Ed Endicott 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. The size of the iFrame can be changed so credit/attribution is no longer visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShep Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 This has now made it to today's Guardian: http://tinyurl.com/ojlj2lz Steve 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. The size of the iFrame can be changed so credit/attribution is no longer visible. This has been sorted already I think. I have become so depressed by this move from Getty I have completely stop working on processing shots. Need to dust myself down and get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I tried to search to see what Getty photographers had to say about this, but couldn't find anything. Is there an outcry from their photogs? Are any threatening to remove their collections?I also read on PDNOnline that according to Craig Peters of Getty that if they do make money from ad revenue, it will be shared with photographers. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I tried to search to see what Getty photographers had to say about this, but couldn't find anything. Is there an outcry from their photogs? Are any threatening to remove their collections? I also read on PDNOnline that according to Craig Peters of Getty that if they do make money from ad revenue, it will be shared with photographers. Jill Jam tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I tried to search to see what Getty photographers had to say about this, but couldn't find anything. Is there an outcry from their photogs? Are any threatening to remove their collections? I also read on PDNOnline that according to Craig Peters of Getty that if they do make money from ad revenue, it will be shared with photographers. Jill Yes they will "share" but Getty's idea of "sharing" is a 15% royalty rate. The advertising click through revenue model has already been tried by other agencies (including Getty) and it amounts to nothing. I read that article yesterday and it flabbergasted me. Craig mentions that this is a new market for them but that's simply not true - bloggers use iStock and Thinkstock photos (Getty owned subsidiaries) all the time. In fact CNN uses iStock and Thinkstock photos all the time - the new model competes with that. I don't think Getty fully understands the implications of what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrioticAlien Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I tried to search to see what Getty photographers had to say about this, but couldn't find anything. Is there an outcry from their photogs? Are any threatening to remove their collections? I also read on PDNOnline that according to Craig Peters of Getty that if they do make money from ad revenue, it will be shared with photographers. Jill I've been in an agency situation that 'shared' revenue on subscription sales. What you get is a crappy lump sum divided up to pay many many photographers. You will find you have THOUSANDS of images published (they don't tell you to what outlets or which images)and receive less than $70 a month.I don't know how 'G' plans on doling out or trying to figure out how or who to pay. I was shocked to read that istock went back to contributors saying they overpaid them and getting their money back. So,hope their book keeping methods are much better for this scheme. http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/ WoW, it was 25,000 photographers to 9,000, i would be asking questions about how competent their maths are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I tried to search to see what Getty photographers had to say about this, but couldn't find anything. Is there an outcry from their photogs? Are any threatening to remove their collections? Not an outcry as far as I saw last night (obsequious is the word that springs to mind for most) . . . but some are beginning to wonder at least, and are asking questions re: the details . . . in fact, the person asking the greatest variety of relevant questions about the greatest variety of relevant details is Ian Murray, late of here . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 a. I have images "directly" represented by Getty. Are they in free-use-scheme automatically? Do I need to opt out? b. from contrib point of view, why would free-use be preferred to uncollected-unauthorized use? You are not allowed to opt-out. You are in whether you like it or not. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I don't think this is going to work in Getty's favour. Who's going to embed a link to the image using "Getty's image player" on their website when Getty can replace the desired image with a brief pop up advertising image at ANY time in the future? This will put decent editorial sites off using this mechanism. Bloggers can easily screen grab an image (from Getty or anywhere else) and paste it into your blog without any of these constraints, unless of course they care about copyright, which most bloggers don't. I think Getty just shot themselves in the foot. As soon as they try exploiting the pop-up advertising images it will backfire on them badly as users perceive their web-site content is being hi-jacked. Unless of course Getty want to pay them for any "click throughs" to Getty or wherever the advert takes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizair Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I don't think this is going to work in Getty's favour. Who's going to embed a link to the image using "Getty's image player" on their website when Getty can replace the desired image with a brief pop up advertising image at ANY time in the future? This will put decent editorial sites off using this mechanism. Bloggers can easily screen grab an image (from Getty or anywhere else) and paste it into your blog without any of these constraints, unless of course they care about copyright, which most bloggers don't. I think Getty just shot themselves in the foot. As soon as they try exploiting the pop-up advertising images it will backfire on them badly as users perceive their web-site content is being hi-jacked. Unless of course Getty want to pay them for any "click throughs" to Getty or wherever the advert takes them.In some respects I agree ie. many bloggers will not want their blogs contaminated. But many others, perhaps the majority, won't give a toss. Most likely these will the ad-hoc bloggers that are rarely looked at anyway. They are not the sort of blogger that will pay for an image, so nothing lost there. The bloggers that may be concerned about the Getty "initiative" are those that are serious and have already monetized their blogs. I can't see many newspaper or serious company sites wanting to let Getty control their content. But, who really knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Just a thought... If Getty are hosting the images on their server and are thereby providing the photographer's original image as a way of incentivising web-sites to accept advertising and, if Getty keep all the "click through" revenue, could it be argued that Getty were effectively republishing the images for commercial gain without paying the photographer and hence could be guilty of copyright infringement themselves? Or are the Getty's T&Cs written in such a way that they can do whatever they like with submitted images? I suppose, if the ONLY advertising they do is of the Getty Images library, then they could legitimately argue that the advertising is for the benefit of all their contributors. But if the advertising click thru's only link to Getty's website, then there's no click thru revenue.... Derr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Somehow, for commercial contribs to Getty, I doubt this will make any real difference. The previous scheme was greeted with similar aghast and yet sales have continued, the sky has not fallen in as predicted. The basis is this scheme seems to be those sites which either are nicking images or are poor users of GI material. No site that uses ad revenue for it's monies is going to allow GI to place their own ads in the link. Since the only way to stop that is by severing the link...... Imagine the HuffPo suddenly having all it's images via embedded links, the GI revenue raising adverts then come via the link and the revenue goes to Getty. HuffPo really going to have this occur.....really?? It's interesting that the likes of Blend will not have it's images in the scheme, my images via my Getty contract will be there (I assume, not bothered to check) but I recently cancelled my Getty contract so it's pretty irrelevent (before anyone asks - they are still the best reseller of commercial work). Remember that GI are proven masters of traditional image selling, they revolutionised this business in order to make money (true mainly for GI but togs did pretty well) - they have recently rebranded to differentiate even more quality v 'not such quality'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&tab=wm#inbox/144ac8422cc26ec5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&tab=wm#inbox/144ac8422cc26ec5 Ed, I think this is not the link you meant to post!…..Takes me to gmail... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milouvision Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 As an aside, the Getty/Flickr partnership is terminated: http://pastebin.com/MkKa8e2D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 As an aside, the Getty/Flickr partnership is terminated: http://pastebin.com/MkKa8e2D So Getty's version of Stockimo is called Moment? Everyone is on the bandwagon Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milouvision Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 From the Flickr Getty contributors group: The current Flickr collections will form the basis of the new “Moment” collection, including Moment RF, Moment Open, Moment RM, Moment Select, and Moment Editorial. The existing Moment Mobile collection will continue to be fed by images from the Moment App. Your current contracts will remain in effect, with royalties of 30% for Rights Managed and 20% for Royalty Free images. Q: Will we be able to designate what collection or license model the images we upload will go to? A: No. The Curators/Editors will determine the best collection for any particular image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milouvision Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Flickr will still want some stock action: http://www.flickr.com/jobs/director_of_curation_and_content/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristina Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 as long as they pay me a share of the adv money it's fine. It's probably more than the fees they are paying lately! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 as long as they pay me a share of the adv money it's fine. It's probably more than the fees they are paying lately! Cristina, is there a minimum amount of your local currency that must be met before it is considered legal tender? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristina Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 dustydingo my local currency is Euro!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 dustydingo my local currency is Euro!!!! I thought so. My point, not well made obviously, was that the tiny amounts you can expect to receive from G's advertising revenue in this situation is probably too small to be considered enough to use legally . . . worse if they were writing cheques, it would probably be less that the cost of the ink. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.