Yes, my friends were all "awwwww" about it on Facebook until I pointed out they were all actors...I recognized one soap opera actress right away.

"Getty will get its pound of flesh one way or another," photography journalist Daniela Bowker told the BBC News website. "It has not gone into this blithely. It has got a plan."

She added many of her contacts were unhappy about the move.

"My Twitter feed has exploded with very angry photographers going 'I don't want Getty giving away my images for free'," she said.

"For some of them, it might mean their images are never used commercially and they'll never make a penny.

"They feel very strongly about that because photographers don't work for free and they don't work for exposure. They say: 'Exposure won't feed my children'. So a lot of people are very, very angry, and I sympathise with them.

"But at the same time, the genie is out of the bottle. There are so many images that are being shared and liked and tweeted and clicked on."

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26463886

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 14, 2014, 11:16

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 10:25

You don't have to register with Getty.  If an honest blogger was using public domain images then I think it's better for me that they use the embed program, don't you?  Like I said though I don't see bloggers that pay for images switching because of the control over their website that they would lose.  You posted that article by the legal blogger who made the point about not having control over what ads were placed on someone's legal blog, if a competitor has ads placed on there it wouldn't be good and I'm sure that goes for a lot of 'non-commercial' blogs.  You seem to believe a lot of paying bloggers will give up control of their images, what makes you think it's worth saving a few dollars to do so?   Would you do it?  Would anyone here do it?

Yes, the article was written by a legal blogger. Obviously the first thing a lawyer will do is take a look at the fine print and legal implications. It's not the first thing an average blogger will do, unfortunately. But posting here and tweeting will help get that legal opinion out.

I work in an industry that pays for large licenses, where I'm used to dealing with image prices in the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. So Getty has no sticker shock for me. But, like attorneys, I'm an exception to the rule.

Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is?

But we all know what yours is.

Not necessarily.  I think this program isn't meant to replace paying bloggers at all, which seems to be the major contention here.  I think for Getty the success is getting a few people who weren't paying for images to use the program and the free advertising the announcement has given them.  I don't see many or any blogs that aim to make money, even 'non-commercially' switching over.  It would seem like a bad business decision to do it.

How could you possibly think this? I'm just curious. Why would people who were just right-clicking bother with the trouble of registering at Getty and searching there and having to find the images that have the little embed icon and pasting and copying html code, knowing they would then be tracked and advertising would appear later? The only people I foresee using this are honest bloggers who've been either paying to license images or using public domain images. They're the ones who are excited that Getty's library is now open for "free" use.

The part about the free advertising I definitely agree with. It got them a lot of press for two days and is still getting them negative press now, though things are dying down quickly.

Quote from: Red Dove on March 14, 2014, 06:51

It doesn't matter what bloggers do or anyone else for that matter now that Getty has effectively devalued not just stock photography but photography as a profession overnight.

That word "Free" is what sticks in the mind of the dunderheads out there and plays right into the hands of the cheapskates who couldn't give sweet FA about the embed service, other than seeing it as a victory - "If we just keep on stealing stuff, eventually it will all be free so who cares - awesome."

It does matter what bloggers do and it doesn't matter what thieves think about the Getty plan.  Bloggers are were paying money to license our images and thieves have already made up their minds about this, who cares what incorrect justification they use when stealing images.  It's still stealing.

Fixed it for ya.

Attorneys are not thrilled with Getty embedding:

http://www.zenlegalnetworking.com/2014/03/articles/social-media/gettys-new-embedding-feature-dont-get-excited-yet/

Paranoid aren't we?  Or maybe just ignoring the posts about how great Shutterstock is in the Getty thread?  I guess your post was aimed at advancing the discussion on the Getty embed program?

I think when one person in particular tries to switch every iS discussion to SS we're far from being paranoid.

Quote from: farbled on March 13, 2014, 11:25

I guess it would be fair to say that it is confusing if even some journalists get it wrong. I can only imagine it'll get thoroughly misunderstood by everyday users as well.

That part doesn't seem confusing at all (AFAIK that's the only person who claims the images can be full size) and even if someone was confused they can't make the images larger because of it.  A lot of the confusion is coming from people reading the headlines and not looking just a tiny bit deeper.

But that's the problem...most people do only read the headlines and don't look much deeper.

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.

I was talking about full-resolution images that are provided to ad agencies and publishers to use in their comps.

I wasn't aware that Getty was giving away what I would consider XS versions of their images for free all these years. Just tried it and downloaded one. So glad I'm not with Getty.

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.

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

Now that the initial excitement has worn off, writers are starting to consider the implications of embedding:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/getty-images-allows-free-embedding-cost-privacy

Love it!

Most of the art directors I know consider Getty a bully and a quasi-monopoly and wish they had more competition. They don't have a very good reputation among their customer base.