|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Shelma1
Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 ... 116
2551
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:34 »
This isn't about the embed program. I think we're asking: Have any long-time Getty contributors ever been paid a royalty where expenses were deducted for pursuing payment? In the section of the agreement tickstock pointed to, it only mentions deducting "Any costs associated with a claim due to a breach of the Agreement on your part." Not on the part of the person who used your image without permission.
2552
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:13 »
I found this article about payment demand letters from Getty really interesting, especially this part:
"If Getty tells you something like 'we don't care if you take it down or not, you still have to pay our demands,' they are misleading their victims into thinking that paying the demand means you have purchased the rights to use the image. It does not -- the demand for settlement is purely punitive, asking for for restitution for violating a copyright law, and nothing more."
If the payment they demand is purely punitive, and does not mean the person is now paying to license the image, my guess is they would not pay the image contributor because no license was sold. N'est ce pas?
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/copyrightlaws/a/Can-I-Ignore-A-Getty-Settlement-Demand-Letter.htm
I don't think that's correct. My understanding is contributors get paid after expenses for going after infringers is deducted. The best thing to do would be to use primary sources, check your Getty Contributor agreement.
Can you point us to that understanding in writing somewhere?
2553
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:06 »
I've had several sales, one an EL, even though my site doesn't offer that option. The buyer got in touch with me through my Facebook page looking for an EL (a very honest buyer!).
2554
« on: March 10, 2014, 09:56 »
I found this article about payment demand letters from Getty really interesting, especially this part: "If Getty tells you something like 'we don't care if you take it down or not, you still have to pay our demands,' they are misleading their victims into thinking that paying the demand means you have purchased the rights to use the image. It does not -- the demand for settlement is purely punitive, asking for for restitution for violating a copyright law, and nothing more." If the payment they demand is purely punitive, and does not mean the person is now paying to license the image, my guess is they would not pay the image contributor because no license was sold. N'est ce pas? http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/copyrightlaws/a/Can-I-Ignore-A-Getty-Settlement-Demand-Letter.htm
2555
« on: March 10, 2014, 08:44 »
Where are the advantages for the contributors?
2556
« on: March 10, 2014, 07:36 »
It bothers me because they purposely sent out a press release (which was picked up/modified by the press) shouting that they'd made 35 million images FREE, and it was only if you read all the details in the articles and the TOS that you realized that wasn't really true. In the comments sections bloggers are talking about yay it's free and all I have to do is right click to get rid of the frame. So they've just released everyone's work into the stratosphere and lulled people into believing it's ok.
Something bad up their sleeves.
2557
« on: March 10, 2014, 06:43 »
Just a thought...Getty offers embedding and gives bloggers "sticker shock" when they see how much images cost, sends out a few demands for payment to scare people, then a few weeks later announces the new subs model at iStock, which will probably be priced lower than the competition since they're paying us lower royalties.
Conspiracy theory, yes, but it's an awfully odd coincidence they're offering subs a few weeks after embedding. One-two punch at the competition as well.
2558
« on: March 10, 2014, 06:20 »
If Getty build 3 tier content supply with:
Getty -the most expensive
Istock - middle priced
Thinkstock - cheap sub model
Why they are making Getty's most expensive content free
And don't include Istock and Thinkstock content in this deal?
Just a thought.
What do you think?
It's easier for non-exclusives at iStock to jump ship, which would ruin everything because those "free" embeds would now be big holes in someone's blog. Also, if they're using embedding to pinpoint unauthorized usage, they can send much larger demands for payment with Getty than with iStock.
2559
« on: March 09, 2014, 18:30 »
I doubt the Times would use this. They want, need, to be in charge of their own advertising...that's how they stay in business. They can't have a competitor's ad popping up randomly on the same page as a paid ad because it appears in a Getty embed. This is really only meant for smaller pubs and bloggers.
I really don't see how it would work. With YouTube, at least you can see in real time how many views your video has. How would you know with Getty? How could any individual contributor possibly know how many times their image was viewed, how much ad revenue was generated, and whether they were paid the correct amount?
2560
« on: March 09, 2014, 15:57 »
Just a guess, but Getty would somehow bundle a bunch of blogs or news sources with similar content and audiences and sell the ad space. I'm guessing ad agencies would place ads based on demographics and interests. Probably has nothing to do with the specific image in question.
2561
« on: March 09, 2014, 13:48 »
If Getty had run this in a test market somewhere and it had proven successful, then were rolling it out internationally, it would have been welcomed by excited contributors looking forward to making more money. The fact that there's no test, they've sprung it on contributors with no opt out, and they're not sure it'll even work shows they're doing this for reasons other than the way they're attempting to spin it. It's either out of desperation, a way to falsely inflate the value of the company to get a better sell price, or to knock out smaller competitors and perhaps swallow them up to monopolize the market. It's just very fishy they've done no pretesting of such a big decision.
2562
« on: March 09, 2014, 12:55 »
Very few people make money with advertising on YouTube. Besides, YouTube is a whole different animal. It started out as a way for regular people to post and share silly videos of their families or pets. Getting revenue from it was an unexpected bonus. On the other hand, Getty started from the beginning as a rep for photographers to make money. The two have pretty much gone in opposite directions, IMO. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-22/its-getting-harder-to-make-money-on-youtube
2563
« on: March 09, 2014, 09:09 »
"The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency."
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml
That's from 2011.
So I realized, which is why I replaced it. But it is interesting to see how long photographer's organizations have been encouraging people to bail out of Getty.
2565
« on: March 09, 2014, 01:21 »
So I was reading about the Getty deal in the NY Times, and noticed this banner ad for Dreamstime...
2566
« on: March 08, 2014, 16:23 »
you are close to the mark or right on the mark.
i just wrapped up a shoot for a magazine that paid $1000 USD for a day, and the assignment before that a week before was for $1350 for two days, so yes assignments are the way to go. out of all the images i shot, several are 'stock' photos, and many are 'editorial' images that sell periodically just cause the access was there.
either way, this whole GI thing stinks big time. they have no right to give my/our work away.
it's wrong.
Do YOU work for free ?
You do if you upload to Getty.
2567
« on: March 08, 2014, 11:53 »
By the way - I read your latest at your site. Great recap. You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry. On behalf of all of us....
Cheers. Here's another 
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/
I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer. In your article you seem to say they won't but it's hard to tell if you are just talking about the data collecting part, which by the way I don't think Shutterstock is sharing with contributors either.
Maybe...but that's a loooong way off. First Getty has to get many, many images embedded, then prove to advertisers they'll get a decent ROI. And so far this announcement is not even a blip on the radar of the advertising trade press. Not one word about it. Nobody cares. (In fact, I'm in the camp that feels this will devalue the images used, because advertisers don't like to use the same images everyone else does.)
2568
« on: March 08, 2014, 11:05 »
On the other hand, exclusives are reporting that their earnings are dropping year after year. At some point the tipping point will be reached where income from exclusivity will equal income from non-exclusivity, and Getty giving images away free is bringing that point rapidly closer.
2569
« on: March 08, 2014, 08:58 »
2570
« on: March 08, 2014, 07:51 »
I don't want to make any more pictures 
I thought this was a pretty good summation of the embedding: "This move requires uptake, but the right kind of uptake. Ideally, it would generate new value among the web scofflaws while not harming Gettys business with pro publishers. Im not sure these embeds hit that balance. The workflows are too ungainly for the people who currently have contracts with Getty, true, but theyre also not quite easy enough to be a good substitute for people who dont mind stealing. My wager is that, as transformational as this announcement might seem to be, Gettys embeds wont be pockmarking the web." http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/03/getty-images-blows-the-webs-mind-by-setting-35-million-photos-free-with-conditions-of-course/
2571
« on: March 08, 2014, 07:49 »
No, no secret. We're still plugging along, with people starting to make more sales, and we're about to reach 250,000 images in the network. I'm interested in my site succeeding now more than ever.
2572
« on: March 07, 2014, 16:43 »
2574
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:55 »
Anyone halfway adept at illustrator can do this. The issue up until now is that it was considered theft and everyone knew it. Getty just made it seem OK to redraw this artists image and use it in vector format. Of course it is still theft but now most people won't realize it. This free message they are sending is very concerning.
I don't disagree with that, hopefully they spend some time educating people. I don't think they want people taking the images from their embed player either, that defeats the purpose.
Not if the purpose is to track that and then send letters demanding payment.
2575
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:53 »
Jon?
Oringer.
He works at Getty now?
Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
):
