get away with too much. Though I admit that the 30% tax is too high in the US and should be reduced by half given how much risk many of these companies are taking.
Market dominance isn't the same as a monopoly though. Every company strives for market dominance and it isn't necessarily a bad thing in many respects. When it comes to some companies, the people choose to use it for its reliability vs not having a choice. EU is investigating for Android, but even without Google incentivizing the eoms, they would still choose to include a Google search bar, unless Yandax or Baidu incentivize them. Apple doesn't want to open source iOS and nobody wants to use Windows or Blackberry phones, which basically gave Android a clear road to dominate the world market. Getty fighting the same unwinnable battle for 4 years is kind of pathetic and sad.
I am against copyright infringement. I'm also against a company buying the rights to old obscure images from 20 years ago and then sending threatening letters to unsuspecting people who used it from an old stock photo CD. Everything on the internet is at some kind of risk for infringement. But there are also benefits to having your content on there. People who don't want to pay for something won't and they will find ways to steal it, but there will also be people and companies who will spend money to buy something.
-
Oh the irony of Getty's statements ::)
-
Oh the irony of Getty's statements ::)
Absolutley brazenly. Hopefully Getty get offline soon.
-
This is really funny since Getty themselves have done everything in their power to completely wreck any creative livelihoods. They are losing big time losing photographers everything. They have completely and effectivly wrecked Istock from the very beginning. The once so celebrated house collection isnt worth a dime. Its become and well known today as a dubvious and shady company facing one lawsuit after another.
Its over really.
-
2c.....is threatening creative livelihoods
-
I'm not gonna bash Getty or Google here. I'm just gonna ask if I understood this correctly. So:
Getty is trying to prevent Google from showing hi-res images in their results, and wants them to show only thumbnails instead, because they want visitors to go to Getty and buy those images?
1. I personally think that if somebody wants to steal the image, he/she will click on the thumbnail, go to the host website, and download the image anyway, even if Google shows only thumbnails. For those people, I don't think that 1-2 clicks more make a big difference if they are getting what they need for free.
2. I don't think anyone can legally stop Google from scraping content from other websites and showing image results. People who buy our images for their websites are the ones to blame more than Google, because they usually remove the copyright info, and they remove the link to the source of the image. So, what Google sees is just an image, and there is no chance it will know where the image come from. The image could be from any stock agency, not just Getty.
The only solution that I see here is quite complicated to apply in reality. It would be to somehow make it a worldwide norm that every click on any image on any website always leads to the agency where the image was bought originally. Also, to force our buyers to leave the copyright info and link to a stock agency next to the image, and at the same time, to prevent any image from any regular website to be downloadable with a right click.
-
I got the email again pretty much begging us to help them. Let's be clear here. Signing the petition means helping THEM not US.
-
I got the email again pretty much begging us to help them. Let's be clear here. Signing the petition means helping THEM not US.
No matter what your feelings on Getty are, this helps everyone from contributors to agencies to customers.
-
I got the email again pretty much begging us to help them. Let's be clear here. Signing the petition means helping THEM not US.
No matter what your feelings on Getty are, this helps everyone from contributors to agencies to customers.
From where I sit, I'd be helping their model influence other models to the point where everyone is getting 2 cents. How on earth is that helping other photographers?
-
I got the email again pretty much begging us to help them. Let's be clear here. Signing the petition means helping THEM not US.
No matter what your feelings on Getty are, this helps everyone from contributors to agencies to customers.
From where I sit, I'd be helping their model influence other models to the point where everyone is getting 2 cents. How on earth is that helping other photographers?
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. What they are asking to be changed affects Shutterstock (along with their buyers) just as much as Getty, there is nothing exclusive to Getty in it. If there is please tell me what it is?
-
I got the email again pretty much begging us to help them. Let's be clear here. Signing the petition means helping THEM not US.
No matter what your feelings on Getty are, this helps everyone from contributors to agencies to customers.
From where I sit, I'd be helping their model influence other models to the point where everyone is getting 2 cents. How on earth is that helping other photographers?
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. What they are asking to be changed affects Shutterstock (along with their buyers) just as much as Getty, there is nothing exclusive to Getty in it. If there is please tell me what it is?
Just speculation, but Getty have a software company that can embed identifiable information in an image. One might imagine that they have asked Google to use or buy this software and omit found high resolution images from their search results.
-
Finally I got over feeling sick to my stomach about this letter and watched this video they created. It seems this Jane girl gets a lot of coins and bills for a web image usage.. I wonder what currency she is paid with, Iranian Rial or Vietnemese Dong or perhaps Indonesian Rupia, otherwise it really gives a false impression that those royalties are pretty high.
Sorry I still feel that I just can not sign this. Maybe in a few days when my anger goes away.
-
They're getting desperate. They are losing the battle everywhere. Estasblished photographers that has been with them even from the film days are leaving. Portfolios are deleted and going elsewhere. They are so much in debt that bailiffs would have a field-day.
Nobody can ever get through to them not with mails or anything. They have built up a wall of silence between contributors and the Admin and right smack in the middle is this total jerk Lobo from IS.
Adding to all troubles that SS is slowly killing them.
No Getty is at this moment a very very unhealthy place and now they are lashing out at Google. Joke!
-
Finally I got over feeling sick to my stomach about this letter and watched this video they created. It seems this Jane girl gets a lot of coins and bills for a web image usage.. I wonder what currency she is paid with, Iranian Rial or Vietnemese Dong or perhaps Indonesian Rupia, otherwise it really gives a false impression that those royalties are pretty high.
Sorry I still feel that I just can not sign this. Maybe in a few days when my anger goes away.
This isn't just about Getty, a change at Google will help Shutterstock contributors equally.
-
Finally I got over feeling sick to my stomach about this letter and watched this video they created. It seems this Jane girl gets a lot of coins and bills for a web image usage.. I wonder what currency she is paid with, Iranian Rial or Vietnemese Dong or perhaps Indonesian Rupia, otherwise it really gives a false impression that those royalties are pretty high.
Sorry I still feel that I just can not sign this. Maybe in a few days when my anger goes away.
This isn't just about Getty, a change at Google will help Shutterstock contributors equally.
Not necessarily, Google scrapes up all kinds of images from many willing sources, how would they separate these from our content? Using Getty's propriety software maybe? Would our content on other sites be protected?
Now ask yourself why our content is available in high resolution on the web for Google to access? Is it because the agencies do not police web use as well as they should. No content should be sold for web use without the stipulation that the size and resolution is limited, it would not be hard for Getty to police this and they don't even need their sophisticated software to do this, just Google.
-
Finally I got over feeling sick to my stomach about this letter and watched this video they created. It seems this Jane girl gets a lot of coins and bills for a web image usage.. I wonder what currency she is paid with, Iranian Rial or Vietnemese Dong or perhaps Indonesian Rupia, otherwise it really gives a false impression that those royalties are pretty high.
Sorry I still feel that I just can not sign this. Maybe in a few days when my anger goes away.
This isn't just about Getty, a change at Google will help Shutterstock contributors equally.
Not necessarily, Google scrapes up all kinds of images from many willing sources, how would they separate these from our content? Using Getty's propriety software maybe? Would our content on other sites be protected?
Now ask yourself why our content is available in high resolution on the web for Google to access? Is it because the agencies do not police web use as well as they should. No content should be sold for web use without the stipulation that the size and resolution is limited, it would not be hard for Getty to police this and they don't even need their sophisticated software to do this, just Google.
There are different ways to change Google that don't involve Getty software. Disable right clicking and when clicking a thumbnail go to the webpage where it came from would be a good start.
Even keeping the files to web allowed resolutions is large enough for people to steal if it's easy. If Getty software could be used to help then other sites could create their own or license it or Google could make their own version. I doubt everyone would be forced to use Getty's software, but this all just speculation I haven't seen them push for it anywhere.
-
It's even easier for Getty to raise our royalties so we care about their letters. What are the chances that will happen?
-
It's even easier for Getty to raise our royalties so we care about their letters. What are the chances that will happen?
I think it's wrongheaded to look at this as "their" letters, this is an issue that affects SS, Adobe, and Getty equally along with websites that license our images along with many other content creators. This is worth supporting no matter who wrote it, it's the content of the complaint that should be looked at rather than who wrote it. Hopefully SS will write the exact same thing so everyone can support it.
-
Finally I got over feeling sick to my stomach about this letter and watched this video they created. It seems this Jane girl gets a lot of coins and bills for a web image usage.. I wonder what currency she is paid with, Iranian Rial or Vietnemese Dong or perhaps Indonesian Rupia, otherwise it really gives a false impression that those royalties are pretty high.
Sorry I still feel that I just can not sign this. Maybe in a few days when my anger goes away.
This isn't just about Getty, a change at Google will help Shutterstock contributors equally.
Not necessarily, Google scrapes up all kinds of images from many willing sources, how would they separate these from our content? Using Getty's propriety software maybe? Would our content on other sites be protected?
Now ask yourself why our content is available in high resolution on the web for Google to access? Is it because the agencies do not police web use as well as they should. No content should be sold for web use without the stipulation that the size and resolution is limited, it would not be hard for Getty to police this and they don't even need their sophisticated software to do this, just Google.
There are different ways to change Google that don't involve Getty software. Disable right clicking and when clicking a thumbnail go to the webpage where it came from would be a good start.
Even keeping the files to web allowed resolutions is large enough for people to steal if it's easy. If Getty software could be used to help then other sites could create their own or license it or Google could make their own version. I doubt everyone would be forced to use Getty's software, but this all just speculation I haven't seen them push for it anywhere.
First Google has to identify and separate free content and paid for content, which requires embedding images with identifiable data, this action puts the cart before the horse, unless Getty have already done this. I would have more confidence in Getty's action if they had the support of other industry leaders, why are they not on board?
Why are we as individual contributors, for years, having to chase these matters up with agencies when we find abuses and then given no support from them, because they don't give a monkeys, what has changed that Getty need our support now?
-
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
-
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
-
Why don't you head over to the Getty forums and tell them we'll sign their letters when they raise our royalties. otherwise we're out the door November 26, and then none of us will see their emails anyway.
I've gotta tell you, it's really, really rich coming from an agency facing a billion-dollar lawsuit for doing worse than what others do on Google. Not only did they download 18,000 photos and license them without the photographer's knowledge or permission, they also sent who knows how many threatening letters claiming they owned the copyright and demanding payment from people who used images donated to the public.
And then they grab more of OUR royalties as they face a yuuuuuge settlement.
They're 18,000 times worse than any Google right-clicker. The nerve.
-
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
I think that's the point no one has to be on board, this is about changes at Google like disabling right clicking or when clicking a thumbnail going to the website that has licensed our work for example. Those things are good for us and all the agencies without exception.
-
Why don't you head over to the Getty forums and tell them we'll sign their letters when they raise our royalties. otherwise we're out the door November 26, and then none of us will see their emails anyway.
I've gotta tell you, it's really, really rich coming from an agency facing a billion-dollar lawsuit for doing worse than what others do on Google. Not only did they download 18,000 photos and license them without the photographer's knowledge or permission, they also sent who knows how many threatening letters claiming they owned the copyright and demanding payment from people who used images donated to the public.
And then they grab more of OUR royalties as they face a yuuuuuge settlement.
They're 18,000 times worse than any Google right-clicker. The nerve.
Ok you don't like Getty so you would rather harm yourself than do something that might be good for you and Getty. That's your choice and I can't change it, I'm just giving my opinion. Take it or leave it. BTW most of that lawsuit was already thrown out.
-
Why don't you head over to the Getty forums and tell them we'll sign their letters when they raise our royalties. otherwise we're out the door November 26, and then none of us will see their emails anyway.
I've gotta tell you, it's really, really rich coming from an agency facing a billion-dollar lawsuit for doing worse than what others do on Google. Not only did they download 18,000 photos and license them without the photographer's knowledge or permission, they also sent who knows how many threatening letters claiming they owned the copyright and demanding payment from people who used images donated to the public.
And then they grab more of OUR royalties as they face a yuuuuuge settlement.
They're 18,000 times worse than any Google right-clicker. The nerve.
Ok you don't like Getty so you would rather harm yourself than do something that might be good for you and Getty. That's your choice and I can't change it, I'm just giving my opinion. Take it or leave it. BTW most of that lawsuit was already thrown out.
You say that almost gleefully, Tickstock—that most of the lawsuit was thrown out. As if you think that's a good thing. You have no issue with your rep stealing more than 18,000 images from a fellow photographer and continuing to license them without her permission even after she requested they take them down. Threatening people and companies with lawsuits when they had used images in the public domain.
They threw most of the lawsuit out! Yay! Jeebus.
-
You say that almost gleefully
Don't try to tell me how I feel, I was giving you some facts. It says a lot about you that your instinct is to attack. I've been away from here for over a year which is the only reason I unblocked you. Now that I see you haven't changed one bit I'm going to ignore you again and hopefully this thread can get back on topic.
-
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
I think that's the point no one has to be on board, this is about changes at Google like disabling right clicking or when clicking a thumbnail going to the website that has licensed our work for example. Those things are good for us and all the agencies without exception.
To ask Google to do that for all content is absurd, a lot of content from the great libraries and museums of the world allow their high resolutions collections to be downloaded by the public. To separate paid content from those requires the microstock world to act as one and I don't see that happening, because they don't care. Royalty Free images once let into the wild are lost unless you are exclusive, which most of us are not
-
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
I think that's the point no one has to be on board, this is about changes at Google like disabling right clicking or when clicking a thumbnail going to the website that has licensed our work for example. Those things are good for us and all the agencies without exception.
To ask Google to do that for all content is absurd, a lot of content from the great libraries and museums of the world allow their high resolutions collections to be downloaded by the public. To separate paid content from those requires the microstock world to act as one and I don't see that happening, because they don't care. Royalty Free images once let into the wild are lost unless you are exclusive, which most of us are not
The great museums of the world in your example probably still want people to come to their website to get the content rather than bypass it altogether (not even knowing it came from a great museum) and right click it directly from google. Museums gather data, have ads, want people to come to their physical location and that is all lost in many cases now.
I also don't believe that it's absurd for google to do more to not enable stealing of images. Disabling right clicking and taking people to the site where the content is hosted does not seem like a burden at all.
-
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
I think that's the point no one has to be on board, this is about changes at Google like disabling right clicking or when clicking a thumbnail going to the website that has licensed our work for example. Those things are good for us and all the agencies without exception.
To ask Google to do that for all content is absurd, a lot of content from the great libraries and museums of the world allow their high resolutions collections to be downloaded by the public. To separate paid content from those requires the microstock world to act as one and I don't see that happening, because they don't care. Royalty Free images once let into the wild are lost unless you are exclusive, which most of us are not
The great museums of the world in your example probably still want people to come to their website to get the content rather than bypass it altogether (not even knowing it came from a great museum) and right click it directly from google. Museums gather data, have ads, want people to come to their physical location and that is all lost in many cases now.
I also don't believe that it's absurd for google to do more to not enable stealing of images. Disabling right clicking and taking people to the site where the content is hosted does not seem like a burden at all.
No burden, but it would also prevent me from finding misused and stolen images.
-
I'd like to see changes at Google that make it harder to steal content and bypass paying customers work, if that's important to you then I think you should sign and support this. If there are other solutions those should be supported as well.
Yes, I agree and it is important to me, I have in the past spent many a log hour chasing these issues up with agencies who have been reluctant to help. Will signing and supporting this action help me? Not if the other agencies are not on board.
I think that's the point no one has to be on board, this is about changes at Google like disabling right clicking or when clicking a thumbnail going to the website that has licensed our work for example. Those things are good for us and all the agencies without exception.
To ask Google to do that for all content is absurd, a lot of content from the great libraries and museums of the world allow their high resolutions collections to be downloaded by the public. To separate paid content from those requires the microstock world to act as one and I don't see that happening, because they don't care. Royalty Free images once let into the wild are lost unless you are exclusive, which most of us are not
The great museums of the world in your example probably still want people to come to their website to get the content rather than bypass it altogether (not even knowing it came from a great museum) and right click it directly from google. Museums gather data, have ads, want people to come to their physical location and that is all lost in many cases now.
I also don't believe that it's absurd for google to do more to not enable stealing of images. Disabling right clicking and taking people to the site where the content is hosted does not seem like a burden at all.
No burden, but it would also prevent me from finding misused and stolen images.
How so?
-
...you don't like Getty so you would rather harm yourself than do something that might be good for you and Getty...
There is no scenario left in which something can be done that is mutually beneficial to both Getty and artists. Getty's motivations are clear, and they don't include an ounce of consideration for what's good for contributors.
You can't do anything that benefits both sides when one side only wants to take and take, never willing to give.
-
...you don't like Getty so you would rather harm yourself than do something that might be good for you and Getty...
There is no scenario left in which something can be done that is mutually beneficial to both Getty and artists. Getty's motivations are clear, and they don't include an ounce of consideration for what's good for contributors.
You can't do anything that benefits both sides when one side only wants to take and take, never willing to give.
It is beneficial for all artists and Getty (and SS and Adobe too) if Google is made to disable right click saving and take people to the websites where content is hosted.
-
You say that almost gleefully
Don't try to tell me how I feel, I was giving you some facts. It says a lot about you that your instinct is to attack. I've been away from here for over a year which is the only reason I unblocked you. Now that I see you haven't changed one bit I'm going to ignore you again and hopefully this thread can get back on topic.
Nobody missed you. In fact this place and the general tenor of posts benefit from your absence. Maybe you should crawl back under your rock instead of attacking Shelma, who is an intelligent and productive poster here.
-
Good to see this place is still the same.
-
Good to see this place is still the same.
And you haven't changed a bit :)