Jump to content
ChrisR

Getty allowing unlimited free editorial use?!

Recommended Posts

Just been announced as a `news` item on Radio 2,  4.11pm, Steve Wright show that Getty are now offering free downloads of photos! 

And the masses shall come in force for free stuff 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might Getty just come to regret this? If everyone and their dog is downloading (easy with a right click to get a 5-700pc image) and not just embedding images it could backfire. Let's face it most web site owners don't understand the difference between commercial and editorial use - lets face it many photographers struggle - so Getty may have just created a different set of abuse issues.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of Getty contributors will just remove their images. Maybe that's part of what Getty want. I don't think Getty will regret anything because I'm pretty sure they had more than a 5 minute conversation about it before they decided on this course of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Getty are going to sort the right clicking of images. From what I just read things are being sorted.

 

 

They can try, but they cannot stop screen grabbing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes anyone feel better, current uploads to Getty must be at a standstill. Having been unaware of this rights grab, I uploaded 3 images to Getty yesterday. They were accepted by Alp within 15 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I think we're getting to the thick end of the wedge now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hits on blogs wildly vary depending on content and placement in google search.I have a blog  for 9 years that has anywhere from 500 hits a day on a slow day to the max 10,000 a day.

It's mostly entertainment and cultural events in Chicago.Sometimes new products if a friend wants me to get up a press release.

Usually people that end up there searched google  for something specific. While they are there,I notice they are also looking to steal the photo and looking for the link that will lead them to my website where they can snag even more photos.

I no longer keep my entertainment archive open without a viewing password as too many Russian pirate sites trying to sign up for access.

I do make adsense revenue which is not very good and if say my photos were part of the Getty scheme at a penny or so an image and then they take away 85% or whatever,I'd probably be writing them a check at the end of the year.

 

I just think their offer of  everything 'free' is sending the wrong message and in reality it will create more theft and affect the whole industry when we try and fight our pricing and chasing down infringers.

 

L

Edited by Linda
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another bad part of the Getty debacle for photographers is their Getty images losing value.

Many photo researchers still would like an image that has not been used all over the place.

 

If you have a rare photo of say Madonna that is now appearing 149,000 times  on social media sites and blogs,no publication in their right mind will ever pay a decent license fee for it.

Fine art sales...pretty doubtful if the photo has become so common place it's now considered by the uneducated to be public domain clip art.

 

Sad for us all,even non-Getty photographers.

I really feel that pirates won't want photos with ads attached and will quickly find a way to bypass the Getty system.

 

L

 

PS-KWheal I agree 100% with you on the above.Every day I go after infringers and hear the same thing that the image was free on Google!

We did manage to collect $5400 this week from infringers with that same excuse.

Edited by Linda
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...

Getty needs to realize that this new scheme of theirs will create a lot of problems when trying to collect on infringements. They will even have the Judge shaking his head in disbelief. People with biz blogs will outcry that they are being pursocuted by the big elephant in the room and cry foul on that site which slams Getty and their collection letters(google it)  Also a problem when other photogs will try and collect on infringements,the infringer could tell the courts(if it got that far) that the same or very similar photo is available for free on Gety so why should they pay X amount of dollars.   L

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to sign up to the Financial Times to read the article.They must know something we don't. There were NO pull down fields to describe our industry.Nothing for photography,creative,media,advertising...LOL...Uh oh,the writing on the virtual wall!

Edited by Linda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that Getty has plans to monetize the data of the images which in reality may not reflect back to the photographer as a royalty payment.

So,say Mariah Carey is at an event and wearing a Versace gown. Getty embeds the data to purchase either Mariah's latest CD or the Versace dress into the image.

Getty will then be able to gauge the trends of fashion and the performer by how many clicks. They will be able to resell this data to companies from marketing and ad agencies to the record label and designer.Could be quite valuable to the people that would need this type of info but I will just bet that the clicks fee to photogs will be a fraction of a penny before  Getty takes their cut and after reading about how iStock photos just got slapped with an invoice from Getty where they OWE money for over payments,I wouldn't spend a penny of those royalties...They just might be taking it back in a year or two saying they overpaid you!   L

Edited by Linda
  • Upvote 1

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.