I always stayed away from Dissolve but if they are against Videoblocks I might have to give them another look.

Nice photos.  They belong on Getty, Stocksy, or Offset not Shutterstock.

The analogy with Dickens is erroneous because hes been dead a certain number of years his work is out of copyright. Try selling the work of a living author and see how far you get.

Her work is out of copyright as well.  She chose to give up her copyright and put the images into the public domain.

Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...

I think Getty used the argument that this is a well accepted practice and the example was Dickens novels reprinted for sale now.  I think the same principle would apply to drugs whose patent has expired.  Are those wrong as well?  By putting your images or any ip into the public domain you should know that it is a real possibility that someone will monetize them or use them in a way that you completely disagree with, if you don't agree to that you shouldn't give up your rights.

Congrats, it is fun to see your videos in action.  I was surprised watching the last Super Bowl to see my video in an ad.  I don't see why you can't mention it, you probably can't post their work without permission though.  You could shoot them an email and see what they say.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.   

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?

"I assume he didn't compare DT because they aren't very relevant to anything."

I'm not sure why after a year of silence he decided to compare anything to anything.  Even on Twitter, there wasn't any action for more than a year, until a tweet about the post.  I mean, he's not known as a reviewer of stock photo sites.

I'd guess your best chance to get an answer would be to send him a message directly or post on his blog.  He's the only one that can give you the answer.