Quote from: Shelma1 on March 13, 2014, 09:29

Please define what you mean by "comp images." I think we're talking about two different things.

And I was really surprised by this sentence:

"It's noteworthy that embed codes are available for all the sizes and resolutions offered."

In this article:

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2333358/Free-Getty-Images-What-is-Getty-Giving-Getting-in-Return

I'm talking about when you go to a Getty image and click on download a comp.  The images aren't available at all sizes, I'm pretty sure that article is wrong.

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 13, 2014, 09:09

Quote from: tickstock on March 13, 2014, 07:56

Quote from: Ron on March 13, 2014, 02:03

Free is free, Getty calls it free. Restricted use for free, is still free. No matter how you twist it.

You don't really believe that do you?  Getty has had all it's images available for a long time for free, as in free comp images.  If you think free is free no matter what then this new program hasn't changed anything has it?

You and I know those are two completely different things. Comp images are for internal use only, to present to clients. They're not shared with anyone else and don't appear on the internet. Only large, established companies have access to them, and then only a small portion of their employees are granted access. If the concept isn't bought the images are discarded. If the client does go with the images they pay high RM rates. So with free comps you're letting potentially high-paying clients see how your image would look in a campaign. With embedding it's the opposite. Anyone can do it, the images can be shared, and people looking for free images are not looking for expensive RM licenses.

That's my point, they are different things but both are 'free'.  Comp images are available for everyone though and could easily wind up all over the internet, people can will do whatever they want with them whether it's against the rules or not.  I don't think those free images (comp images) are a bad thing, people can go to the internet already and get tons of free images from Getty, Shutterstock, or iStock.  Again those 'free' images are different than the embed free images or a free image with an RF license.

Quote from: mlwinphoto on March 12, 2014, 17:47

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2014, 15:49

I asked the question because I don't think Getty is known as the company who used predatory pricing to gain market share...snip

Read what you just wrote....if they weren't known before as a company who used predatory pricing to gain market share they sure are now....free is pretty cheap, don't ya think?  And, it is being done to gain market share.

It's not really free

Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 13:53

I know nothing about your experience tickstock. All I know is that you are an istock exclusive, since before 2008.

Or did I misread that?

And that you recently got access to getty and want to upload to PC, right?

A successful exclusive who is able to make a full time income from istock and getty.

eta: I think I am confused?

Close enough.

Quote from: brisoca on March 11, 2014, 05:31

I just realised today that when you open the Photos.com website you can see this: http://www.photos.com/comingsoon:
Looking for royalty-free subscriptions or image packs? Please visit Thinkstock.
Looking for access to other digital images? Please visit Getty Images."

And where is the invitation to visit iStock???

Here is a great analysis of the situation by Michael.

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/why-getty-decided-to-offer-images-for-free/

Short version:

Getty has debts of about two Billion dollars due in November 2015. More than double their revenue. Under traditional valuation as a media company, they can command a P/E of about 15-18 times profit. Rebrand as a technology company, they can get double the money, with a P/E around 30.

I guess that would be worth throwing out 35 million files to the internet. Especially if they don�t use their own content but that from crowd sourced contributors.

What do you think? Is the rebranding before Getty is sold the main motivation for this bizarre decision?

Quote from: stocked on March 10, 2014, 02:26

Quote from: gbalex on March 10, 2014, 01:54

Quote from: cobalt on March 10, 2014, 00:50

If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question  - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?

This is where I completely agree with you, if Bruce can accomplish this in one years time, Shutterstock could certainly do the same. The fact is that they choose to pay their contributors 28% while keeping pricing stagnantly low to gain markets share.

I think the low ball pricing  has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.

You hit the nail!
And in his recent interview Jon Oringer confirmed that all use is commercial you can ask yourself why companies that make a lot of money with our work can only spend a few Dollars for it. The truth is they could easily spend a lot more but it's all sacrificed for the greed of market-share.
The link to the interview is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/

I am genuinely surprised that most people are completing missing or discounting this important contributing factor. When you mentioned it in threads they dismiss it with comments to get back on topic.  The downward business pressures shutterstock is exerting via this long term move to grab market, share seems to have gone by virtually unnoticed.

Quote from:  link=topic=22111.msg369757#msg369757 date=1394433888

But again: what does this all have to do with Getty deciding to give out files for free? Including RM content? And will their decisions encourage more exclusives to leave? Or will it attract new people who want to work only with them?