Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Getty makes 35 million photos free to use  (Read 1489 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3050


« on: March 06, 2014, 09:30:59 AM »
ReplyReply

"Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringement"  bjp-online

"Getty makes 35 million photos free to use" BBC News Entertainment & Arts


Quote
Share images on blogs and social media

Getty Images is leading the way in creating a more visual world. Our new embed feature makes it easy, legal, and free for anybody to share our images on websites, blogs, and social media platforms.

Follow these simple steps:

    1. Click an image's embed icon(</>) from the search results or image detail page.
    2. In the embed window, copy the embed code.
    3. Paste the HTML code you copied into the source code of a website or blog where you want this image to appear.*
    4. Publish and share!

« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 09:46:11 AM by Isaac » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2014, 09:41:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Getty are essentially giving up the fight against many copyright infringements by giving the images away free.

Hopefully those who supply the images will point the finger of copyright infringement at their masters.
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2014, 10:01:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Is that their whole collection or have they been selective? I just entered a couple of search terms and to be honest I was not over impressed by the standard of a lot of it. 
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2014, 10:03:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems to me that Jonathan Klein and Putin have a sense of semantics in common.

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3050


« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2014, 10:13:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Is that their whole collection or have they been selective?

"... Getty Images tells BJP that the Reportage and Contour collections will not be included."
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8291



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2014, 11:06:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems to me that Jonathan Klein and Putin have a sense of semantics in common.

Rob C
+1.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2014, 12:32:15 PM »
ReplyReply

"... Getty Images tells BJP that the Reportage and Contour collections will not be included."

Maybe they feel that they are not giving too much of value away.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3050


« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2014, 02:25:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The bjp-online story quotes Getty representatives saying how they feel Getty and content owners benefit ;-)
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2014, 02:31:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe they feel that they are not giving too much of value away.


You're right: my imagined stock pension was defenestrated well before that. In retrospect, just as well I was careful with investing much in it other than from offshoots from commissioned trips.

FWIW, I think the only way to be a successful pro snapper today is in a dedicated niche such as fashion, top sports reportage or art. Advertising is still too broad for any generalisation as the above, but I suppose that even there, only the guys doing the class work will make any money, whereas years ago it worked for some local chaps even in relatively small cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, even in the booming 80s some of the large Glasgow operations closed down. Their problem, from what I could work out, was that they didn't charge enough. I derive this feeling from client feedback, where I would often be told that Studios X, Y and Z were much cheaper than was I. I also suspect that working for myself, the chaps handing out work imagined that, unlike with a big studio, it all went into my back pocket. That my overheads were also proportionately just as high - if not more so, and that I never saw cash payments, just cheques that had to be banked, makes me wonder where they thought my hip pocket was actually located. But that's business life. And I'm told it's far worse today.

Rob C
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2014, 06:48:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's another idea on what it could all be about -

http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what/

From my reading of this what is being suggested is that should you use a Getty image then advertising related to that image will appear alongside it. The example he gives is if an image of a Volkswagen is embedded within a site or blog then advertising related to VW parts may appear next to it. Getty are just trying to develop new methods of monetising their stock. It's all rather creepy in a way because Getty will now garner a lot of info about who is viewing their images, maybe to such an extent that it becomes rather anti social to use them betray your viewers to the company without their knowledge. Well, it would be nice to think so.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 02:49:19 AM by Justinr » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2014, 05:31:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's another idea on what it could all be about -

http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what/

From my reading of this what is being suggested is that should you use a Getty image then advertising related to that image will appear alongside it. The example he gives is if an image of a Volkswagen is embedded within a site or blog then advertising related to VW parts may appear next to it. Getty are just trying to develop new methods of monetising their stock. It's all rather creepy in a way because Getty will now garner a lot of info about who is viewing their images, maybe to such an extent that it becomes rather anti social to use them betray your viewers to the company without their knowledge. Well, it would be nice to think so.


It used to be rather different, probably because stock was originally run by photographers or ex-photographers.

Tony Stone, whose library I was invited to join, was an ex-snapper who found marketing a better bet; The Image Bank was started by photographers, I think Art Kane was one of the founding fathers and FPG was much the same, hosting great image makers. Their catalogues were an inspiration. J.Allan Cash was a very early British stock pioneer. These guys were living the life and had business brains too, an unusual combination. Stone offered 50% deals. For a while he also ran personal photographer representation, as my old Index card sometimes ironically reminds me.

Stone sold to Getty for a reputed 30,000,000 quid. That was a lot of money in the day, still is!

With big money comes a different set of ethics. It's unavoidable. You can't get one without the other. We have to move on, even on to retirement, sometimes, when the music fades. Sometimes the music hasn't faded: we just got deaf. Who can judge?

Rob C
Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1921



« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2014, 09:05:26 AM »
ReplyReply

...Sometimes the music hasn't faded: we just got deaf. Who can judge?
Rob C

Yet another drop of pure wisdom from Rob C - truly!
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3050


« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2014, 10:42:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's another idea on what it could all be about

Thanks for posting that big-picture speculation.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3050


« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2014, 02:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
“Something like this was going to happen at some point. We’ve got YouTube and Vimeo, why did we think we’d be any different?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2014, 03:00:10 PM »
ReplyReply

These are 0.27MB images (594x465) with credits to the photographer and Getty Images displayed in the "embed player" as shown at
http://infocus.gettyimages.com/post/new-embed-lets-you-share-tens-of-millions-of-images#.Uyn3CdzN-2Q

I see a competition between:
- people settling for the free noncommercial of these low res. versions who previously would have paid for them,
and
- increased visibility and sales to people who see these credited low res. versions and follow up by buying a higher res. one, or buying for commercial usage.

Of course, some screen shots of those 0.27MP images will go around with the credits removed.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 03:03:49 PM by BJL » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad