|
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
2576
« 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.
2577
« 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
2578
« 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.
2580
« 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...
2581
« 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.
2582
« 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.)
2583
« 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.
2584
« on: March 08, 2014, 08:58 »
2585
« 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/
2586
« 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.
2587
« on: March 07, 2014, 16:43 »
2589
« 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.
2590
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:53 »
Jon?
Oringer.
He works at Getty now?
2591
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:50 »
Jon?
2592
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:47 »
If I was a Vetta contributor I'd be steaming mad right now.
If Jon says it's no big deal then I'm cool with it.
Jon?
2593
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:46 »
Ok but those are different things. A vector being given away implies that the entire full sized image is being given away with layers etc.. That's not what this is.
Is a JPG of a vector any less valuable than a JPG photo?
A JPG of a vector is less valuable than a vector of a vector and a JPG of a photo can be less valuable than a RAW of a photo. Sorry I'm not sure I get your point. Someone said vectors were being given away, they aren't that is all I was saying.
If your argument made any sense at all, Getty would never watermark vectors.
2594
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:44 »
If I was a Vetta contributor I'd be steaming mad right now.
2595
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:38 »
I'm simply making the point that photographers' images are not the only ones being given away...illustrators' are, too.
Ok but those are different things. A vector being given away implies that the entire full sized image is being given away with layers etc.. That's not what this is.
I sell jpgs of my vectors on Shutterstock. I'd be awfully POed to see them being given away by Getty.
2596
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:32 »
I'm simply making the point that photographers' images are not the only ones being given away...illustrators' are, too.
2597
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:28 »
2598
« on: March 07, 2014, 13:07 »
2600
« on: March 07, 2014, 08:56 »
I have said we need a new Rights Managed licensing model. RF has given open rights with no possible recurring revenue and also has made it impossible to track proper licensing versus infringement thieves.
This could be the new-age RM for commercial usage. Getty could charge a usage fee so that commercial websites are renting an image for a specified period of time and specific use. This is essentially a subscription usage model like Adobe CC. You can use it as long as you're paying for it.
This brings recurring revenue back in the equation instead of now where with RF once they buy it once and use it however they want. Even with the "restrictions" in RF licensing, what buyer pays attention to it and who polices usage? Nobody. Now they pay as long as they use it.
It also should easily provide the ability to manage rights. Should be pretty easy to find infringements because imbeds would have very specific usage just like RM.
And usage premiums would be back. If a website buys a 400x600 imbed for one page they can't enlarge it to 1200x1600 and use it across 50 websites. If they want to use it across 50 websites then they pay extra for that usage.
Getty already does this. That's what rights-managed is. Or am I missing something?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
):
