Google Drive + Update

First pagePrevious pageof 33Next page
Displaying 21 to 40 of 657 matches.
matthewleesdixon
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:50PM
Posted By mr_erin:

Google’s license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights. We have specifically given them the right to enable that content to be used by their end users within the confines of the Google programs. They have a bespoke EULA.

So does this mean our content can be sold for 'unlimited distribution' with any new licence Getty care to invent outside of the standard 'Royalty Free' licence without consultation? I was under the impression I owned the copyright of the images I produced and funded.
Box5
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:51PM
Posted By mr_erin:


A few facts:


  • This is a license deal arranged with Google through Getty Images, this is not a promotional arrangement like the 2007 MS deal also being discussed here recently.





This is a redistribution scheme, not a license deal! Contributors were not even paid an extended license for this and our content is being redistributed by the worlds largest internet company in exchange for $12. THIS DEAL SUCKS AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF SELLING US OUT LIKE THIS!

(Edited on 2013-01-11 17:59:45 by Box5)
dcdp
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:51PM

That explanation makes things worse than first thought. Someone genuinely thought that a license deal which allowed free distribution of an image was only worth $12 to the contributor. Are you kidding me? $12? For a Vetta and Agency file? Are you kidding me? This license is significantly more lenient than any EULA available on iStock and you allowed it to be sold for $60 per image? This is a new level of incompetence even for the folk who run this place. An EL for a Vetta image is over $250 and the contributor gets up to 45% of that and this license is less restrictive than an EL license. We are talking millions of potential legitimate uses, forgetting about ones outside of the EULA which will be higher and you gave it away for $60.


The only things this will do is sink stock imagery. Microstock, macrostock, the whole box and dice. This is worse than the Microsoft deal. How can you actually think for a second this is okay? You have effectly sold the distribution rights to our images and we have earned $12 for the pleasure.


In the words of the man with the worst hair in show business, "You're fired!".
ranplett
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:52PM

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.



Not ideal from whose perspective? Freeloaders, sure. But I can't think of anyone else that would have a problem with fully intact metadata regarding copyright / contact info. This is such a bizarre statement that seems to set a pretty bad precedent.

Also, if attribution is not required, why is it only somewhat there? Sounds more like a technical blunder than anything. 
RyersonClark
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:54PM

Discusted.


 
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:55PM

Posted By mr_erin:
  • Royalties for these images were paid through Getty Images and were processed in October and November of 2012.
    Of images licensed, just under 700 are from a group of about 490 iStock contributors.
  • Just under 100 of those contributors have multiple files within the pool, the rest have a single file.



The "royalties" of $12 (or $6) paid to the contributor allowing unlimited, unfettered, perpetual, commercial usage for an infinite number of users is laughable, and, I would say, abusive.

Is the iStockphoto ASA unconscionable in this regard?
Unconscionability refers to a situation where contract provisions are so one-sided that they are deemed unenforceable. The principle is one of preventing oppression and unfair surprise. Unconscionability has both a substantive and a procedural component.


The number of iStock contributors involved at this time is a non-issue. All realize now that they are subject to the same abusive agreement. As well, external Getty contributors are discovering this scheme.
alexskopje
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:57PM
Thanks God I'm non exclusive. This ship will not sail for a long.

(Edited on 2013-01-11 17:58:20 by alexskopje)
matthewleesdixon
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:59PM
Posted By alexskopje:
Thanks god I'm non exclusive. This ship will not sail for a long.

This distribution deal affects non-exclusives as well, you are not immune.
martinedoucet
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:00PM
There are so many images coming from archives that shows up in BM... Why not give those to deals like that? Why involve us that are trying to make a living out of hard work? I so don't understand the way things are right now...
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:00PM

Posted By mr_erin:
Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume.


Important partner as far as us advertising on Google, yes.

Them scheming a backdoor deal for unlimited content for their freeloading users, not so much.

When there is an "innovative" deal that properly values our content, and is properly licensed, attributed and monitored, let me know. As this stands, I don't want my content any part of it.
CraigRJD
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:00PM

Sean, thanks again for the lead you have taken on this issue.


The fact that you could download all 6000+ images within a short period of learning about this perfectly highlights the issues ...
matthewleesdixon
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:03PM
I want out of this deal, I would like some longevity to my work.
michaeldb
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:04PM
Posted By alexskopje:
Thanks God I'm non exclusive. This ship will not sail for a long.

(Edited on 2013-01-11 17:58:20 by alexskopje)

You may be right. I think I hear the pitter-patter of tiny rat feet as they head for the dim light of the EXIT sign.

'There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement...' mr_erin
Somogyvari
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:05PM

Ok, GREAT DEAL (ridiculous, how stupid you think we are!!!)


I want opt-out from this great business, and opt out my excisting 3 photos on Google sht*!!!
travelif
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:08PM
Posted By sjlocke:

When there is an "innovative" deal that properly values our content, and is properly licensed, attributed and monitored, let me know. As this stands, I don't want my content any part of it.

For the record - I do NOT want to be part of this deal with Google either!
alexskopje
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:09PM
Posted By matthewleesdixon:

Posted By alexskopje:
Thanks god I'm non exclusive. This ship will not sail for a long.


This distribution deal affects non-exclusives as well, you are not immune.

Exactly! I already have 2 images on Google drive for free.
Fertnig
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:09PM
HQ, please allow me to opt out this deal.
jentakespictures
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:12PM
Posted By mr_erin:

License information:

Google licensed these images for use by Google users through the Google Drive platform; Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations, which end uses can be for commercial purposes.
Users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside the context of Google Drive created content.
No rights are granted to Google users to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they’re used.
Google’s license rights are not the same as the standard RF license rights. We have specifically given them the right to enable that content to be used by their end users within the confines of the Google programs. They have a bespoke EULA.

Do you think it is okay for Getty to take our content, sell it once, and allow the buyer to sublicense our content for free to anyone with a free Google Drive account?  Do you think that falls under the spirit of our ASA?

How do we opt out of giving away our most expensive content for free to millions of people?  Is our only option to drop exclusivity so none of our content ends up on Getty?

(Edited on 2013-01-11 18:14:05 by jentakespictures)
karenhermannCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:13PM
Posted By Fertnig:
HQ, please allow me to opt out this deal.



Opt out hell -- I'm pulling all files.  Why wait around for the next one (which may have already taken place, but we don't yet know about it?).  Broken site, continuously broken;  huge infusions of Getty agency content that get special treatment;  refunds that we cannot know the details about, and are just supposed to "TRUST" that they're legitimate;  and one contributor-screwing scheme after another.  You really think by opting out your work is safe here?  I don't.  

I'm out of here, I've got nothing but disgust for this all.  Thanks for totally screwing up a good thing, Getty!  

(Edited on 2013-01-11 18:14:53 by karenhermann)
alexskopje
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:13PM
Posted By Fertnig:
HQ, please allow me to opt out this deal.

Please is not enough. You'll have to pay for that.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 33Next page
Displaying 21 to 40 of 657 matches.
Not a member?Join