Jump to content
ChrisR

Getty allowing unlimited free editorial use?!

Recommended Posts

It just occurred to me that if you have an editorial street photo of someone that is on the Getty site and they have ads embedded in the image,couldn't the subject in the photo sue for commercial use of that photo?
How are they going to put ads on tragic photos like accidents or people that are sick.

How are they going to protect any sensitive use? Say someone took a photo from the Getty site to illustrate drug use or something.An ad appears in  the photo which I believe would make Getty guilty of commercial  use if the subject or photog had requested images not be used for sensitive use or even had a signed model release to be used commercially.

 

I think in the end it would be the photog that would get pushed into a legal battle defending the fact that they even submitted photos to Getty.

 

In 2004 I was approached by a producer for a reality show...Maybe I should dig around for that business card.Might not be such a bad career move at this point. My life in a fishbowl,photos for sale!

L

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Linda
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 

 

Thanks. :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that one person that was quoted in the story going around had allegedly made a nice tidy fortune when an agency he helped found was sold to Getty.So of course he's be praising their 'forward progress' in this.

 I worked with that person and many of my photog friends know him.Though he's an excellent photog,he's also very 'company.'

 

This will cause more industry wide problems as far as fees and usage rights and I do not feel that G does anything to enhance the lives or bank accounts of photographers but many will shoot for free for a by-line or be able to cover an event.

 

How to they separate blog from BLOG that makes a few million dollars a year? PerezHilton's blog makes a few million dollars a year and he started his blog by stealing photos from the agencies. Agencies sued him and allegedly Perez settled out of court in for undisclosed big bucks.

 

I just collected $4600 in 4 monthly installments from another celebrity blogger whose blog looks like crud yet manages to make himself a very nice lifestyle.

 

Will those photos be free too?

 

If I were a Getty client paying major money for a subscription feed of celebrity images I'd be ripping up my contract about now.

The same photos will be plastered all over the web and viewed before the daily newspaper sites and print editions. And the bloggers paid nothing and will probably rank higher in the google search if their image and post was first up. At least that  i how it happens with my blog.

 

L

Edited by Linda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Jill Morgan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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? Edited by PatrioticAlien

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.