MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Your Getty/iStock images available FREE thru Slidely!  (Read 53712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2015, 15:09 »
+10
Whatever you make of the the semantics of the matter. Given away for no charge is free in my book. They're being given away. Someone  benefits from this deal, otherwise why bother. So someone gets a benefit from it, where is the payment?
When you go to buy fuel for your car, they don't say, "Oh you're just using this to have a ride round for fun. No charge for that"

If it doesn't matter then just don't do it. Or ask the membership, and listen to what they say first.
People get to create fun slide shows to show their friends, slide.ly makes money from adverts, and Getty and us benefit from eyes on our files that are for sale.  It can be mutually beneficial to all parties.
Well that's really nice for them then isn't it? Personally I haven't seen any increase in sales from these free deals.
Sales keep dropping.


Shelma1

« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2015, 15:12 »
+9
In what universe will a random Facebook friend see these free pro images in someone's slideshow and think, "gee, I'd like to spend $500 licensing one of these images my friend is using for free?" I don't think that will ever happen...and my FB friends are advertising people who actually do license images on a regular basis.

Getty is already giving our images away with embedding, but I don't see anyone reporting a torrent of image sales because someone saw one of those free images and thought they'd like to pay to use them. Just the opposite...sales continue to slide.

(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)

Semmick Photo

« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2015, 15:17 »
+5
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.

« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2015, 15:18 »
+1
(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)
I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2015, 15:20 »
0
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.
That's rich coming from a self appointed Shutterstock Ambassador.   ::)

Shelma1

« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2015, 15:21 »
+1
(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)
I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

What? I can't hear you. I have you on ignore.

« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2015, 15:21 »
0
(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)
I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

What? I can't hear you. I have you on ignore.
Thank god, now can you stop bringing me up too?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2015, 15:28 »
+3
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.
That's rich coming from a self appointed Shutterstock Ambassador.   ::)
LOL. SS appointed me and I havent been an ambassador since Feb 2014. But you confirm then that you are a Getty shill.

Didnt you have me on ignore?

« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2015, 15:32 »
+1
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.
That's rich coming from a self appointed Shutterstock Ambassador.   ::)
LOL. SS appointed me and I havent been an ambassador since Feb 2014. But you confirm then that you are a Getty shill.

Didnt you have me on ignore?
I do have you on ignore but every now and then I check to see if you've written something relevant or interesting (LOL I know that sounds ridiculous) but as usual you've written a personal attack.  I know I shouldn't respond to it but your trolling gets me every once in a while. 

« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2015, 15:43 »
+10
...You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

If you read the startupbeat article (link in my earlier post) Slidely plans to offer paid services at some point. What happens then to the content for which the contributor receives no payment? Shouldn't there at least be some discussions with contributors about how there's something free now but there'll be a paid offering to come (if that's the plan)?

"EasyHis plan to initiate monetization efforts centers around a freemium offering that will provide premium features, content and themes via subscriptions, in-app purchases, pay-on-demand, real-world photo accessories and will offer both Light and Pro versions of the platform."

Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.

« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2015, 16:00 »
0
...You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

If you read the startupbeat article (link in my earlier post) Slidely plans to offer paid services at some point. What happens then to the content for which the contributor receives no payment? Shouldn't there at least be some discussions with contributors about how there's something free now but there'll be a paid offering to come (if that's the plan)?

"EasyHis plan to initiate monetization efforts centers around a freemium offering that will provide premium features, content and themes via subscriptions, in-app purchases, pay-on-demand, real-world photo accessories and will offer both Light and Pro versions of the platform."

Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.
I guess it depends how that shakes out and if there is any monetary gain for Getty.  You are right it's a different thing if Getty is getting paid and we aren't than if it's just marketing.  Maybe Getty will start charging for some or all images too? 

« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2015, 16:17 »
+6
Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.

This is where the real rub is with deals like this. I don't mind them using my images for what is effectively advertising (though in a different form than we're used to), but there's often too little information about how any money that is involved is going to make it's way back to the content provider (me) in any significant amount.

The pennies that some schemes produce are just not worth the use the image gets for the photographer even if collectively they make considerable sums for the agent. There needs to be more accountability, communication and sharing of the dividends of these new projects if this is the way image distribution is going.

The App store model of 70/30 in favour of the producer is a more realistic model nowadays if they want stuff to sell / share / use to collect data with that they haven't produced themselves.

« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2015, 16:21 »
0


In what universe will a random Facebook friend see these free pro images in someone's slideshow and think, "gee, I'd like to spend $500 licensing one of these images my friend is using for free?" I don't think that will ever happen...and my FB friends are advertising people who actually do license images on a regular basis.

I found some of my images mirrored from Thinkstock, not from Getty.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2015, 16:26 »
0
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.
We can all hope this is as you say it might be, but really, do you honestly believe it would help create a larger market for your images? or just maybe more site clicks for a company thinking of moving on?

« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2015, 16:40 »
+3
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.
We can all hope this is as you say it might be, but really, do you honestly believe it would help create a larger market for your images? or just maybe more site clicks for a company thinking of moving on?

Not saying that it would at all. I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.

« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2015, 19:31 »
+4
If I'm someone who purchases stock images for client work or for my company, would I be inclined to purchase an image people are using free in their slide shows? marketing to social users using the images for free isn't much of marketing, at least not to the right audience. I can't figure out the value of this to the contributors. Exposure doesn't pay the bills.

« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2015, 19:51 »
+1
If I'm someone who purchases stock images for client work or for my company, would I be inclined to purchase an image people are using free in their slide shows? marketing to social users using the images for free isn't much of marketing, at least not to the right audience. I can't figure out the value of this to the contributors. Exposure doesn't pay the bills.
I can only think there may be some sort of SEO click-o-mania advantage.

ShadySue

« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2015, 20:37 »
0
... I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.
Back in the day, members could opt in to some free marketing. It was spelled out to us what that could involve. IIRC, that was all in or all out. (Plus you could opt images into Free File of the Week/Month (?), on an image by image basis.) As the uses were very specific, I was opted into that for a while, but opted out after they reneged on their promise to grandfather us in at our next level when they introduced RCs. Quite possibly a lot of people did the same, so they made a much wider, compulsory unspecified promotion scheme.

Clause 3b of the current ASA (indie) says:
"In addition to the foregoing grant iStock and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Suppliers registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. "
The exclusive wording is almost identical.

(Wonder what they mean by 'the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks'? Where would they get these from?)

« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2015, 21:25 »
+2
... I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.
Back in the day, members could opt in to some free marketing. It was spelled out to us what that could involve. IIRC, that was all in or all out. (Plus you could opt images into Free File of the Week/Month (?), on an image by image basis.) As the uses were very specific, I was opted into that for a while, but opted out after they reneged on their promise to grandfather us in at our next level when they introduced RCs. Quite possibly a lot of people did the same, so they made a much wider, compulsory unspecified promotion scheme.

Clause 3b of the current ASA (indie) says:
"In addition to the foregoing grant iStock and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Suppliers registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. "
The exclusive wording is almost identical.

(Wonder what they mean by 'the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks'? Where would they get these from?)

Yes i recall these terms. Doesnt mean i would rather be paid. Its my responsibility, i accepted the terms, i get that. I just think some of these agencies go too far.....especially with the uptick in free images lately, as an example. That is tantamount to conditioning pavlovs dogs, which will assure the coriolis effect on our revenue. :D

ShadySue

« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2015, 21:28 »
+2
... I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.
Back in the day, members could opt in to some free marketing. It was spelled out to us what that could involve. IIRC, that was all in or all out. (Plus you could opt images into Free File of the Week/Month (?), on an image by image basis.) As the uses were very specific, I was opted into that for a while, but opted out after they reneged on their promise to grandfather us in at our next level when they introduced RCs. Quite possibly a lot of people did the same, so they made a much wider, compulsory unspecified promotion scheme.

Clause 3b of the current ASA (indie) says:
"In addition to the foregoing grant iStock and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Suppliers registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. "
The exclusive wording is almost identical.

(Wonder what they mean by 'the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks'? Where would they get these from?)

Yes i recall these terms. Doesnt mean i would rather be paid. Its my responsibility, i accepted the terms, i get that. I just think some of these agencies go too far.....especially with the uptick in free images lately, as an example. That is tantamount to conditioning pavlovs dogs, which will assure the coriolis effect on our revenue. :D
I do agree with you! They are so cent-pinching that they can't give us our percentage of even a basic nominal price, e.g. $1.

ShadySue

« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2015, 21:31 »
+9
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 22:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2015, 22:26 »
0
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?
Do you know how much money, time, or effort was spent on this?  I don't have a clue but it probably wasn't too much they already the infrastructure in place to make this work.  Slide.ly could have put most of the capital in as well, who knows?  They could also be planning to license images there in the future. 

« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2015, 23:18 »
+12
As always, I believe we should be allowed to opt out of these kind of schemes. 

« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2015, 00:27 »
+7
Yet another giveaway of our images on a mass scale from Getty.  Why am I not surprised? 

As for the cutesy slideshows being promotional - BS!  If these people want my images for slideshows then I should be effing PAID!  By giving our images away once more, Getty are undercutting the market. 

I begin to think that if Getty can't beat SS or Adobe, they are prepared to destroy the whole market to bring them down. 

In the near future we who are still there will likely have to pull out of Getty or risk completely devaluing our images. 

« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2015, 06:39 »
+7
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4608 Views
Last post June 30, 2011, 10:17
by click_click
7 Replies
2948 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
989 Replies
91496 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
2 Replies
1592 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
1753 Views
Last post September 18, 2014, 11:32
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results