Google Drive Update + Jan 23

Displaying 221 to 240 of 748 matches.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:47AM


Posted By Tommounsey:

At least this made me laugh ' since some arse announced that money won't make us happy'. I wonder if the 'arse' saw it the same way smile


But this 'Just checked my December Getty statement and see another (3rd?) round of licenses to Google Drive occurred last month.' took the smile off my face straight away, you just could not make this up. It's like they are deliberatly trying to force their exclusives to leave!!!!


Well things literally went south for him fairly soon after... maybe they reckon there is no longer any advantage to them from the exclusivity program and that people want cheap (or free) content, not higher priced content.


There was in interesting contradiction on the slider thread where TPTB said in one and the same breath that their stats show that people want higher priced contact so it is attracting buyers, but there isn't much high priced content so they need some more in order to attract buyers. .... well that was what the comment seemed to mean. Presumably, not enough wholly-owned Getty stuff over here.
SemmickPhotoCLOSED
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:42AM
Posted By IvanJekic:
^^ Don't let that fool you, PR staff always want you to believe their version of "truth", no matter what they're selling. You seriously didn't expect for Getty to say "it was a mistake, sorry" did you?


Those 12$ were just a blatant excuse to use those images and be on the "legal" side. The truth is, stock images don't have minimal value set and everything that is being paid can be considered legal. Getty is the one that sets prices and they can do whatever they want for certain "customers". They made big money with Google by just deceiving the creators of the images and laughing in their face with 12$. Let alone the deal they made for themselves that we don't even know anything about.

Bravo for the British Journal! Small step towards light at these dark times.

(Edited on 2013-01-19 04:18:21 by IvanJekic)

I am not fooled at all. Dont worry about that   
HeliRy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:45AM
Posted By Tommounsey:
It's like they are deliberatly trying to force their exclusives to leave!!!!



It's been postulated by many over the last year or more... IS want the crowns back. And it makes sense if Getty wants to see a rapid increase in profits in short order.

Think about it. If many of iStock's biggest hitters dropped their crowns, IS would see profits from those contributor's work double as royalties are cut in half. Yes their content would be pulled from Vetta and E+, but at a lower price point it would be flying off the shelves as we hear time after time buyers being frustrated with higher prices. Now suddenly the content they wanted but couldn't afford is on the cheap. I would bet that the increased traffic and downloads would quickly match and then surpass the revenue to IS that this content was bringing in under a crown.

I feel Getty is painting us into a very ugly corner. We all deserve better than this.
rimglow
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:45AM
I've just deactivated half of my portfolio. Will deactivate all the rest by the end of the day. Reason: "I can not risk that you might sell this photo to Google."


I am sure that a lot of copyright lawyers are lining up to sue over this deal. Hopefully they will at least stop any further sales to Google, or any other company that intends to give away our photos for free.


I hope to add my portfolio back to the iStock collection, once I am reassured that hi-res versions of my photos are no longer in danger of being plastered all over the internet for free.

(Edited on 2013-01-19 07:03:14 by rimglow)
Imgorthand
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:55AM
My advice is to cancel this deal before the 2nd Feb. And never do such nonsense again.
PaulCowan
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:01AM
Posted By HeliRy:

Posted By Tommounsey:

It's like they are deliberatly trying to force their exclusives to leave!!!!





It's been postulated by many over the last year or more... IS want the crowns back. And it makes sense if Getty wants to see a rapid increase in profits in short order.

Think about it. If many of iStock's biggest hitters dropped their crowns, IS would see profits from those contributor's work double as royalties are cut in half. Yes their content would be pulled from Vetta and E+, but at a lower price point it would be flying off the shelves as we hear time after time buyers being frustrated with higher prices. Now suddenly the content they wanted but couldn't afford is on the cheap. I would bet that the increased traffic and downloads would quickly match and then surpass the revenue to IS that this content was bringing in under a crown.

I feel Getty is painting us into a very ugly corner. We all deserve better than this.


Unfortunately, it is no longer flying off the shelves at independent prices and hasn't done so for quite a long time. But, yeah, they might want all the higher price slots for Getty's own images and to push the exclusives back down among the masses.


It's also possible that they think the buyers will spend the same amount and just buy more if they're not buying exclusive files, so it's better for iS to pay 16% or so in commissions all round rather than 25% or 30%
secablue
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contest
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:31AM

Just to clarify... All my E+ images here at IS are slowly being mirrored on Getty - I know I have quite a few there already.   However, when I have come to select any of my images indvidually for the PP, I have never put any E+ files into the PP.


So my best work is not available on Thinkstock and was not available during the GoogleDrive selection ... but since it is available on Getty, does this give Getty the right to do what they like with those images too?   How are those sales on Getty from E+ images accounted for through IS?  i.e. does it show as a PP payment or an IS sale?


At this stage I can't see any of my images being purchased/used by GoogleDrive, but I definitely want to make sure none in the future end up there.
InkkStudios
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:33AM

Did I just see new files added to the Google Drive...Someone please tell me I didn't see that.


 


 
InkkStudios
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:34AM
Posted By ytwong:
I just checked my Getty statement and found a transaction with "google drive". It was in the Photographer's Choice collection, good that I was using free slots. They wanted to charge us $50 for each files (if I wasn't using the free slot) ... charge us $50, give me back $12 and then the files will be free for everyone. WTF.


The only "good" thing (out of the bad situation) is that that image was a generic one, not a model shot (I never bother to do take people's photo and sell for cheap), not a high production value one nor a travel image that I took after travelled thousands miles and spent thousands of dollars on the trip.


 


Really disappointed that they would make a "deal" that allows uncontrolled, unlimited redistribution for free

(Edited on 2013-01-19 04:14:30 by ytwong)

Print and keep that document.   We will need that soon.
imgendesign
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:37AM
I'll have to agree with Mirkic on every point. I would feel naive to believe this is simply a bad deal done by istock. This is only a bad deal for the contributors they took the pictures from. I refuse to believe google only paid $12 for each image and that was it. Somebody got a lot of money for this deal from google and is obviously not sharing it with the contributors.
Gizmo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:38AM
Posted By HeliRy:
 Think about it. If many of iStock's biggest hitters dropped their crowns, IS would see profits from those contributor's work double as royalties are cut in half. 



I beleive many exclusives will pull all of their photos from IS if they are forced to drop exclusivity and get only 15-20% for their work.



Posted By imgendesign:
I refuse to believe google only paid $12 for each image and that was it. Somebody got a lot of money for this deal from google and is obviously not sharing it with the contributors.

Many IS steps in last few years were very suspicious starting with lot of credit frauds and lot of refunds.

(Edited on 2013-01-19 07:47:00 by Gizmo)
Feverstockphoto
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:53AM
Posted By secablue:

  but since it is available on Getty, does this give Getty the right to do what they like with those images too?  


Do they have the right is neither here nor there. What could they do and what they will do is anybody's guess, especially considering what they have already done. You could ask them direct but most likey they will say we have no plans for this or that at the moment..... Good luck!

(Edited on 2013-01-19 08:17:04 by Feverstockphoto)
cmannphoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:55AM
Posted By HeliRy:

Think about it. If many of iStock's biggest hitters dropped their crowns, IS would see profits from those contributor's work double as royalties are cut in half.


If you really think about it Getty/iStock would take a cut as well because the former Exclusive files with sell for less credits and $$$, about half, then they do as Exclusive. So HQ will feel it in their pockets too.


 

(Edited on 2013-01-19 07:56:45 by cmannphoto)
nkbimages
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:57AM

I don't really think we are going to see any change in the google agreement or future agreements. Caryle group is only going to be worried about short term gains and cash flow.  They won't care at all if their actions are affecting the future of istock or the future of microstock. They will have sold off Getty long before the profits fall dramatically.


If we all deactivate our files they will import more Getty files.  If we drop our crowns and don't leave they will get amazing, beautiful Vetta images to sell on Thinkstock (which was included in the Google drive deal). 


 
acrylik
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:04AM

TRO - Temporary Restraining Order.


 


Somebody there in the US can file a TRO against this deal.
NicolasMcComber
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveMember has had a File Of The Week.
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:54AM
Google is not reselling our images... They're just making them available (distributing them) for free to their millions of users for commercial use  as long as they use their software to build their documents. That's what's different. Previously, third parties didn't have the right to duplicate and distribute the images on the web by simply buying a custom license for each image... let alone for commercial purposes, which really threatens the market.
TheRealDarla
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:07AM
I guess I'm going to have to go back to selling art in the galleries.  *sigh*  Stock was fun while it lasted.
Cybernesco
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:12AM
Posted By NicolasMcComber:
Google is not reselling our images... They're just making them available (distributing them) for free to their millions of users for commercial use  as long as they use their software to build their documents. That's what's different. Previously, third parties didn't have the right to duplicate and distribute the images on the web by simply buying a custom license for each image... let alone for commercial purposes, which really threatens the market.





In this context, although they are being distributed for free, those images are adding perpetual value to google just like if they were selling them. A Google user don't need to spend money on their stuff (such as google translate, maps, calendar ect. ) to be worthy as advertizers will pay them so much per so many users. Therefore, just the fact that google users are coming back, because of these images, is sufficient payment for such a powerhouse as Google. Only mammoth internet companies such as google, facebook, microsoft ect.. can be huge enough with so many millions users, to afford such a scheme and still make money. 


As well if these images are used for commercial purposes, can the Google drive document be printed out on nice photo papers and resold? 




(Edited on 2013-01-19 09:17:02 by Cybernesco)

(Edited on 2013-01-19 09:22:45 by Cybernesco)

(Edited on 2013-01-19 09:33:25 by Cybernesco)
creacart
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 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a File Of The Week.
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:08PM
Craig Peters Senior Vice President of Business Development at Getty Images Presentation,

http://www.photoshelter.com/luminance/videos/peters

the drive deal seems to contradict the things he's saying.
IvanJekic
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:22PM
"I've heard it from Paul the lawyer who read it from..." won't do a $h!t about this situation. I'm sure that Getty & Google lawyers covered all holes and used all vulnerabilities they could to make this "legal".

What we need is the media exposure and someone powerful enough (copyright violations agency?) to investigate this further.

Posted By SemmickPhoto:

I am not fooled at all. Dont worry about that smile  


Good stuff! Thanks.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 221 to 240 of 748 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)