Author Topic: Letter from Getty: Google’s Actions Threaten Creative Livelihoods (Read 21553 times)

Shelma1 · « **Reply #75 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:04 »

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #76 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:05 »

Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:02

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 14:52
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #77 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:07 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 19, 2016, 15:04

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #78 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:12 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:07

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 19, 2016, 15:04
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #79 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:15 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 19, 2016, 15:12

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.

obj owl · « **Reply #80 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:24 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:05

Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:02
Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 14:52
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

tickstock · « **Reply #81 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:30 »

Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:24

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:05
Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:02
Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 14:52
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.

obj owl · « **Reply #82 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:44 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:30

Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:24
Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:05
Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:02
Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 14:52
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #83 on:** November 19, 2016, 15:45 »

Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:44

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:30
Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:24
Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:05
Quote from: obj owl on November 19, 2016, 15:02
Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 14:52
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?

EmberMike · « **Reply #84 on:** November 20, 2016, 19:39 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:07

...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.

tickstock · « **Reply #85 on:** November 20, 2016, 20:58 »

Quote from: EmberMike on November 20, 2016, 19:39

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:07
...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.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #86 on:** November 20, 2016, 21:00 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 19, 2016, 15:15

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 19, 2016, 15:12
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #87 on:** November 20, 2016, 21:07 »

Good to see this place is still the same.

sharpshot · « **Reply #88 on:** November 21, 2016, 04:55 »

Quote from: tickstock on November 20, 2016, 21:07

Good to see this place is still the same.

And you haven't changed a bit

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Letter from Getty: Google’s Actions Threaten Creative Livelihoods (Read 21553 times)

Shelma1

tickstock

tickstock

Shelma1

tickstock

obj owl

tickstock

obj owl

tickstock

EmberMike

tickstock

PixelBytes

tickstock

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors