Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

Google Drive Update + Jan 23

Displaying 41 to 60 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 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:58PM

So, after all this time you won't even:


1) State what the price per image was and what commission rate you paid.


2) Provide copyright owners with a copy of the contract you signed on their behalf


Both of which you could have done on the first day. The fact you don't want to do so is an information update of a kind in its own right.


I do note that you are not an "agent" you are a "distributor", which I would have thought precluded you from creating new terms on behalf of the people you are distributing for. so I would have though informing those who give you material to distribute of the full terms on which you are distributing it would be a requirement.
Imgorthand
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:59PM

And yes! Like many other I will concentrate on creating RM content for other agencies that actually care about the content.


And I'm going to participate in the D-Day initiative.


You know I've deactivated my 40 Vetta last lear when I learned how you interpret your permitted sensitive usages.
michaeljung
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:01AM
Posted By landbysea:
I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some  cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material  result  of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives.

(Edited on 2013-01-15 22:04:26 by landbysea)

well said, agreed 100%. 
whitemay
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:28AM
Posted By landbysea:
I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some  cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material  result  of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives.

(Edited on 2013-01-15 22:04:26 by landbysea)


This says it for me too.


I'd like to add that we have quite enough worries about the constant frauds and refunds without Getty/iStock adding to it with deals like this.
kickers
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 downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:12AM
In exactly which way is this an "update" if i may ask?
Lemme give you an idea of how an update on all this should look like:

"Lightbox with Goggle / MS files created"
"Here's the contract so the people whose pics are used can finally see what IS had decided for them"
"We will / won't have an opt-out feature next week"

To save time creating the next "update", feel free to chose from the phrases below (yes, no license needed!):

-working on it
-looking into it
-our people are doing their best to...
-appreciate your patience
-we understand / hear your concers about...

Can't hear it anymore...
sodafish
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:12AM
A question to the OP: If I opt-out of the partner program, will my files be excluded from these deals in the future?
Silberkorn
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:04AM
Thanks for the update. It's not enough. I won't repeat because you know already which concerns we have.
PeskyMonkey
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:07AM
Posted By landbysea:
I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some  cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material  result  of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives.

(Edited on 2013-01-15 22:04:26 by landbysea)


Well said. iStock is in full spin mode right now.
gmutlu
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:14AM
Very infotmative update.  Thanks for listening and spending some time to enlighten the contributors. Very much appreciated. I now have no question marks in my head.
lucentius
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:39AM

As Getty sees it, the big picture is that the image industry is changing quickly and what was the core iStockphoto business will be left on the platform. They are trying to get ahead of the game and position themselves for the new world. Only we're too slow to understand. Ten years is a long time in the digital age and we can't expect the same model to continue forever. Getty probably see the future of images as big money deals with internet businesses where users get free images as an incentive to use their products. With so many photographers out there, the problem of supply and remuneration doesn't arise. Sure, once the better photographers leave, the quality will be low, but does this market really care? Harsh shadows? Feathering is rough? With less print and more online images, who needs the quality?


Alternatives? A smaller number of talented photographers who do shoots for bespoke projects.
HeathBurro
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:47AM
Posted By lucentius:

As Getty sees it, the big picture is that the image industry is changing quickly and what was the core iStockphoto business will be left on the platform. They are trying to get ahead of the game and position themselves for the new world. Only we're too slow to understand. Ten years is a long time in the digital age and we can't expect the same model to continue forever. Getty probably see the future of images as big money deals with internet businesses where users get free images as an incentive to use their products. With so many photographers out there, the problem of supply and remuneration doesn't arise. Sure, once the better photographers leave, the quality will be low, but does this market really care? Harsh shadows? Feathering is rough? With less print and more online images, who needs the quality?


Alternatives? A smaller number of talented photographers who do shoots for bespoke projects.

If this is the new business model, I am out of it. I will continue to deactivate my images.
cobalt
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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:50AM
I have a question for the community and maybe one of the admins can answer this question. A photographer from the German community last week gave me a "lecture" on the differences of copyright law around the world. My background is something else, but apparently it was a required class wherever he studied. According to him, German copyright, or "Urheberrecht" is vastly different from the US copyright and offers a lot more protection to teh artist. It cannot be sold or transferred, it "sticks" for life to the artist and his creations as long as he resides in Germany.


Even stronger, according to him, are all files registered under US copyright law. I have never registered anything before and I am now looking into it.


So my question to the community and getty would be: are there any registered works in the MS/Google free redistribution deal?


Would registering unpublished works before uploading and then adding the registration number to each file (or a sentence making it clear the work is registered) prevent files to be "elected" for these "deals".


If registered works are not chosen for free re- distribution, then maybe this would give us a practical solution going forward. We could register whatever believe needs to be exempted and Getty could select from the others.


The best solution would be the simple one: create a lightbox, allow us to chose "donation images" and fullfill your marketing speak truthfully about "user generated content donated to the media community"


Getty themselves encourage registration, they even have a special field for it upon uploading. maybe here on istock we have been too negligent to do it.


So - would registering have any effect on if that file gets chosen? You clearly said you don´t choose RM files. How about registred works? can they be selected and distributed to millions of unregistred users? Does it influence the value of their protection in any way?

(Edited on 2013-01-16 02:56:15 by cobalt)

(Edited on 2013-01-16 02:57:15 by cobalt)
sodafish
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:52AM
What I don't like in this deal is the 12$ we got for each image used in the program. we don't know what Getty earned for each image, there is  no tool provided to check the real royalty percentage. Maybe it's 20%, but maybe it's 2% or even less. How can we know? And considering getty's past reputation, is it wierd I'm a bit sceptical here?
anchev
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:00AM
Posted By mr_erin:

We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas

Unfortunately Getty doesn't even answer emails regarding copyright infringements and iStock simply shrugs and says "We don't handle CE for Getty mirrored files". Ref. this thread



Posted By mr_erin:


  • License information: Under the agreement, Google has a bespoke EULA to allow these images to be used 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 and these end uses can be for commercial purposes; however, users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside of Google Drive created content and Google users have no rights to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they’re used.


This means Google is allowed to sublicense, re-distribute (any wording goes) the files for free. According to section 4.10 of the CONTENT LICENSE AGREEMENT


(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are “Prohibited Uses” and you may not:

10.  
sub-license, re-sell, rent, lend, assign, gift or otherwise transfer or distribute the Content or the rights granted under this Agreement;

Does this mean that Google was expressly permitted to be a re-distributor and in return contributors get single $12 per image as a form of special Extended license? Where can we read the document describing this process and the compensation as part of the ASA?


I am worried about the future of my files. All this game of words is a good way to make a presentation but not a fair way to do business.
Photoshopped
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:26AM
Posted By mr_erin:


  • License information: Under the agreement, Google has a bespoke EULA to allow these images to be used 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 and these end uses can be for commercial purposes; however, users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside of Google Drive created content and Google users have no rights to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they’re used.





Do you not understand that anyone could create a document in Google drive, use as many of the "free" images as they require, and by just pressing the "publish to web button" from within google drive, create a document that is effectively putting these now orphaned files up for grabs by anyone. It would be very easy for someone to produce a document with all the high res files and publish it, please don't be so naive as to not think that this will not happen. 


A big mistake has been made, please rectify it, trust that has been built up over the years, is being eradicted very quickly.


What you have done is wrong, sort this mess out, it will not blow over and be forgotten.
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:43AM

@cobalt:


as i understand it, this deal has not much to do with copyright. at least not in the sense that is/gi has transferred our copyright to anyone. they have "only" granted a customer (google) a custom license which allows that customer to make the images available to users of their own services. legally, i don't even know if this could be interpreted as re-distribution of our content (which again would not necessarily conflict with the idea of copyright - at least to my understanding which i grant is pretty vague)
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:45AM

I can't see that having the right in the agreement to use our work for "promotional use" gives them the right to give away files in this way for a very small one off fee paid to the copyright owner. That's not what any of us have put our work here for. If anyone had been asked, they'd have said "No".


Again taking away our option to opt out of "promotional use" doesn't give them the right to use our work in any way they please. It was assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that reasonable use would apply to all of this. That is free use of images, by iStock/Getty for its own advertising etc.


As it is it looks as if Google is now asking what images people would like to be able to use for free! It doesn't matter how they might distance themselves from this by using TS or whatever. It's still our same images being given away by the thousand.


It hasn't happened to me yet, but I see this as the thin end of the wedge. I don't want my images used this way. Not unless I can be assured that there is a real and concrete benefit to me in all this.
eelnosiva
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:52AM

And this is the new spirit of communication is it? Days of absolute silence broken by the Getty Lawyer repeating what vague, non-commital info we already know. Honestly, you couldn't make this up! I feel like I'm stuck in a Chris Morris sketch.


Getty, you are treating us like imbeciles. 


I feel like I'm on an airliner, heading straight into a cliff face. I'm looking out the window, all engines are billowing flames and smoke and the wings are shredded. Don't worry though, here's pilot Mr. Erin over the intercom to reassure us once again...
konradlew
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 downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:08AM
Posted By leeavison:

I feel like I'm on an airliner, heading straight into a cliff face. I'm looking out the window, all engines are billowing flames and smoke and the wings are shredded. Don't worry though, here's pilot Mr. Erin over the intercom to reassure us once again...

Well said!.... but you should add that the pilot isn't sitting with us in the plane, he is sitting in the Getty HQ and playing with his remotely controlled plane...
secablue
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:34AM
Posted By mr_erin:
We’ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.

Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis. 

We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves. 


Mr Erin... Either you (iStock) have been kept in the dark by Getty over this just as much as we have, or your words mean very little... Why on earth does it take this much negative communication and feedback from Contributors for you to act?  I don't believe for one moment that a deal as big as one with Google can not go un-noticed in your office.


You still talk to us like we are children with no knowledge of how the MS world works, how large the customer base is, and how the industry may be changing.   I will give you a little 'heads-up'... the industry is changing because Getty is allowing it to.   All you have to do is read some of the attitudes out there regarding stock photography and you will see that 'users' of stock would love it to all be free, and Getty is beginning to give it to them.   You will never convince me (or any other photographer) that giving our work away for what is effectively free use, makes good economic sense.   I wold LOVE to see the results from Getty how this is returning positive growth new and/or repeat business that will benifit iStock directly, and in turn us.  But I guarantee Getty marketing will not be able to show it, or come up with some excuse like it will take years to get relaible results.


Your last point I quoted above is completely contradicting what the Google deal represents... deleting META DATA from images is one example that voids your remark.   Getty, being a 'leader' in this area of the industry, should have known better... it sounds like Google didn't want to do the deal unless Getty 'wiped' the images clean.   I will give you a simple 'technical solution' towards copyright complaince... leave the images EXACTLY as they were uploaded from us.


I am not sure what is worse... that a contributor had to bring the Google deal into the light, or that iStock clearly has lost control over the use of our portfolios...


iStock is big... Getty is bigger... and Google bigger yet... it does not take much thought process to understand who is driving who... and the last thing on Google's mind is the well being and sustainability of the iStock contributor.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 41 to 60 of 748 matches.
Not a member?Join