Jump to content
ChrisR

Getty allowing unlimited free editorial use?!

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Bizair

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?

 

Here is the link top a post on dpreview by G contributor Saffron Blaze: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/06/getty-to-allow-embedding-for-non-commercial-use-of-images?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text-comment&ref=comments_0_9#comments

 

Saffron notes Getty photogs ended up with pennies from a similar program.

 

L

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article on this.Also mentions what I send in the beginning of this that Getty will become THE source for data.

 

The author states that with this data Getty could be positioning the company to sell to Google or Yahoo.

 

Uh-oh....But intuitively,I feel it's quite possible!

 

 

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2014/03/monetizing-gettys-35m-image-archive-via.html?m=1

 

L

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • 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.