RAW files in the digital world are the equivalent to negatives in the old film world. I'm sure you know this as the "DNG" you refer to actually stands for "digital negative". Most experienced photographers will only part with good "negatives" for an ultra-premium price. I'm afraid you are facing a very steep uphill battle with this idea, unfortunately. Your ambition is honorable, however, at this early stage in the game, you may want to redirect that ambition to a modified idea based on the input you've received here. It's not to late to step back and rethink your business plan. 

Value should not play into the penalty. Shoplifting carries the same penalty whether it is a bottle of nail polish or a $200 pair of tennis shoes: prosecution. If prosecution was the penalty, as it is with shoplifting, it would curb image theft and solve the problem of the copyright holder paying legal fees associated with civil suits.

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2013, 18:46
Wouldn't it be easier to list the "fair" agencies? 

Yes, I would like to turn the conversation in that direction as well.

For me, aside from commission rates and traffic, two important characteristics for a distributor to have are: 1) a standard licensing agreement that includes sufficient prohibition of sensitive use, and 2) ingestion that does not strip the copyright information from the metadata.

As of this moment, the only two three distributors that I am aware of that offer both of the above are GLStockImages, Fotolia (by opting out of sensitive use) and istockphoto (Google post-license actions aside). I welcome accurate input from others so that I may add to my personal list.

I could add 3) transparent reporting to that as well, but have no history or means of investigating this outside of istockphoto, which I believe should be more transparent.

Eta: GLStockImages

Quote from: elvinstar on February 06, 2013, 05:26

Quote from: jbryson on February 06, 2013, 04:30
I can't help but wonder why a Wordpress blogger would license a 12MP image.....very suspicious as I would imagine not many bloggers go the subscription route.

I would think that perhaps it's more small business owners who have had someone create the site for them.

You can usually tell that from the content. If the content is regular blogging, then likely not. And, if that is the case, I would make the assumption that the large size image was not properly licensed. A blogger is simply not going to pay for a full sized image when it's not needed. I think looking at the clues in each instance will help you deduce how the image was obtained.

Quote from: elvinstar on February 06, 2013, 04:08
I just realized that Wordpress is probably one of the worst offenders. I can't count the number of times that I'm looking at website built on Wordpress and saw an image loading really slowly so I open it in a new tab to see the pixel dimensions. One that I looked at yesterday was 12MP!!

When your average blogger or small business owner uploads an image to their Wordpress site, they don't resize it first and Wordpress doesn't resize it for them. Bingo! Giant, unwatermarked, (hopefully!) paid images available in a Google Image search.

We need to educate the whole world! 

I can't help but wonder why a Wordpress blogger would license a 12MP image.....very suspicious as I would imagine not many bloggers go the subscription route.

Quote from: Microbius on February 05, 2013, 17:16

Quote from: jbryson on February 05, 2013, 17:10
Is it feasible to form some kind of alliance, in which "dues" are used to make public service announcements educating the public that using images found in the Google searches may be illegal? Maybe we can't stop Google, but we can expose what they're doing for what it is.

There have been a couple of decent blog articles by repentant bloggers coming clean about using Google images and being caught. Warning others to make sure they license images correctly. I think stuff like that really helps.

Perhaps incorporating things like that into a more aggressive educational campaign would gain some traction. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. But, you have to pick up the fork.

Is it feasible to form some kind of alliance, in which "dues" are used to make public service announcements educating the public that using images found in the Google searches may be illegal? Maybe we can't stop Google, but we can expose what they're doing for what it is.

Soon, we'll all be so busy policing our IP that we won't have any time or resources left to create new IP. Eventually, it will cease to be a problem, as creativity will simply die out like the dinosaurs. 

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2013, 16:45
The problem is that Google is not hosting the content.  The person hosting the content is probably legally using it.  It would only harm them to attempt to tell Google to block it.  It is the nature of the software itself, not individual stolen images, which is the problem.

So is it feasible to send a request to Google to cease and desist using the software to access our copyrighted images? If so, would it be beneficial to have a standard request letter drawn up by a willing attorney and those who want to use it can each pay the attorney a small fee (to license the letter, I guess).

Google is intentionally "educating" the general public that images are free for the grabbing by facilitating the process.  I believe this to be negligence on a grand scale and, due to Google's stature, they are likely legally liable for negligence of this nature. What is needed is a large group to go after them for damages actual and punitive.

Quote from: Grandpa on February 05, 2013, 14:56
Where is a problem? Google can not hack your PC, have not access to your HDD. If somebody placed on his web page full size unwatermarked image, purchased or stolen, yes, new layout helps better and faster find it and "Save as", but nothing more! If some agency sell photos without your permission, you can more easy find it. I can not understand, how this search engine upgrade decrease DT sales?

It is decreasing traffic to the hosts of the images (ie: DT) by not linking the image back to the original source. Decreased traffic = decreased sales.

I'm fairly certain that Google would never consider implementing the same kind of search functionality with music and video, stripping the artist information and the record label or studio information, and protecting themselves with "Music or video may be protected by copyright". Why is this? Because the labels and studios would fight back viciously.

IMO, due to dropping traffic*, it is a prudent business move for microstock distributors/agencies to unite and take an aggressive stand against this.

That being said, I do wonder if Getty was duped into silence about this new Image Search functionality when it made its own "deal with the devil" just prior to the announcement. Coincidence or strategic manipulation by Google?

*eta

500

While I do not agree entirely with the current negotiating strategy of the group, I do believe strongly in the power of a collective and, therefore, have deactivated 500 files as promised.

Quote from: flotsom on February 01, 2013, 18:17

QuoteWe are also working hard to make your content available to new customers in new uses...

I think this part of their statement says it all - time to leave.

Yes, that is a scary statement. But, a stated policy about parameters for such "new uses" may resolve our concerns. Perhaps we should give them 2 weeks to produce such a policy.

I believe they are listening. I believe that the collective group of contributors willing to take action to protect their rights is effective. I believe we are getting somewhere.

They have indicated that they are in discussion, acknowledging that our concerns are of interest to them. That is the first step. But, a train can't stop on a dime and this is a negotiation process that will reasonably take some time.

I would like to suggest that we remain banded together, on high alert, ready to move, and visible as a concerned group to the outside world.  But, that we acknowledge their initial response with a stated postponement of D-Day for 2 weeks pending more information. If we have no satisfying details regarding a revised agreement with Getty as well as their policy on such deals in the future, then we move to deactivate. That is not evidence of a weak position, but rather of a serious party in the heat of negotiation.

Quote from: jsnover on February 01, 2013, 00:35

Quote from: jbryson on February 01, 2013, 00:24

Quote from: ShadySue on February 01, 2013, 00:19

Quote from: mattdixon on January 31, 2013, 23:58
I'm guessing the news they will announce won't be what contributors want to hear, that's why they will release it next week.

Lobo has started a new thread, 'holding' on Google but with a bit of info about deactivation over the next few weeks of all images in the MS 'promotion'.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1

I am reservedly hopeful, and believe that the collective actions of many outspoken contributors are to thank for this "productive dialogue with Google".

I'm just about the opposite. The Google deal is just one (albeit awful one) case. They think they can make other such deals - premium access with a license different from the ones on the iStock sites. Even if there's some amendment to the Google deal, what about the next one? Without an opt out, it would just be a matter of waiting for the next shoe to drop

I agree that Opt-Out is critical. I also think contributors need to remain on high alert and stay "collective". But, I am hopeful that there is an indication they are listening and taking at least some actions.

eta: and that our collective actions are potentially influential.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 01, 2013, 00:19

Quote from: mattdixon on January 31, 2013, 23:58
I'm guessing the news they will announce won't be what contributors want to hear, that's why they will release it next week.

Lobo has started a new thread, 'holding' on Google but with a bit of info about deactivation over the next few weeks of all images in the MS 'promotion'.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1

I am reservedly hopeful, and believe that the collective actions of many outspoken contributors are to thank for this "productive dialogue with Google".

Quote from: ShadySue on January 29, 2013, 13:58
... The random photo I clicked on was in hundreds of instances across the web,
http://tinyurl.com/ayzlobm...

And how nice that they are sorted by size for you, with the largest right there up front. Go Google!!

At the very least, Google should also be including the copyright metadata in the image info as well. By not doing so, they are, IMO, accessories to the crime of image theft.

Along with this, they could also be responsible and post a simple one sentence statement at the top of each image search explaining copyright and the potential penalties for violation. But, alas, I'm pretty sure that encouraging a behemoth such as Google to be responsible would require economic arm twisting and/or legal force.

Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2013, 17:44
I think this is similar to the WIX integration, but via a tweet I happened upon, the project sharing/management platform Kona has announced it now has Google Drive integration

I realize that Getty/iStock are arguing that this isn't really a new platform as it's just accessing work on Google Drive, but as things move around in these platforms - to other users or displayed on the web - what originated in a Google Drive doc is going to end up many other places.

Yes it is. And that is the clincher for me.

Quote from: cybernesco on January 22, 2013, 20:55
Interesting, I just found an old 2006 thread about similar practices from Getty.....someone complaining of receiving a letter from Getty demanding $1000.

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me

The letters were still being mailed well into 2012:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter

eta: Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter (Short Version)

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 14:09

Quote from: jbryson on January 21, 2013, 13:53
Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.

Sorry but that has to be one of those 'internet myths' that go on forever. If there were any truth to it then you'd find plenty of 'evidence' as there are folk out there apparently devoting their lives to the 'Getty Extortion Letter' issue;

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

The hypothesis that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' but traceable images for the sole purpose of seeking damages from infringements, as their primary source of revenue, is utterly bizarre.

I wish it were a myth because it's frankly embarrassing. However, the only reason I ever googled it was because I heard about it from a designer who was adversely affected by it.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 13:46

Quote from: cmannphoto on January 21, 2013, 13:26

Quote from: fotorob on January 21, 2013, 13:11
I seriously think the new owners of Getty Images try to get some quick cash without worrying about the harm done after the sold the company again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/carlyle-buys-getty-images-from-hellman-friedman.html

Since this deal was done last summer under H&F, I think they where the ones looking for the quick cash before they dumped it on Carlyle.

How do you know that? Can you link to your source?

Being as Getty management and family now own almost 50% of Getty (Carlyle own just over 50%) it is hardly in their interest to destroy their own business __ or indeed to have invested so heavily into it if they knew that it was in the process of being destroyed by H&F.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/uk-getty-carlyle-idUKBRE87E0FG20120815

Sorry but the Carlyle/H&F angle here is just a red herring. These are Getty actions for reasons that are as yet unclear. One assumes that the Getty family would only have invested so heavily in the business (in Aug 2012) if they had a 'Big Idea' up their sleeve which they expected to provide growth.

Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.