Search for stock photos, illustrations, video, audio and editorial photos
All FilesAll Files Posted Tue Jan 15 1:07PM | Posted By cr8tivguy: Posted By casenbina: Lobo, how hard is it for someone from HQ to stop by a couple times a day for an update? We don't need concrete answers all the time. We don't even need to know what's going on behind the curtain. We just need to know these concerns are being addressed one way or another. Your update here didn't really say anything, but who cares--it probably did more to alleviate a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth that has gone on over the past few days than you realize. Because they have to check with their Lawyer before they say anything. One wrong word, and they could be held accountable in a court of law. That's why, we don't hear much in these forums. Even "We're waiting for our lawyers to finish playing golf with Google's lawyers so they can tell us what we can say..." would be helpful. |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 1:16PM | Posted By PaulCowan: Read the model release form: "for valuable consideration received" it says (or something like that) which means you pay the model a dollar or give her a CD. A payment of $12 is a "valuable consideration received" by the photographer. Maybe the value ain't that much, but the photographer is still a "beneficiary". Thus they can say with a (more or less) straight face and no legal comeback that everybody involved in this deal has benefited.... Maybe some more than others, of course. However, it isn't really the same. The artists and model negotiate to a point where what each receives is valuable to them. A cd of images could be priceless if new head shots are needed. In this agreement, I would venture most do not associate $12 as being valuable consideration for the right to perpetually distribute intellectual property. |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 1:36PM | Posted By lisathephotographer: Posted By 2ndLookGraphics: WOW!! This means that any photos we have opted in to sell for pennies in the partner program can now be hijacked and used for free! Is there a way to drop the partner program all at once? Or do we have to go through and uncheck all one at a time? If i'm right, go to My Account - Preferences- My Uploads - Manage Collections and opt out (Edited on 2013-01-15 10:11:51 by lisathephotographer) Done-- Thanks Lisa |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 1:41PM | Posted By 2ndLookGraphics: Posted By lisathephotographer: Posted By 2ndLookGraphics: WOW!! This means that any photos we have opted in to sell for pennies in the partner program can now be hijacked and used for free! Is there a way to drop the partner program all at once? Or do we have to go through and uncheck all one at a time? If i'm right, go to My Account - Preferences- My Uploads - Manage Collections and opt out (Edited on 2013-01-15 10:11:51 by lisathephotographer) Done-- Thanks Lisa Unless I'm missing something, it looks like this might only be available to exclusives - I can't find that option on my account. |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 1:42PM | You can't opt out of the PP unless you are exclusive. |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 1:43PM | New avatar opt-out. Everyone feel free to change your avatar and use this one if you agree with it.  Edited to say that the image has been donated for this purpose, so use away  .(Edited on 2013-01-15 13:51:01 by Feverstockphoto) |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 1:48PM | Good idea. done! |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 2:12PM | Posted By sjlocke: In this agreement, I would venture most do not associate $12 as being valuable consideration for the right to perpetually distribute intellectual property. No. Especially when lesser licenses cost considerably more. It stinks of, "What's the smallest amount we can give to avoid getting sued?" Actually, the whole deal reeks of this. Again, though, I'd be interested if it's not also unconscionable, or even misrepresentation (See: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html). One of my clients (who I used to buy images for from here, as a matter of fact) is an intellectual property attorney. Maybe he can give me an idea whether this is legit. Think he still owes me for some design work. |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 3:59PM | Posted By Feverstockphoto: New avatar opt-out. Everyone feel free to change your avatar and use this one if you agree with it. Edited to say that the image has been donated for this purpose, so use away .(Edited on 2013-01-15 13:51:01 by Feverstockphoto) Thank you! |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 4:00PM | Posted By cr8tivguy: Posted By casenbina: Lobo, how hard is it for someone from HQ to stop by a couple times a day for an update? We don't need concrete answers all the time. We don't even need to know what's going on behind the curtain. We just need to know these concerns are being addressed one way or another. Your update here didn't really say anything, but who cares--it probably did more to alleviate a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth that has gone on over the past few days than you realize. Because they have to check with their Lawyer before they say anything. One wrong word, and they could be held accountable in a court of law. That's why, we don't hear much in these forums. Thats most likely whats going on. I dont know if they have any spindoctors on payroll, but surely a few of them were called upon. |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 4:08PM | Time for me to find an alternative search engine to Google. It's the default home page on all four of the PC's I use on a regular basis but I'm done with Google so if anyone knows of search engine that works ok, I'm all ears |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 4:22PM | ^ really?....I think understanding the scope of the issue is in order, because villifying everyone involved just obscures what's actually important. Google aren't the bad guys...they made a deal, paid for images and were given rights to those images they shouldn't have been given. Getty took liberty with the ASA and the rights they are granted as our distributor by effectively taking a bird-in-the-hand deal. that deal has dangerous licensing and usage implications and leaves our work unprotected. the precedent that we contributors need to set is communicating with action that this type of dealing in our images is not acceptable now or in future before it runs amuck and destroys our marketplace. (Edited on 2013-01-15 16:24:12 by stacey_newman) |
Posted Tue Jan 15 4:36PM | @stacey_newman: " ^ really?....I think understanding the scope of the issue is in order, because villifying everyone involved just obscures what's actually important." yes, good for you, totally agree! Regards |
Posted Tue Jan 15 4:37PM | I think I understand that this is American capitalism 'raw in blood and tooth' very well. They know perfectly well they are screwing us over and I've already started the long process of deleting my 'people' images here and looking into other revenue streams to compensate. I know many will say 'your jumping the gun' but the gun went off here years ago it's just a shame so many contributors didn't hear it. |
Posted Tue Jan 15 4:55PM | i just got an email from a good friend of mine who is a getty shooter. i loved what he had to say about this that i need to quote him. btw he is equally pissed at getty doing this as we are as he can also see it affects all of us. "wow, it just keeps getting better and better every day..... another few million dollars of licensing fees wiped out every year... and showing the public that pictures should be free...." |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 4:55PM | Posted By sjlocke: Posted By PaulCowan: Read the model release form: "for valuable consideration received" it says (or something like that) which means you pay the model a dollar or give her a CD. A payment of $12 is a "valuable consideration received" by the photographer. Maybe the value ain't that much, but the photographer is still a "beneficiary". Thus they can say with a (more or less) straight face and no legal comeback that everybody involved in this deal has benefited.... Maybe some more than others, of course. However, it isn't really the same. The artists and model negotiate to a point where what each receives is valuable to them. A cd of images could be priceless if new head shots are needed. In this agreement, I would venture most do not associate $12 as being valuable consideration for the right to perpetually distribute intellectual property. Absolutely agree that $12 is a ridiculous amount to pay for a licence to perpetually distribute intellectual property. However, I would like to ask if maybe I missed something in this convoluted discussion, has there been any mention of time limitation for these licences? |
 Posted Tue Jan 15 5:42PM |
Cart