Getty's scandalous deal with Google

<p>War has broken out between Getty Contributors, including iStock, Jupiter Images, Getty/Flickr and all other Getty subsidiaries when, unbeknownst to contributors, Getty signed a deal with Google in that Google could license RF images and place them on Google Documents to be downloaded for free by websites, blogs, etc etc and the Getty contributors got between $6.00 and $12.00 per image - NOT per download. It all started when Sean Locke, an IStock contributor checked his statements to find several images licensed to Google. He tracked them down to Google Documents and the rest, as they say, is history. Sean posted a thread on the iStock forum http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1 and Getty initially responded http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491 which actually said nothing at all. The proverbial poo hit the fan over at Getty/Flickr forum when someone posted the link to iStock. I quit Getty last July so am not involved but technically, I still am a Getty contributor because of have a few RM images on Getty via AGE fotostock. My views on the forum were cut short somewhat when, on instructions of Getty, Yahoo banned me from participating in the forum. Its a closed forum so I cannot link it here. Getty contributors are white with fury that, basically, Getty has allowed their work to be downloaded for free on the Net. It started with 7,000 images but is expanding daily. This deal involves not just serious amateurs but big names in the world of stock imagery and there is a mention of a class action against Getty to stop this. Getting photographers organised is probably like herding cats but I think they are angry enough to pursue this. They are also angry that the metadata has been stripped from their work and model released images of children are also part of this deal so one wonders where they will end up. <br>

This will affect ALL photographers who shoot stock or license images directly as why would anyone purchase images via libraries like Alamy, AGE etc etc when folk can just download freebie images from Google. </p>

<p>So Getty basically signed a deal with Google to give away people's photos for free, is that it? Those people being their own contributors? Getty must have been paid quite well to have chosen to do this. What's in it for Google?</p>

<p>Basically, yes. I am scratching my head why Google would expend this amount of money but I am guessing that advertising probably comes into it. If you Google "Getty Google deal" there are many blogs and websites which are commenting on this. Strangely, it has not yet reached the national or international press...yet. I was interviewed last week by a Sydney newspaper doing an article on copyright infringements http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/were-being-screwed-photographers-and-designers-vent-over-stolen-images-20130118-2cx6x.html and I suggested to the journalist that the SMH should check it out but to date, he has not reported it. <br /> On the face of it, it looks almost suicidal for Getty to license high income images to Google for so little.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the face of it, it looks almost suicidal for Getty to license high income images to Google for so little.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is why I think they must have been paid quite well. Getty, that is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This will affect ALL photographers who shoot stock or license images directly as why would anyone purchase images via libraries like Alamy, AGE etc etc when folk can just download freebie images from Google.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Access. Little else matters now. I have shots that you can't find on google because there was no access for most people and I control the images.</p>

<p>Maybe it is part of a strategy to compete with Facebook.</p>

<p>Facebook doesn't license images. It doesn't really take more than a third grade education to figure that out.</p>

<p>The strategy is bigger than some images.</p>

<p>Getty wants to compete with Facebook? Bizarre.</p>

<p>I must have missed the press release.</p>

<p>Facebook has a still controversial TOS in that allows them to sub-license images posted on Facebook and that is why there are little images of mine there. Here is Section 1 under Rights:</p>

<ol>

<li>Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here<a href="http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/">http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/</a>, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy.</li>

</ol>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Facebook has a still controversial TOS in that allows them to sub-license images posted on Facebook</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Maybe you should read this rather than buy into the hype:<br>

<br>

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean<br>

<br>

It's hardly doing anything that Getty does. But the reaction only perpetrates falsehoods.</p>

<p>Jeff<br>

Are you normally this unpleasant to folk on this forum? Or are you just having a bad day? Your response to Ann was bordering on insulting. Putting that aside, the Facebook TOS are still not clear and are couched in a way that most would reasonably assume that they can license any images uploaded to the site. Many pro photographers I know will not post their work on FB because basically they don't trust them. </p>

<p>Just more raping and pillaging, starting with Getty sucking off the entire Flickr image library and choosing what they wanted. Then it was Google snaffling any images they come across in using their search engine.<br>

THEN Facebook does a google and snaffles all members images and starts their own image library.</p>

<p>The end game is no money for photographers using social media. If you've got some nice, marketable images, watermark and password protect them and approach some ethical stock photo outfit or agency that respects you IP.</p>

Getty did not suck off the *entire* Flickr image library for there are people, myself included, who (had) opted out of rights free image licensing (long ago).

<p>I don't understand, did these photographers give permission for Getty to license their images in this way or did they not? If they didn't, they can sue. If they did give permission then surely this is included in what they signed up for?</p>

<p>Is the issue that Getty made an implicit promise not to license photographs for royalty-free use, and now they have broken that promise? Professionals ought to know that if it's not written down in the contract, it's not worth very much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand, did these photographers give permission for Getty to license their images in this way or did they not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the best balanced summary of the situation I've read:<br>

<a href="http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/">http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Facebook TOS are still not clear and are couched in a way that most would reasonably assume that they can license any images uploaded to the site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Facebook TOS are very clear:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your <a href="http://www.facebook.com/privacy/">privacy</a> and <a href="http://www.facebook.com/editapps.php">application settings</a>: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The key is the last line. There is no way Facebook can sell images to another entity and then turn off usage of a third party arbitrarily. Most sites have terms like this because it allows them to show their pages on the internet.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many pro photographers I know will not post their work on FB because basically they don't trust them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The pros I know post on Facebook, watermarked. Not posting on Facebook doesn't help. I license images. Clients post them on their websites. They get lifted from there. One image has been posted hundreds of times. At least the ones I post on FB are watermarked. They help me market.</p>

<p>Google's primary income is from ads piggybacking their search engine: A deal with Getty for images is secondary to their current efforts to improve search features & present more precise searches, including advisory answers similar but better than Siri as seen in android release 4.1.</p>

<p>I'm surprised this news hasn't gained more traction. It's a real slap in the face to photographers who are contributers and receive royalties from them. Some of you are getting off topic by bringing up Facebook into this thread... we're talking about Google and their free pass to basically use any image they want.</p>

<p>Jeff wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Access. Little else matters now. I have shots that you can't find on google because there was no access for most people and I control the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bingo, this is how it is done and will be done in the future paired with innovative marketing and totally underground vaults of *unique* stock.</p>

<p>Sheila, actually a lot of the truly big names who are doing well with stock are not in these greed ball agencies, they are like me and do it on their own, still do well enough to keep at it too. I keep it all below the radar and keep total control of the images and still make a great income off of stock, have a niche that is not easy to compete in.</p>

<p>What you are seeing Sheila is iStock / Getty contributor born hubris and lack of business acumen coming to a nasty head...and worst of all, you were all warned by people who simply knew better. How could you ever expect anything but a big company like Getty to take total control of your IP when the fruit was ripe? And what ripe means is when legions of DSLR toting amateurs and desperate so called pros lined up by the tens of thousands to flood these agencies with images to the point that all of it devalued it self in a matter of several years.</p>

<p>Now....watch as the "dreamstime" of microstock all comes crashing down...hard:<br /> http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613<br /> http://kga.me/gds/<br /> http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-(deactivation-day)-on-istock-feb-2/</p>

<p>Ken B wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is the best balanced summary of the situation I've read:<br /><a href="http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Disagree, post number 322 on this link has quoted what I feel is by far the best summation of the situation:<br>

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/d-day-(deactivation-day)-on-istock-feb-2/300/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bingo, this is how it is done and will be done in the future paired with innovative marketing and totally underground vaults of *unique* stock.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>This is the fundamental problem for "traditional" stock images, the photographers that take them and the agencies that sell them. I disagree with Daniel on the agencies, I think Getty is just doing what they can to stay afloat in a world that is passing them by.</p>

<br /><br />

<p>Without access, what used to constitute stock can now be found on flickr and on the microstock sites. It's not that hard to find 20,000 great sunset shots now that anyone can put their photos on the web. It's not that hard to find 5,000 "lifestyle" shots, now that anyone can put their photos on the web. In the "good old days," stock agencies dealt directly with photographers and needed reliable ones that delivered significant quantities of images. That's not the case with easy uploading of photos to microstock agencies and even to Getty. If you are a decent amateur photographer, you can upload 100 stock-worthy photos and make some spare change.</p>

 

 

<p>Bemoaning this situation is pointless. The world has changed. You can't make money typing college term papers anymore either, no matter how fast you can type. Photographers have to adapt or change to other businesses.</p>

 

 

<p>I have built up the largest collection of high quality US muay thai fights. I got them because I work with press access or I don't bother. Everything shot from ringside. The number of people who have had that access across the number of fights I've shot is pretty small and a lot of them don't own all their shots. The market is down a little bit because of the shift in one direction to MMA and in the other to traditional boxing. I can't sit on what I've got and watch sales dwindle, so I'm working on the boxing side now. </p>

 

 

<p>What happens from having that library is that anyone who is going to publish can find me. It's my own network, not Getty's, and I get 100% most of the time. I have someone who gets a percentage for finding sales. It's totally under my control. The only problem I have is that they get lifted from client sites and the most egregious usage has not been easy to chase. FWIW, I also have a large quantity of traditional banked track roller derby shots, which also require access, but the demand is much lower.</p>

 

 

<p>All the complaining about the stock agencies, Facebook, Instagram, etc., hasn't improved the market at all. It simply makes a lot of photographers look like whiners. Photographers that move on will do well, complainers won't.</p>

<p>I think this all boils down to the continued devaluing of images, which started back when pricing shifted from value based on use to value based on file size. From that point on, and compounded by the glut of supply, price point became the main competition point in business, and the pricing bar for the value of photography began to fall. <br /><br />As I stated on another thread in cyberspace, for the photographers that fed the gorilla (Getty / istock) and continued to contribute and sign away their own value for a smaller and smaller bite of the apple, many established photographers warned that you were greasing the slope on a ride to the bottom.<br /><br />To now hear those who had been warned about how they were lowering the bar now complaining when the bar hits them in the head is a bit hollow and ironic, IMO. When your commodity has been so devalued that companies feel compelled to give your work away to stay afloat (which I think is an incorrect analogy) - why be upset when those companies toss out free bird seed to attract more pigeons?<br>

<br />I've seen this many times before, where cries of "we should just pull our images" have been met with a wall of wind, only to fade into the past with no action or result. Photographers as a species have long ignored what is in their best interest, so I have no doubt such rallying cries will again be met by deaf ears and all but a few brave souls taking action, knowing they may make less money, but will sleep better knowing they've stopped feeding the gorilla, and in turn seek other areas to market their images, and take back their promised bites at the apple. I hope everyone pulls out of Getty, cuz without content, they have nothing to sell, and zero market dominance as they march all over the backs of those who've fed them all these many years.<br /><br />Submitted respectfully, and IMHO; with 20+ years in the business, including managing a niche stock agency for nearly a decade of those years.</p>

<p>The problems with Getty have nothing to do with the microstock business being unsustainable. Revisiting the tired arguments about micro-versus-macro is irrelevant to the current discussion.<br>

Getty thinks it can get away with a rights grab - going beyond what their artist supply agreement permits to appoint sub-sub distributors to give away commercial images. Why Getty decided to do this is guesswork for those of us on the outside, but they have included items from their own high priced collections (such as The Agency Collection) in the giveaway. <br>

Clearly there are some who are just delighted to see microstock contributors "get what they deserve" but if you can't see beyond those blinkers to understand what's underway here, and how it will damage your ability to make a living from licensing images, I guess you won't be joining the fray to try and stop Getty from stomping all over its contributors.</p>

Jo Ann, please re- read what Gary wrote above, he is spot on. How is the now very low paid amateur level istock

camera owner leaving Getty any different than my rejecting offers to join them in 2002, 2003 and 2005?

 

I was simply not ok with the split, so I told them hell no. Now iStockers and Flickr-snappers are not ok with having their

images given away, same concept of "Not OK" but because some us still very successful pros have long since adapted and

innovated with niche content and brilliant underground business models that clients really like, we are supposed to join a voice of complaint from the very same people who told us "tough luck" when they

sold out to micro-crap and devalued agency based stock sales for everyone?

 

Not a chance, microstockers, you made YOUR bed, now sleep in it as we continue to stay well clear of it and earn a real living in

photography.