Quote from: BD on October 01, 2016, 16:10

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

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.

Quote from: BD on October 01, 2016, 16:10

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.

Quote from: Minsc on October 01, 2016, 20:46

Quote from: BD on October 01, 2016, 16:10

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 

Absolutley brazenly. Hopefully Getty get offline soon.

2c.....is threatening creative livelihoods

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.

Quote from: Mantis on November 17, 2016, 15:57

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?

Quote from: Mantis on November 17, 2016, 21:55

Quote from: tickstock on November 17, 2016, 16:01

Quote from: Mantis on November 17, 2016, 15:57

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.

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!

Quote from: zsooofija on November 19, 2016, 07:32

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.

It's even easier for Getty to raise our royalties so we care about their letters. What are the chances that will happen?

Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 14:11

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 13:34

Quote from: zsooofija on November 19, 2016, 07:32

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.

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.