Check out the photo for purchase in this article...

http://www.rgj.com/viewart/20140306/NEWS/303060030/Truckee-plane-crash-survivor-prosecutor

What the folks who believe people will click on the embedded photos and then purchase them are missing is that those people are the wrong target market. They're not designers or art directors. They're there to read the blog or article, not to buy photos. If they're fellow bloggers and like the image, they can also get it for free.

I'm scared. 

Has someone already posted about Getty's partnership with EyeEm and I missed it? 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2014/03/06/photo-app-eyeem-partners-with-getty-to-sell-user-images/

Anyone could easily go in to that code and increase the constraints on the size of the image or change the frame. Or right click on the image and save it.

All of those actions are against Getty's T&Cs, of course. Based on their history of sending big payment requests when they find T&C violations�and because these images will be closely tracked�perhaps Getty sees this as a shiny new income stream when people change code or right click?

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2014, 12:43

now there are 35 Million free pictures and subscriptions at iStock, they really know what they are doing

Just think about the recent Selfies at the hollywood oscars... that picture was shared millions of times and the author earned nothing .. with Getty they could have made tens of thousands $$.

It was paid product placement and promotion for/by Samsung.

I think (hope) there'll be a backlash, and Getty will have to backpedal.

Poor Liza.



Is there a notated list of who all those people are?

Look in front of the group of actors in the bottom shot. There's a phalanx of cameras facing them, positioned in the aisle below the stage. They're casting shadows in the stage lights. They also had a camera positioned above and behind the group, which is where that rear shot came from. No doubt some or all are video cameras.

This was set up beforehand, with Ellen instructed to lead people towards the bank of cameras and hitting a mark on the floor so they'd be in the right spot.

I don't know about multiple cameras - when I was watching, there wasn't anyone else in that area onscreen, and I don't see any other cameras in the rear view.  People never know where to look with camera phones.  Do you look at yourself on the screen, look at the button, where's the camera hole?

There had to be at least one more camera to take a picture of them taking the selfie. Yes?

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 04, 2014, 11:07

I'm guessing Samsung had an agreement that would give them copyright to the photo.

Good point! This is Hollywood. Everything is fake. Might not have been as spontaneous as it appeared. Could have been a complete setup suggested by Samsung.

Yes, it was. This was a paid Samsung promotion, followed up the next day by a plug and giveaway on the Ellen show. I'd be willing to bet a photographer or DP snapped the actual photo that was tweeted...doubtful that they would have gotten everyone in and the photo relatively straight if it was a real "selfie."

"iStock
Hi everyone, we�re currently experiencing a website issue and appreciate your patience during this time."

-posted on Facebook

Site's down. Or is it just me?

Quote from: cthoman on March 01, 2014, 17:52

I guess the real question is should comps be considered a use? You technically are using them to sell something to a client and make money. Is it really any different than making a Powerpoint presentation. At the end of the day, I'm sure nothing will change because they are used to getting comps for free, but it seems like they probably should be charged.

It's not even "technical" - these people are making money off of our photos even if they end up not being in the final product.  They're used for ideas, as sales tools, maybe even as models to be copied. They allow a project to be approved and work to begin.   And the agencies make money too, ina sense, because they tell customers that this wonderful free comp service comes as part of a subscription.

We only get paid for a "sale",  and the agency defines what constitues a "sale", and for any other uses, we get nothing.

It's just another way agencies have learned to profit from our work without paying royalties.

In the olden days, before stock, agencies would have an illustrator (called a comp artist) draw up the ideas, and then the art director would look over photographer/illustrator portfolios and present the portfolios to the client for approval. (This still happens today, to a lesser extent.) Every so often there'd be a portfolio review at the agency, and all the art directors would head to the conference room to look over the portfolios, which were large books or boxes with mounted photos in them. Back then you had to have a rep to get your work seen, and it was tough to get a rep.

This free comp thing is simply the digital version of that. Only now, many thousands of photographers and illustrators who would never have stood a chance back then can have their work seen and presented to major clients. Reps and comp artists have suffered as a result, but many photographers and illustrators have benefitted from it.