Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Getty's "deal" with Google
  
 
jsnover
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Regarding the metadata being available, according to Kenny who put that list together, the thumbnails had the information in them (although not all did)

And regarding "don't put them on the internet" - is that supposed to mean that no one should sell through agencies that have online stores? Because that's where these images were posted - offering licenses for sale.

The issue is that Getty has decided that it is entitled to appoint sub-sub-distributors to give away images that were placed with them to sell. Photographers don't agree with Getty's view but are trying to find ways to get them to stop without engaging in an expensive lawsuit (although that's being looked at).

There's a good summary of this issue in Sean Locke's blog post here

http://bit.ly/WbeOY1



Jan 19, 2013 at 08:50 PM
Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Well, I have now been bestowed the great honour of being banned by Getty Images to participate on their Contributor Forum at Flickr (even though technically I am still a G contributor) because of my views on this nefarious deal. I wonder when Getty bought Yahoo (the owner of Flickr) to be able to gain this type of control over a Flickr forum. Hmmm...probably part of the deal between Getty and Yahoo, the latter of which will not allow Flickr members to sell their own images from their streams or even place any link under their work to an external e-commerce site. When I questioned this anomaly with Yahoo and pointing out that Getty, one of the biggest commercial stock libraries on the planet, was being allowed to do exactly that, they never answered me.

Sheila



Jan 19, 2013 at 09:15 PM
jsnover
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Not long after Getty bought iStock, banners appeared at the bottom of all searches saying something like "Can't find what you were looking for? Search for xxx on Getty Images" with a link to Getty. Of course there was no comparable link from Getty or Thinkstock back the other way.

I'm not surprised that Yahoo is just doing whatever Getty wants - I'm assuming that Yahoo's financial troubles make them very happy to take the cash and implement unfair rules.

There is a good list here of all the coverage of this dispute

http://www.denispepin.com/google-and-getty-licensing-deal



Jan 20, 2013 at 02:49 AM
hugodrax
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Sheila wrote:
What folk don't understand when they suggest one should place a large watermark over the image (which I do on my website in any event) is that how do you tell a legitimate purchaser of your image (ie a client) that they must watermark it on their website. Placing an attribution ęphotographer's name is often ignored by infringers who really don't give a stuff about copyright protection. On several occasions, I have tracked back, via metadata, the source of the image to a client who, of course, did not pass it off to anyone else. It was just right clicked
...Show more

Thats the thing with the Web, Right click and images get copied or cross linked. It is the nature of the beast, any image that you license for web use etc. could potentially be stolen by someone who saw it on the site and liked what they saw so they just copy and paste elsewhere.

Unfortunately it is what it is, the best thing you can do is try to make your bulk of the profits on initial image sales and try and price in a shrinkage factor into the cost of doing business. And put in for you tax deduction X dollars of lost business due to theft.




Jan 21, 2013 at 02:28 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Getty's "deal" with Google


hugodrax wrote:
And put in for you tax deduction X dollars of lost business due to theft.



Interesting ... care to expand / clarify (or is this just philosophical rather than pragmatic).



Jan 21, 2013 at 03:08 AM
Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Getty's "deal" with Google


hugodrax wrote:
Thats the thing with the Web, Right click and images get copied or cross linked. It is the nature of the beast, any image that you license for web use etc. could potentially be stolen by someone who saw it on the site and liked what they saw so they just copy and paste elsewhere.

Unfortunately it is what it is, the best thing you can do is try to make your bulk of the profits on initial image sales and try and price in a shrinkage factor into the cost of doing business. And put in for you tax deduction
...Show more

Gee, I would love to be a fly on the wall of the Australian Tax Office when I send in my tax form with a figure plucked out of the blue for "theft" without hard evidence to back it up. With respect, your earlier suggestion was that images should not be placed on line but as other professional photographers will attest, THAT is where we license our work.



Jan 21, 2013 at 03:10 AM
alexhibbert
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Getty's "deal" with Google


I too was involved in a bust up with Getty and after explaining the insane behaviour Getty were showing with regards various contracts and policies to other contributors, I was banned from all forums, my posts deleted and my images taken down within hours.

The editors and Getty staff continue to patronise hard-working photographers who aren't after a fight, just basic professional courtesy, but seem unaware that one day Getty will find they have no need for them either.....

Run, don't walk.



Jan 21, 2013 at 08:39 PM
alexhibbert
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Just a thought; given that reasoning with Getty results only in censorship and arrogant derision and that only photogs tend to read photo forums or aphotoeditor etc. etc., perhaps a #BoycottGetty hashtag on Twitter could bring it to the attention of photo buyers and the other people Getty actually listen to? Photographers working together for once?


Jan 21, 2013 at 08:54 PM
BluesWest
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Getty's "deal" with Google


perhaps a #BoycottGetty hashtag on Twitter could bring it to the attention of photo buyers and the other people Getty actually listen to? Photographers working together for once?

+1!
It's time for photographers -- including amateur photographers -- to organize and fight the sort of behavior Getty is engaging in.

John



Jan 22, 2013 at 06:49 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Littleguy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Why would photo buyers take part - they just want cheap or free images and Getty/Google seems to be giving it to them.

alexhibbert wrote:
Just a thought; given that reasoning with Getty results only in censorship and arrogant derision and that only photogs tend to read photo forums or aphotoeditor etc. etc., perhaps a #BoycottGetty hashtag on Twitter could bring it to the attention of photo buyers and the other people Getty actually listen to? Photographers working together for once?




Jan 22, 2013 at 07:10 PM
artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Getty's "deal" with Google


BluesWest wrote:
+1!
It's time for photographers -- including amateur photographers -- to organize and fight the sort of behavior Getty is engaging in.

John

+2

Getty doesn't care right now if professional photogs abandon them because they know there are tons of amateurs that will fill the microstock shelves. The only way Getty will be motivated to change is if the stream of good images dries up.



Jan 22, 2013 at 08:09 PM
ericevans
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Its time for photographers to stop allowing companies to profit off us and screw us at the same time. There are some things on the horizon where you will own your own agency and then they come to and pay you what you want or they don't get it. One central image search. If you set up your own storage you get all the money upfront before they get to download. http://www.picturengine.com/beta/login.php Call Justin and talk to him about what he has coming our way. I have a few month remaining on a couple contracts and I will never be with a conventional agency again. My last conversation with Justin was about getting photographer to dump their agencies in mass and all sign up with his service and put them ALL out of business. Then you sell for what you want to sell for and you get all the money and pay for the search engine he has built which is very cheap compared to what agencies have picked my pockets for.


We need to get together and tear them all down. if everyone pulls their images and does this they are finished in months and they are gone.



Jan 26, 2013 at 04:15 AM
ericevans
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Sheila wrote:
Well, I have now been bestowed the great honour of being banned by Getty Images to participate on their Contributor Forum at Flickr (even though technically I am still a G contributor) because of my views on this nefarious deal. I wonder when Getty bought Yahoo (the owner of Flickr) to be able to gain this type of control over a Flickr forum. Hmmm...probably part of the deal between Getty and Yahoo, the latter of which will not allow Flickr members to sell their own images from their streams or even place any link under their work to an external
...Show more
If you have a group on flickr you can ban ANYONE you want for any reason.



Jan 26, 2013 at 04:18 AM
jsnover
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Getty's "deal" with Google


I like the idea of a central search engine to link together artists' sites (illustrators, photographers, audio and video have markets for licenses) but I'm not convinced that Picture Engine is going to be the vehicle for that. I've yet to hear anything solid about how Picture Engine is going to attract buyers other than some hope that they'll flock to the site once they hear about it.

There has been a little more discussion on MSG about the Flickr photographers caught up in the Getty/Google deal:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gettyflickr-contributors-google-deal/msg295373

There has been a largely anemic and content free statement that they're working with Google to amend the deal in some way - see MSG (which has links to the original post on iStockphoto)

http://bit.ly/11bDQOL

Blend Images has stated that Getty let them choose which images got taken for the Google Drive deal and that they picked "legacy" images that weren't selling much any more as a way to curry favor with Getty - and get better search position! Lots of others have no choice about which images and no opt-out.

I've blogged about my take on all this and given (so far) not a word about Getty offering an opt out on these special deals, I'm more inclined than ever to just walk (leaving some old images to keep the account open and collect money when it comes through next month).

http://www.digitalbristles.com/time-of-turmoil/

I'd urge anyone who feels they can to blog, post on Facebook, Twitter or wherever you hang out to make sure as many people know about Getty's misdeeds as possible. Putting a spotlight on bad corporate behavior is, in the long run, the best bet for the small customer or supplier, IMO



Feb 01, 2013 at 01:17 AM
Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Reading the latest iStock thread, it looks like management is dangling a carrot in front of those who want to withdraw their images on the D Day of 2 February by advising contributors that they will have something for them next week which, of course, is past the D Day. Hmmmm.

I am curious why, to date, I have not seen any reports of this in the international or national press. It's only to be found on blogs, micro sites and photographic websites. Has anyone seen any article in the mainstream press regarding this?

Sheila



Feb 01, 2013 at 01:41 AM
jsnover
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Getty's "deal" with Google


In case there are any Getty/Flickr contributors here who want a place to chat other than the forum on Yahoo (or ex-contributors who've been booted from there), there's a forum on the MSG site for your use:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/flickr/



Feb 04, 2013 at 03:47 PM
onthetrail73
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Good morning, I've been a "lurker" here as I am a wannabe photographer trying to learn. But being that I am a web developer in the real world, I thought I would post a little information about those who do their own websites.

If you want to put images on your own custom website, there are ways to keep those images from being indexed by google. Here are a couple of resources for you to look through (even an article from google itself). I'm including a couple links for backup:

http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35308
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-02-20-n69.html
http://antezeta.com/news/avoid-search-engine-indexing

Tim



Feb 06, 2013 at 03:45 PM
jsnover
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Getty's "deal" with Google


Thanks for those links on hiding images from indexing.

I think the difficulties people face are that they don't want search engines to ignore their sites, but they don't want the high value stuff easily located and swiped.

Perhaps in time tools like WordPress (just as an example) could put the small sizes of images it automatically generates into a different directory from the original size uploaded and could automatically put the robots.txt file excluding the high resolution versions from searches



Feb 06, 2013 at 04:29 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password