Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2013 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Getty's "deal" with Google

A veritable s**tstorm has broken out at the contributors' forum at IStock, a Getty subsidiary. Read about it in a post of photographer Sean Locke here and Getty's response here (They locked Sean's thread!) While I have little sympathy for microstockers, I think that Getty has just stepped over the boundary of avarice bigtime. In a nutshell, they have licensed thousands of Getty/iStock/Flickr (plus other subsidiaries) images to Google to be downloaded free to Google Document users (amongst others) without restrictions. Well, there are restrictions (if you read the small print) but in my experience, anyone using Google to find images don't bother with the copyright issues relating thereto or "This image may be subject to copyright" on every Google Images search page! The photographers do get paid - $12.00 for the honour of supplying their work to Google to be used in perpetuity via a freebie download. This, of course, will affect those finding their images via the Google Search my Image illegally by infringers as they can now state that they downloaded it from Google legitimately - again for zilch.

I quit Getty in July and the contract ended in mid October so none of my images will be subject to this. I do have a few images on Getty via AGE but they are RM images and, to date, only RF images are part of this deal. What is of great concern to those affected is that images of model released people (including children) are part of this nefarious deal between Getty and Google. Reading the IStock forum, there is still some naivety amongst a few contributors (many are just plain angry) that this is all just a mistake and that some over zealous sales people did this without Getty knowing anything about it. Yeah right! Getty would have sent their best lawyers and marketing folk to Google to stitch up this deal (and stitch up their contributors) and with Getty's usual aplomb, not actually mention it to their contributors. It was only Sean Locke publishing a thread on IStock that anyone knew anything about it. There is a lot of anger over at Getty/Flickr when a link was placed to IStock forum (by a Flickr member Lawren Lu) and the proverbial s..t hit the fan!

It will be an interesting read on Tuesday when someone, poor sod, has to front up to all of these forums with an explanation on why Getty is yet again screwing their contributors.

Sheila

Jan 13, 2013 at 07:02 PM

brucemuir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Only thing you can do is don't do business with them.

Jan 13, 2013 at 07:39 PM

Ho1972
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Yeah, this comes on the heels of a previous "promotional" deal istock/Getty made with Microsoft to give away hundreds images sans rights and compensation for the creators. Oh, I'm sure istock got their pockets filled but no one else did.

Seems from what little I've read about it that istock's agreement with its contributors is basically a fluid document that gets amended periodically so that it benefits istock at the expense of the creatives. In other words, an istock supplier agrees to one thing but ends up having to live with another.

Apparently at one time there was a way to opt out of foul-smelling deals like this, but that's been taken away too.

I guess this is the only way for upper management to generate the sort of revenue that will pay them the bonuses to which they've become accustomed. I wonder what sort of surprises are in store for stock shooters this year?

Jan 13, 2013 at 07:55 PM

brucemuir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Micro stock is a farce.
It's a crazy business model for us so don't waste your precious resources worrying about it and move on.

I'm not meaning to be a pri*k but this has been obvious for awhile now.

Jan 13, 2013 at 08:07 PM

Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Getty's "deal" with Google

It's not just micros such as IStock (which as I said, I have little sympathy as they started the downhill slide). It's also Getty Images contributors who are macrostockers. This, eventually, will affect all of us who license images as why would anyone pay a license fee when they can download freebies from Google. It's bad enough having to compete with micros with extraordinarily low prices.

Jan 13, 2013 at 08:13 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Getty's "deal" with Google

I don't do stock / microstock as a revenue stream, but I guess it's time to pull images off Flickr now too ... just like off FB, Instagram, etc. ... or plaster them with watermark, etc.

Fortunately, I haven't added anything to Flickr for a few years now. Not sure what the value of keeping my Flickr account really is anymore now that it is a gateway to "gifting". Seems kinda like driving your car down to the "chop shop" and handing them the keys. It saves them the trouble of coming to you for their exploitative pursuits.

Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM

jsnover
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Images from Getty directly - nothing to do with microstock - were included in this deal. From Blend Images, Image Source, VStock, for just a few examples.

Microstock sites didn't make this deal, Getty Images did.

It's too cozy to just cheer that some microstock contributors have gotten a raw deal and think that it has nothing to do with "real" photographers, but I think if you would look at the details of this deal, you'd see that it is very bad news for Getty contributors. Probably for anyone trying to sell stock images through any agency.

This deal is set up to benefit Getty and Google but not photographers. One of the traditional agencies had the view that this was incremental revenue - Google Drive users wouldn't shop at Getty Images anyway - so it was almost like free money even if a small amount. I see that view as naive and short sighted. If Getty is allowed to do deals like this - $12 royalty for unlimited redistribution rights - in time no one will be shopping at Getty Images

If you recall, the new Getty contract as of April 2012 gave Getty the right to move RM images to RF at Getty's discretion - and from Getty to Thinkstock (their subscription site) if they wanted to. That was a take it or leave it deal - if you didn't agree you and all your images could leave Getty Images. It isn't just iStock contributors that don't have real control over the terms of their agreements. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out is how I interpreted Getty's approach to the April 2012 fuss over their changes.

Jan 17, 2013 at 03:11 AM

Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Getty's "deal" with Google

jsnover wrote:
Images from Getty directly - nothing to do with microstock - were included in this deal. From Blend Images, Image Source, VStock, for just a few examples.

Microstock sites didn't make this deal, Getty Images did.

It's too cozy to just cheer that some microstock contributors have gotten a raw deal and think that it has nothing to do with "real" photographers, but I think if you would look at the details of this deal, you'd see that it is very bad news for Getty contributors. Probably for anyone trying to sell stock images through any agency.

This deal is set up to...Show more →

Welcome to FM! I am surprised that there is still little response to my post but this affects ALL who license images, even those who are not Getty contributors. It also affects those who, like me, are constantly battling illegal use by bloggers and websites who have scant regard for copyright infringement. They can now state that it would appear that ALL images are free just because Google has told them so. Of course this is nonsense but its something I have to deal with on a daily basis. "I found it on Google and thought it was free" is a constant response to my "please explain" emails. My response has always been that Google does not have a database of images - but of course, now it has!

Jan 17, 2013 at 03:06 PM

Littleguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Getty's "deal" with Google

I saw their response over here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1

"Copyright protection:

There have been copyright concerns raised specifically around the right click functionality and lack of embedded metadata within the Google platform, although not ideal from some perspectives this is fairly standard practice for this type of product placement. Lack of attribution has also been mentioned, but this being a license deal rather than a promotional arrangement attribution is not typical or required."

Guess the US doesn't honour Moral Rights - or rights of attribution or the right to the integrity of the work? Or did they make the photographers sign moral rights waivers when they joined?

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Littleguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Weird, now the images seem to have the Metadata back in:

http://kga.me/gds/

Maybe someone did inform them about Moral Rights.

But no photographer would sign with Getty now - first it was MS for personal use licenses for free, now its Google for commerical use licenses for free.

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:52 PM

hugodrax
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Getty's "deal" with Google

This is why I do not put my Pictures on the Internet. Anything you put up on the internet, expect it to get used for free. Microstock/Stock = you get a few pennies and I make profits from your work.

Jan 18, 2013 at 01:37 PM

hugodrax
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Sheila wrote:
Welcome to FM! I am surprised that there is still little response to my post but this affects ALL who license images, even those who are not Getty contributors. It also affects those who, like me, are constantly battling illegal use by bloggers and websites who have scant regard for copyright infringement. They can now state that it would appear that ALL images are free just because Google has told them so. Of course this is nonsense but its something I have to deal with on a daily basis. "I found it on Google and thought it was free" is...Show more →

Stop putting your images on the internet if you do not want to deal with the hassle.

Jan 18, 2013 at 01:40 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Getty's "deal" with Google

This is why I do not put my Pictures on the Internet.
Must be nice

Most of us that SELL...don't have much choice.
Protect your work best you can, and smile when the checks come in.

Jan 18, 2013 at 01:44 PM

hugodrax
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Getty's "deal" with Google

trenchmonkey wrote:
Must be nice

Most of us that SELL...don't have much choice.
Protect your work best you can, and smile when the checks come in.

If you need to sell, then You need to put a water mark that covers enough to make the picture useless if someone tries to grab it. And of course limit the size as well.

A small watermark will not cut it.

Jan 18, 2013 at 02:05 PM

Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Getty's "deal" with Google

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 ©photographer'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 and saved to a hard drive with little or no regard for the niceties of legitimate licensing.

BTW, I have just been banned from the Getty Contributor site by Yahoo under instructions of Getty Images. I quit Getty seven months ago and up until today, this has not been a problem with Yahoo/Flickr but my posts on the Getty/Google rip off thread has possibly angered Big G who do not like any sort of dissent. Technically, as I stated earlier, I am still a contributor via AGE.

Sheila

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:31 PM

BluesWest
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Getty's "deal" with Google

BTW, I have just been banned from the Getty Contributor site by Yahoo under instructions of Getty Images.

Abhorrent behavior by Getty, and shows exactly what a bunch of corporate weasels they are.

Sheila, thanks for starting this thread - you've really opened my eyes about Getty and their affiliated ripoff artists.

John

Jan 18, 2013 at 11:43 PM

TT1000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Getty's "deal" with Google

@littleguy "Guess the US doesn't honour Moral Rights - or rights of attribution or the right to the integrity of the work? Or did they make the photographers sign moral rights waivers when they joined?"

Actually the US doesn't, as you may be aware, except in very narrow circumstances set forth in The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. And even those limited rights can be waived making them somewhat useless.

How did we get away with this given our international treaty obligations ? Well people argue that "moral rights" are protected in the US via other laws such as the Lantham Act. But in practice such legal theories tend to fall on deaf ears.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:17 AM

Jabberwockt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Aren't images on Flickr defaulted to license through Getty?

http://www.flickr.com/account/prefs/gettyimages/

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:32 AM

lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Corporations don't consider "moral rights" - they only consider their own profit practices. You are nothing but a pimple on a elephant.

Photographers need to come up with their own cooperative, run by photographers as a non-profit to maximize payouts. Then we can tell the Gettys of the world to stuff it.

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:42 AM

Sheila
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Getty's "deal" with Google

Jabberwockt wrote:
Aren't images on Flickr defaulted to license through Getty?

http://www.flickr.com/account/prefs/gettyimages/

Not automatically. You can choose an option to license (using that link) through Getty and if a potential buyer sees this, they contact Getty and then Getty asks the Flickr photographer if they want to license a particular image. The image is then uploaded to Getty and is then part of the Getty empire (after you have signed the contract with Getty). Getty tells the photographer whether the model is RM or RF - the photographer does not have a choice. If you don't like the model that Getty has allocated, then tough. You don't upload and that's the end of that.

I quit Getty because they allowed their Chinese portal to license one of my images (and many other photographers' images) to a manufacturer of mobile/cell phones for commercial use for the princely sum of $1.19, of which I received 39 cents for one year distributed in China only. I bitterly complained in a thread I started stating that it was just not economical for me to place my images with Getty on an exclusive basis (again there is no choice) and locking up my work for the princely sum of 39 cents. The Beijing portal is notorious for licensing RM images for next to nothing and there is not a thing the contributor can do about it - except quit which is what I did. That said, my RPI (revenue per image) was very high with Getty but I was always uncomfortable with their business practices and eventually I quit. My very last sale with them was for $1,600 (RM model released image) of which I received $550) but I still do not regret leaving. Over two years, the average sale prices were dropping in value considerably (thanks to the Beijing portal).

Sheila

Jan 19, 2013 at 12:48 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Pro Digital Corner \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.