Getty's scandalous deal with Google

[denis_pepin]

<p>Daniel and Gary, It is no just a matter of our images being given away. This is a matter of not having given permission to have our images stripped of its identity and re-distributed for free to the mass by such powerhouse as Google. We trusted Getty to act on our behalf to sell licenses of our work at mutually agreed prices, license types and commission rates. However, shockingly, it was discovered that Getty and Google had entered into a secret agreement to have over 6,000 images re-distributed for free under the Google Drive initiative. After this was discovered, members found out that they were only paid $6. and some others $12. for that one time deal.<br>

Images that would bring many dollars a month from typical RF licensing will suddenly become worthless because obviously nobody will pay to license an image if they can get it for free.<br>

The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital camera and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images was growing exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand. If there is more supply then demand than yes price fall. <br>

The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.</p>

[sheila]

<p>Daniel<br>

<br />"Flickr snappers" as you so quaintly call them are not microstockers. The very last image I sold (via Flickr/Getty) before quitting Getty in July was licensed for US$1,650 which is hardly "microstock" pricing. It was RM (as were about 30% of my Getty Images) but I quit because I was never happy with the exclusivity, the appalling commission rate and the lack of choice of model - RF or RM. I dislike microstock intensely as I still feel that this was the cause of the drastic slide downhill and devaluation of ALL photographer's images. As we have stated over and over again on this thread, this is NOT just a microstock issue. Its an issue that affects all photographers who license their work online. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> Its an issue that affects all photographers who license their work online</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's not true. Those of us who have chosen to do our own licensing are doing just fine. As Daniel points out, "niche content and brilliant underground business models that clients really like" are alive and not too difficult.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>We trusted Getty to act on our behalf to sell licenses of our work at mutually agreed prices, license types and commission rates.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you made a mistake, did not listen to the warning signs, the red flags the size of oceans..<br>

<br /> As terms and cuts worsened in 2004-2006 and top content creators started to leave, Getty knew that millions of amateur photographers were about to destroy the typical agency based stock model, so they did what any company in this situation would do and bought time in the form of iStock and Flickr as these images headed at a blinding rate to where they would have ended up anyway….</p>

<p>Free....<br /> <br /> They also knew that a good bit of high end work would be taken by niche pros who would take full advantage of technology and do it all on their own, setting trends, not following them, in effect eliminating the middle man. <br /> So in less than three years, there will literally be nothing left of traditional agency based stock and only a little slice of good rights managed stock sales to be had. Those of us who have adapted see the way forward, the one the average Microstocker was too ego-fed to see. No, what Getty is doing is not good, right or nice, but it is business…one that Microstockers signed up for willingly, knowing full well what was in store in a quickly dying business model.<br /> <br /> Why did they not ask you or tell you about the Google deal before unloading what is now 12,003 free images?<br /> I have no idea, maybe it is like insider trading when someone dumps a stock that is about to become worthless….it's business and not all business is nice.<br>

Agency based, in-the-public for all the world to see based stock sales is dead and buried. What remains is niche work with niche approaches to marketing...people always demand what has not yet been supplied.</p>

[denis_pepin]

<p>Dan said<br>

<em>where they would have ended up anyway….</em><br /><em> Free....</em></p>

<p>Tell me.. why a business should be allow to make illegal maneuvering to render something worthless just because they think this is what it should be worth? Why not let it end up where it will end up and drop the arrogance and dictatorship on the side?</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Denis, what you describe is a rat, plain and simple. Some us smelled the rat early on, many did not and now face the kind of head scratching decisions of corruption that would make anyone run for cover. </p>

<p>All I know is that hundreds of thousands of people were wiling to flood the world of photography with low cost if not free images to feed a web born ego-frenzy. It does not make what Getty did right or good, but they are not stupid and most likely hired great lawyers in order to solidify this "Hotile-Takeover more than a year ago. This is a company that does it's homework, many of the contributors did not and got bit.</p>

<p>3-5 years ago when iStock and eventually Flickr / Getty got started, all I practically heard from those who could not wait to team with Getty was "It's up for grabs, Adapt or Die Man!"</p>

<p>I highly suggest you do the same....</p>

[ian_campbell1]

<p>Being a photographer in the Seventies and Eighties was fun, but from the Nineties on it started to really suck, and in the 2010s, it really just bites. It's part the fault of consolidation, but its also the fault of our own actions. We shot ourselves in the foot at the same time as everyone else was shooting at our butts!</p>

[geof_kirby1]

<p>Getty has slowly grown into one of the more unethical organisations around and I'm surprised that anyone would still want to be associated with it. I guess it must be just for the money but since that source of income has been put into serious jeopardy some might wish to reconsider.<br>

The banning of Sean Locke from iStockphoto is but one aspect of a massive bullying juggernaut. I've just been reading up on the Atradius story (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/the-atradius-letter-various-thoughts/?prev_next=prev#new). This comes on top of the Marot Image story in Israel. Getty cares for neither its contributors nor anyone else in their sights.<br>

it's so sad that what could have been a great company is squandering an already tatty reputation on the altar of rampant capitalism.<br>

</p>

[geof_kirby1]

<p>Getty has slowly grown into one of the more unethical organisations around and I'm surprised that anyone would still want to be associated with it. I guess it must be just for the money but since that source of income has been put into serious jeopardy some might wish to reconsider.<br>

The banning of Sean Locke from iStockphoto is but one aspect of a massive bullying juggernaut. I've just been reading up on the Atradius story (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/the-atradius-letter-various-thoughts/?prev_next=prev#new). This comes on top of the Marot Image story in Israel. Getty cares for neither its contributors nor anyone else in their sights.<br>

it's so sad that what could have been a great company is squandering an already tatty reputation on the altar of rampant capitalism.<br>

</p>

[geof_kirby1]

<p>Getty has slowly grown into one of the more unethical organisations around and I'm surprised that anyone would still want to be associated with it. I guess it must be just for the money but since that source of income has been put into serious jeopardy some might wish to reconsider.<br>

The banning of Sean Locke from iStockphoto is but one aspect of a massive bullying juggernaut. I've just been reading up on the Atradius story (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/the-atradius-letter-various-thoughts/?prev_next=prev#new). This comes on top of the Marot Image story in Israel. Getty cares for neither its contributors nor anyone else in their sights.<br>

it's so sad that what could have been a great company is squandering an already tatty reputation on the altar of rampant capitalism.<br>

</p>

[geof_kirby1]

<p>Getty has slowly grown into one of the more unethical organisations around and I'm surprised that anyone would still want to be associated with it. I guess it must be just for the money but since that source of income has been put into serious jeopardy some might wish to reconsider.<br>

The banning of Sean Locke from iStockphoto is but one aspect of a massive bullying juggernaut. I've just been reading up on the Atradius story (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/the-atradius-letter-various-thoughts/?prev_next=prev#new). This comes on top of the Marot Image story in Israel. Getty cares for neither its contributors nor anyone else in their sights.<br>

it's so sad that what could have been a great company is squandering an already tatty reputation on the altar of rampant capitalism.<br>

</p>

[geof_kirby1]

<p>Many apologies for the multiple postings. There was a problem with the submit button. I can't find any way to delete the copies.</p>

[emilio_r1]

<p>It actually happened to me for pictures I sold and also, amazingly for picture I never sold.<br>

The first happened after I sold pictures through Alamy. The image was automatically fed by google from the client website to some third party websites who used my work for free ! <br>

The second case is even worse, I had some pictures that are only online at Agefotostock and I suddenly found these pictures on well known travel websites or newspapers while I never sold these pictures. When I contacted Age fotostock to ask them about it, they simply ignored my requests first, then as I insisted they were very rude and finally sent me packing saying they had nothing to do with it and would do nothing about it as it was my responsibility not theirs.<br>

At least Alamy is an honest agency compared to these people at Agefotostock.<br>

<br />As for Getty, I am not surprised, they behave like a monopoly, like google does. Google is well known for copyright violations, privacy rights violations, confidentiality violations. I do not use them anymore in any way since the CEO is clearly pursuing this type of policy to destroy rights that people have fought for centuries. <br>

I advice everybody to boycott the getty, agefotostock google and corbis of this world who are making money with your work and personal information. </p>

<p>It's not that difficult to sell directly. Try Symbiostock for example...</p>

<p> </p>