John Mitchell Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Photoshelter does not allow free unlimited editorial license anymore than our personal websites do! That's certainly true, Chris. I was referring to the fact that that when you embed a PhotoShelter slideshow in a blog or website, you have the option of allowing others to embed it elsewhere by copying a code. This is under our control and certainly very different from what Getty is doing. They are apparently not giving their contributors any options all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 It is true that is a very complex issue to set up all this, but we have the content, our content, and we at the end we could negotiate with companies that can do the rest. Yes, we have the content, and I also believe we would have all the technology and technical knowhow that we need. But the key to making money is sales and marketing. Photographers generally are not good salesmen. If we were, we wouldn't be poxing around with stock libraries in the first place. I would be very interested in the idea of a collective and could contribute technology, but it simply wouldn't work, for the reason I've given above. And if we're going to hire a team of sales/marketing people who know anything at all about the photography market... well, we might as well just stick with Alamy. Also collectives work best among people who have a local connection, as it's much easier to encourage and incentivise each other through personal contact. And which of us is going to be the first to pull our images from Alamy, where they are selling to some extent, and take a leap into an unknown and untried venture which will need large amounts of time and financial investment before any rewards start to trickle down? Alan I agree, it is sales and marketing we lack. As you say there are limits on collectives. As well as really needing to know each other and have regular contact there are other challenges. If collectives are too big the dynamics breakdown; they just become seen as another corporate body. It is no accident that army units and the like have tended be no more than around 100 people or so - that is about the size limit where an individual can maintain loyalty to the group (I have seen it with project teams). Bigger and they (informally) split in to groups of 100 or less with inter-group rivalry. it is why I think Stocksys may face problems in due course (other than being RF only) and Magnum should continue to be successful. My Alamy sales collapsed last year so it would not currently hurt me to pull my images but most are not really good enough for where I think I (we?) need to go, so no point. However I would consider an invitation from a properly constituted collective that met the criteria above and had a clear vision of where it was going. But we have to remember the market has changed irrevocably so routine editorial stock (travel, news, landscape, natural history, cute puppies, food etc) will soon be almost entirely crowdsourced and sold for pennies; a collective can't fight that unless it has something special to offer - is that possible in the general editorial market? Mind you I have some ideas what I might do. The question I have to face is - do I have the talent to build the personal brand it needs? I am comfortable that I have, or can learn, the technical skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Only around 10% of my sales since Jan 2010 have been digital only. My sales probably aren't statistically significant so it would be interesting to know what proportion of others' sales might be affected by Getty's plans. I am not sure major newspapers and broadcasters are going to want a big Getty banner under every image, small bloggers may be less bothered, many use them watermarked anyway. I still see it as a thin end of a very nasty wedge. My digital only sales are minimal (I'm not a Getty guy, though). I've long thought that for editorial photographers, the only worthwhile markets left are traditional print ones (e.g. textbooks, retail books, and some magazines) that still respect the notion of copyright and where the laws remain enforceable. If these markets disappear altogether, then it's probably game over IMO. Photographing or writing for the Web on a freelance basis has essentially become philanthropy, which is fine but tough if you want to make a living from these pursuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 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. Photoshelter does not allow free unlimited editorial license anymore than our personal websites do! That's certainly true, Chris. I was referring to the fact that that when you embed a PhotoShelter slideshow in a blog or website, you have the option of allowing others to embed it elsewhere by copying a code. This is under our control and certainly very different from what Getty is doing. They are apparently not giving their contributors any options all. And we get to choose which and how many images are displayed in the slideshow and whether watermarked or not. Mind you I no longer have it on my site, for a time I had an incompatibility and removed it, never got round to putting it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWheal Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I have read this thread with interest It seems to me that Getty feel they cannot police copyright theft of their images (which at least they did, I believe) so instead of continuing enforcement they have legalised copyright theft So a shop gets plagued by shoplifting but cant police it for whatever reason so they say "hey, if you are poor and cant afford our food come and take it for free" Instead why don't the major players of photo libraries pool together and run a massive advertising campaign about copyright theft. After all , everyone knows its illegal to copy DVD's (there is normally a trailer at the beginning of the film) but a lot of people do not realise that its copyright theft to right click save as from a google search. Run a national TV, newspaper and online campaign regarding copyright theft of images and legal implications then after a set time go after every single one, bloggers as well. As an aside is it in getty contributors contract that states that getty can give them away for free? I am sure it may state "at a price decided by getty" but free is not a price Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Instead why don't the major players of photo libraries pool together and run a massive advertising campaign about copyright theft. After all , everyone knows its illegal to copy DVD's (there is normally a trailer at the beginning of the film) but a lot of people do not realise that its copyright theft to right click save as from a google search. Run a national TV, newspaper and online campaign regarding copyright theft of images and legal implications then after a set time go after every single one, bloggers as well. Kevin A couple of great ideas IMO. I'm not sure that the big players could along well enough with each other to cooperate at this level. But let's hope that someone is listening in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPL Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I personally still can't understand which part of Getty this applies to, none of my images in the Photolibrary collection, stock byte or Britain on view are available to embed. Yet load of other shots are. Anyone understand whats happening. I didn't even get an email from Getty so wonder if this is because it does not apply to me. I wonder if part of this is a ploy by Getty to open the floodgates to images infringement and litigation? Allow images to get all over the internet and then when businesses use them swoop ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Here is what the FT has to say about Getty's plans. Sorry I did not realise it is behind a (free) registratiomnn wasll, I was signed in but I thought very occasional access did not need registration.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Elias Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think agencies haven't realized that photographers have the power to nuke their business into ashes... If my income becomes so low that the effort is not worth anymore, what stops me to put all my portfolio at the disposal of everybody in hi-res even for commercial purposes, and simply try to monetize it from advertising and donations from my website? There are other people already calling this as plan B, and it doesn't take many photographers willing to do this to bomb the market and seriously cripple the agencies. After all who will pay for an image if they can get a high-quality / high-resolution for free and for all uses? And if photographers are unable to unite to stop the agencies, or to come up with an alternative solution the ultimate action is in our hands. To me Getty's actions, and of many other agencies are pure suicide and they are so blind by greed that they don't see it. The truth is, when people have nothing to lose, very bad things usually happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 It seems to me that Getty feel they cannot police copyright theft of their images (which at least they did, I believe) so instead of continuing enforcement they have legalised copyright theft For my point of view it just an excuse to do what they are doing. As it has been very well explained in : http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what. Carlyle Group paid billions of $ for a business that year by year is giving less and less money. His tactics, IMHO, is that millions of sites will insert his images, they collect personal data and place advertising to those millions of people that look those sites. All this without paying a cent to the real owners. Big business, if success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Elias Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Here is what the FT has to say about Getty's plans. Can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Can you download these free photos from Getty and have them printed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Not surprisingly, if you read the online comments that follow announcements of G's latest move, they are generally positive. The most popular phrase is "it's about time." The general public doesn't really give a hoot about copyright, but I suppose that has become pretty obvious. My guess is that it will continue to be business as usual for picture pilferers. After all, they've put a lot of effort into perfecting their craft and probably don't want to see their skills go to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrioticAlien Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 If photographers were unionized,next steps against Getty would be picket signs, all contributors and supporters marching in unision to the front of their corporate office and ceasing all submitting to Getty and their affiliates. If they have no new photos to provide clients,they will have NO clients. A HUGE rally would garner a lot of press in which photogs could state everything Getty has done to harm photography and stock business. L That made my day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flotsom Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Getty have a long history of ripping off photographers but this latest one really takes the biscuit. Plus they've now made it even easier for people to steal their images, the 'embedded player' is just a basic iframe! One click on 'show image preview' and you've a nice unwatermarked image to download, amply sized for web without hassle of cloning out the watermark in PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPL Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Still have no idea what is going to be included in Embed scheme looking at this page: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Creative/Frontdoor/embed If you click the Search images available to embed link: There are only 12 millions images and almost all are the celeb photos. I wonder which other collections are going to be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The "embed" approach has many obvious advantages for the delivery of copyrighted images online. Image usage can be automatically monitored and could be used to trigger a premium licence prompt above a specified views threshold, or images could be instantly revoked if they are used in breach of terms. However, monetising photographers' work without cutting them in on the deal is utterly reprehensible and I can't see the advertising supported model providing a fair income for individual contributors. I understand that a company called IMGembed has been doing something similar (but in less exploitative fashion) for some time already: http://imgembed.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flotsom Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Getty's plan has nothing to do with the licensing of images nor copyright infringement but wholly to do with the ad delivery system that will follow. Their long term goal will be to promote these free images so that they become as insidious to the web as google and eventually the norm - imagine millions of websites, blogs and social networks using getty's free images (much like they do now with youtube) and the billions of impressions the targeted ads that will display alongside/overlaid/underneath will have. For Getty this will be a win, win situation and they will try to get away without paying a percentage of the ad revenue to photographers as after all they haven't actually sold the image - or at the very most a miniscule amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Getty's plan has nothing to do with the licensing of images nor copyright infringement but wholly to do with the ad delivery system that will follow. I agree, but this technical solution could be exploited in other ways and for different purposes. I can't see any major media organisation surrendering control of their own advertising space however. If this strategy succeeds in monetising en masse the many smaller online content providers it may serve some useful function. Agencies like Getty and Alamy have alienated that market with their artificially inflated price calculator values for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPL Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am beginning to wonder how many sites are actually going to use it, some time on Google reveals the code is only on 812 pages at the moment and most are people blogging about this being introduced. How many bloggers really want an image at a fixed size with getty logos and a credit on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 How many bloggers really want an image at a fixed size with getty logos and a credit on it. If blogging platforms incorporate a Getty search box and one-click embed function then I'm guessing quite a lot. There are still plenty of people who know nothing about image editing and just want an easy life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 If photographers were unionized,next steps against Getty would be picket signs, all contributors and supporters marching in unision to the front of their corporate office and ceasing all submitting to Getty and their affiliates. If they have no new photos to provide clients,they will have NO clients. A HUGE rally would garner a lot of press in which photogs could state everything Getty has done to harm photography and stock business. L Most of the main Getty contribs are in it for the money and prepared to compromise on style, content and every other way to meet the Getty briefs. Not the types to go storming the barricades. On top of that, much of Getty now consists of the best of a string of smaller agencies who probably won't be out on strike. The best place for more independent minded photographers now is Corbis. They do their best to try and convince the world that they too are a ruthless (or 'disruptive' in modern gorm speak) corp, but nobody is convinced. They are just too fond of photography for their own good, and have consequently become the greatest collection in the world (Bettman, Conde Naste, VII, Ansel Adams ....). If some of G's most talented moved there then that might have an impact. Hard to think of anything else that would. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris E Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Melcher shares his thoughts. http://blog.melchersystem.com/2014/03/06/getty-images-gamble/ Regards Chris E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Melcher shares his thoughts. http://blog.melchersystem.com/2014/03/06/getty-images-gamble/ Regards Chris E Melcher has been banging on about this for so long I was shocked and surprised by the announcement - I thought it must have already happened ages ago, especially as one no less than Magnum had been giving serious consideration to this. Shows how much in the loop I am. Melcher is, of course right, particularly on the issue of market penetration. All those briefs trying to second guess the trends and murky thoughts of top ADs must be a dying art. Why not use the WWW to see what actually 'emotes' (a Melcher theme). And they won't care if contribs leave, since the ones they care about, those supplying the elite collections won't be going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sanger Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 There's one purpose, one intention behind this move only and it is not to do with the futile battle against blog image pirates. It's a move to kill Alamy and all other editorial and illusrrative stock competition. And it won't affect Getty high end glitzstock or Getty hot news either, that stuff won't be in this feed. David, I would add social media uses too as they will be allowing Twitter and Tumblr shares, and no doubt Facebook and Pinterest as soon as the developers can figure it out. Other benefits though are the detailed tracking and usage datum and just having more control over image use. I'd expect them to experiment with ad overlays too if the embeds are successful. Interesting point you make about favoring online rather than print... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.