Jump to content
ChrisR

Getty allowing unlimited free editorial use?!

Recommended Posts

Nope, that about sums it up.  Oh, apart from who the ultimate winner in all this will be:

 

“What we’ve decided to do is to provide through the embed player the capability to use this imagery..."

 

Getty Images will also look to draw additional revenues from its player through advertising. “We reserve the right to monetise that footprint,” Peters explains. “YouTube implemented a very similar capability, which allows people to embed videos on a website, with the company generating revenue by serving advertising on that video.” And while Getty Images has yet to determine how these ads will appear, Peters is confident that this capability will be introduced in the near future.

Edited by losdemas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The race to the bottom is over...unless people will start paying to have their images used "with appropriate attribution" of course. 

 

It's time for photographers to get their act and business sense together and start boycotting Getty - plain and simple.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing smells desperate as a company giving their work away *trying* to get customers.However what they are doing is going to make it difficult for every other content holder to collect on infringments.I believe that most bloggers are blogging for promotion for their careers or businesses or to build the blog into a business and making ad revenue.

 

I am glad that I never joined with Getty. I've made my share of mistakes in my 30+ stock career of who I've trusted with my images,but I've learned that my intuition is right on the money and I need to listen to it.

 

I've talked a few publications into better options for licensing their images . If many of their customers knew the treatment of photographers I really believe they would take their business elsewhere.

Because seriously,everything that Getty has,other agencies or photographers have. Researchers need to really stop being so lazy by taking the first photo that pops up in a feed.

 

L

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem now is if Corbis, Alamy, etc will follow Getty soon or later. Very bad news indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I would place bets that ALL other large agencies will follow suit. 

 

Small blog / web / online spot licenses have been the bread and butter (for me anyway) here at alamy. 

 

Will people really now still pay for a blog license here on Alamy, when they can just head to Getty and get it for free? 

 

What are the implications for online sites like BBC news / editorial? Embed's all the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC is a business so I don't think photos to sites like that will be free.

 

L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is allowed. ANY form of editorial is allowed, even blogs that rely on adsense to monetise. 

 

When I license for a spot editorial, it's just that, editorial. It'll be no different. 

 

 

"Blogs that draw revenues from Google Ads will still be able to use the Getty Images embed player at no cost. “We would not consider this commercial use,” says Peters. “The fact today that a website is generating revenue would not limit the use of the embed. What would limit that use is if they used our imagery to promote a service, a product or their business. They would need to get a license.” A spokeswoman for Getty Images confirms to BJP that editorial websites, from The New York Times to Buzzfeed, will also be able to use the embed feature as long as images are used in an editorial context."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't lose sight of the "agency" relationship.  Why would you hire or pay YOUR AGENT to give your work away?  This is what I'm talking about with relation to

 

 

It's time for photographers to get their act and business sense together and start boycotting Getty - plain and simple.

 

We are artists...why employ the services of an agent that would give our work away for free?  Do you know of any other artists that do this?  Actors?  Painters?  Singers/vocalists?  Why is this an issue specific to this industry?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to buy a roomful of cameras?

 

My son is a musician, Ed, and I am a writer. The situation is no better in those fields. 

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is allowed. ANY form of editorial is allowed, even blogs that rely on adsense to monetise. 

 

When I license for a spot editorial, it's just that, editorial. It'll be no different. 

 

 

"Blogs that draw revenues from Google Ads will still be able to use the Getty Images embed player at no cost. “We would not consider this commercial use,” says Peters. “The fact today that a website is generating revenue would not limit the use of the embed. What would limit that use is if they used our imagery to promote a service, a product or their business. They would need to get a license.” A spokeswoman for Getty Images confirms to BJP that editorial websites, from The New York Times to Buzzfeed, will also be able to use the embed feature as long as images are used in an editorial context."

Well this just sucks for all. I think photographers need to take a long hard look at the long term value of their work and realize G & C might not be the best fit for them anymore. I know a few high ranking photogs that have recently ceased or cut back drastically the supply to venture off with other agencies and marketing on their own. If everyone screams to the Univeral Photo Gods/Godesses at once,believe me,the universe will hear and someone smart enough will come up with a solution that betters photographers assets and is a win for them.   L

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't lose sight of the "agency" relationship.  Why would you hire or pay YOUR AGENT to give your work away?  This is what I'm talking about with relation to

 

 

It's time for photographers to get their act and business sense together and start boycotting Getty - plain and simple.

 

We are artists...why employ the services of an agent that would give our work away for free?  Do you know of any other artists that do this?  Actors?  Painters?  Singers/vocalists?  Why is this an issue specific to this industry?

Agreed. I owned an agency for a few decades and I'd have to fight for every dime we got from certain publications that tried to use/abuse the terms on our delivery memo. Those publications eventually went belly up and it served them right. Agencies that give away photogs images for free for uses like this should not have contributors. You'd be better building a website with a shopping cart/Paypal button.  L

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone like to buy a roomful of cameras?

 

My son is a musician, Ed, and I am a writer. The situation is no better in those fields. 

 

I've heard of the same issues with Pandora and musicians.  I have published written work before and I know many writers (my undergrad degree has a specialization in creative writing) - and the issue of microstock is similar to what I'm seeing go through Amazon.  I just don't understand how people can do business like this.

 

Just today I wrote a check for $800 in business liability insurance....how can you survive with overhead like that if people give away your work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they're thinking it would increase site traffic and lead to more sales somehow.......  

 

Oh No.... If this happens on here we can all start saying bye bye small sales.   

 

P.S. if i knew how to upload a meme on here i would off 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't pay my models up front but split commissions with them.

If I was with an agency that was giving my images away,believe me,they know how to use google images to search.They could think I am cheating them out of sales and I'd have a terrible reputation because of what my agency has done.

 

When in reality,I've paid some of my models before my payments have even cleared because I know a few were having financial difficulties.

 

I think all photogs should be able to opt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm....bet the "proverbial" is hitting the fan over at Getty/Flickr. Must check out the forum...ohhh...of course, I cannot because I was banned because of a similar stunt by Getty with Google. I am so glad I quit 18 months ago along with many others.

 

Sheila 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bleedin' heck, Alamy looks even more attractive as an acquisition for G now . . .

 

dd

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Getty bought Alamy I'd quit.

 

L

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the motto of the Scouts?

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G = Greed IMO. Avoid at all costs. 

 

Unfortunately, though, "the medium is the message." And the message of the Web is that all information (including images) shall eventually be free. Too bad everything else, like food, shelter, camera equipment, etc. isn't free as well.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently wrote to my Illinois Senator in regards to protecting creators copyrights and my bitch about 'fair use' and thieves that hide behind proxy services,etc.

 

Here is part of his response,"Any proposal to protect creator’s rights must include appropriate limitations on, and safeguards for, the fair use of copyrighted material. Consumers should have the ability to make fair use of content for which they have paid. Copyright holders should be able to enforce their rights to protect their works. Protecting the copyright holder’s interest is what encourages creativity. If we can balance consumer and creator’s rights appropriately, we will provide a constructive framework with appropriate incentives to create more works in the future."

 

I feel that Getty's move on this is a slap in the face and a throw the camera to the ground to all photographers that have ever created.

If I were a shareholder,I would be appalled. As a photographer I am appalled and this has made me rethink on things I cover.

For one..I will never stand next to a Getty photog at an event.Locally they are my 'work friends' but if I were ever in a copyright dispute,it might come down to where the value of my image could be,'free.'

 

I won't give anyone that satisfaction...

 

L

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than "a fight against infringement," this is more of an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" move IMO.

 

PhotoShelter has a similar "embed slideshow" feature that you can at least choose to enable or disable. They tout it as a "marketing tool," which I've always found a bit ironic.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The G forum is very supportive of the move. Very little interest mind you, but what there is is all positive.

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that any photog that says anything to the contrary on one of their forums will be booted from the forum and no longer represented so I doubt their forum would be the place to look for discontent.

 

L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that any photog that says anything to the contrary on one of their forums will be booted from the forum and no longer represented so I doubt their forum would be the place to look for discontent.

 

L

 

That's true of course, but there is some criticism still apparent (and apparently tolerated) in other threads. Similar to here I guess: some slightly critical topics are tolerated, but others are deleted post haste.

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.