Subscribe and save with our all-new image subscriptions.

Learn more
Close

Google Drive Update + Jan 23

Displaying 641 to 660 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 Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:17AM
It does bother me that the lawyer for iSTock/Getty would issue a legal notice asserting that the said companies are the owners of the copyright of the images that we place with them. I thought it had always been completely clear that we retained ownership of our copyright. I find it difficult to understand how the distributor's lawyer could be in any doubt about that.
GavinD
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:21AM
Posted By PaulCowan:
It does bother me that the lawyer for iSTock/Getty would issue a legal notice asserting that the said companies are the owners of the copyright of the images that we place with them. I thought it had always been completely clear that we retained ownership of our copyright. I find it difficult to understand how the distributor's lawyer could be in any doubt about that.

I would have thought that such a basic error in the DMCA takedown notice would have declared it void.
lostinbids
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerThis member chickened out of their last cage challenge. What, are you scared of a little photoshop challenge?
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:21AM
^ Maybe getty only want their wholey owned stuff taken down?
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 Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:22AM
Istock hasn't got any wholly owned stuff and is named as one of the copyright holders.
Landon_S
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:24AM

What is the Feb 2 date all about


 
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:24AM

There are also a lot of Contributors who have kept quiet whilst all this mess rages around us.


It is insulting to see another thread with the title "Changes To The Way We Communicate" and platitudes from the CEO at the end of last year about "We care to" yet the only news we get from HQ is a take down notice for a web site  that helped contributors find their images  in mess that was not of their making.


I appreciate things take time to fix but it feels like there are only 2 people at work at HQ and one of those has a hammer ready to fall.


Why antagonize contributors all the time instead of engaging with us?
IvanJekic
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:53AM
Posted By ClarkandCompany:

Why antagonize contributors all the time instead of engaging with us?

^^ THAT is crucial. Thanks for your post, it makes a lot of sense.
MasterLu
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:13AM

How can i know if one of my images is already on google drive database? 


Thanks.
Pannonia
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:40AM
Posted By Lobo:

And it can continue to be a service to the contributors without the linked images. How is this still not clear? I don't know that we are dressing it up like a new puppy. What would you prefer? I don't understand.

(Edited on 2013-01-25 03:59:23 by Lobo)




The abstract from my side:


I do not care, if Lobo understands or not. That is not the point.


If any of my images is included in a sneaky deal, like MS or GD+, you get a lawsuit.


Simple as it is.


And please save the cynical take down explanation, It would have been better if you hadn't written anything.

Thank you.
Lobo
Mask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:48AM
Okay. Thanks for making that clear. Have a great day.
loooby
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 Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:20AM
Posted By MasterLu:

How can i know if one of my images is already on google drive database? 


Thanks.



I would like to know this as well, last time I checked there was "only" 5000 images and a nice page with the images where we could search by name.

 Someone mentioned that the database has expanded to 11.000+ now..

 Does anybody know how many images licenses have been sold in total to Google in this "initial batch" that was mentioned? 

Can we have this info please? 

(Edited on 2013-01-25 10:21:12 by loooby)
kikkerdirk
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:05AM
Posted By Lobo:
Okay. Thanks for making that clear. Have a great day.

Could you please start answering the real questions and stop the sarcastic indiviual answers! We want an open communication!
SteveDF
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:30AM
OK, guys I think we're getting what we ask for. Lobo's initial update was not sacastic nor cynical but our responses sure were.
BrendanHunter
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:52AM
Posted By SteveDF:
OK, guys I think we're getting what we ask for. Lobo's initial update was not sacastic nor cynical but our responses sure were.


 I agree that hostility towards the only messengers we've had is not the answer. I think, however, it's an understandable reaction after being ignored for so long. 


Additionally, Lobo's gruff tone is great when everyone is feeling comradely and part of the same team. In a situation where things are becoming quite tense, it can come across as a bit abusive. 
Lobo
Mask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:55AM
I can't say it enough: I understand the frustration. I just don't understand how people can demand communication and clarity when they are being seriously inappropriate with their own communications with us in the public forums.

It's pretty incredible but as I mentioned above, and have a number of times: I understand. I hope you can all understand when I have to take steps to mitigate the cascade of horrible through forum time outs and the like. We are at that point so if you want to be involved in the discussions going forward keep things under control when you post. Four months is probably a long enough grace period for people to vent. It's been a free-for-all since September. I'm pretty over it and I know there are plenty of contributor who feel the same.

Thanks, folks. Onward.
Lobo
Mask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:14PM

Posted By BrendanHunter:
Posted By SteveDF:
OK, guys I think we're getting what we ask for. Lobo's initial update was not sacastic nor cynical but our responses sure were.


 I agree that hostility towards the only messengers we've had is not the answer. I think, however, it's an understandable reaction after being ignored for so long. 


Additionally, Lobo's gruff tone is great when everyone is feeling comradely and part of the same team. In a situation where things are becoming quite tense, it can come across as a bit abusive. 

How do you reckon the communication from the contributor base has been towards the people who have been coming in here to participate in these discussions? I guess it's not abusive because we are ... wait, why wouldn't be construed as abusive as well?

If you were to take the number of posts I have made over the last 4 months and compare it to the commentary provided by a minority of the contributors where do you reckon the meter of abuse would sit? Is it your unalienable right to forgo tact in order to make your point? I dont thinks so.

I don't know. I think we all might need to take a breath and reboot our tones. I'm hoping it's possible but for some of the membership it will be a stretch.

(Edited on 2013-01-25 12:15:18 by Lobo)
alanphillips
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:29PM
Well said Lobo. I seem to remember the days when people were screaming and shouting about some issue a few yars ago (cannister levels changes or soemthing). Then whenever an admin came into the forums people hurled abuse, shouted at them and called them rude names. Quite frankly, it is no wonder they didn't come in her too often. Same thing now. I guess some people just like to be abusive, makes them feel more important or something. 
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 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:06PM
I would appreciate it if maybe we could get some answers to the many questions asked.


Are files from istock still being moved to google? Why is the metadate being stripped and what is getty going to do about that to protect our IP rights?


Why doesn´t getty give us a simple lightbox with all the content from istock contributors who have files in the google deal? Wouldn´t that be a much simpler pro active solution instead of paying a lawyer to go after a site that ws helping contributors find their files (and they were just linked, not hosted). I mean the files have already been given to 1/4 of the internet population. 


What is getty ´s official position of handing over content for 6 dollars to 425 million people? Are they planning to do more deals like that in the future?


Will contributors get a choice which files they want to hand over in what seems to be a deal that puts their files into the public domain?


etc...


Basically, instead of talking about symptoms like contributors deactivating content to protect their IP from being passed on to 425 million people...why not solve the issue itself?


A simple announcement by the management: "We will not transfer any more istock contributor files to google until we have completed our negotiations" would make a huge difference.


There are many simple things that can be done to work together with the contributors. But ignoring the questions just adds more oil to the fire and creates the impression that Getty HQ wants the contributors to leave.


 

(Edited on 2013-01-25 13:08:23 by cobalt)
forestpathCLOSED
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:27PM

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.


After several years of hearing, "it looks this way, but it really isn't; it's all for your own good" etc., you finally get the picture, as much as you might struggle to accept the party line. Unless you are asleep.


As istock themselves said "money isn't everything". (Especially when the trickle-down has become so thin).


If everything is so on the up-and-up, and the istock/getty mgt and employees are so offended by the caustic tone in the forums, why in the world not produce a link to the license being offered with these giveaways? Crikey, is that so much to ask? Do not the rightful owners of the copyrights deserve to at least see what their "distributor" has agreed to in their name (without their consent)?


And yes, there is an emotional side to all this. Why wouldn't there be? Accusing folks who are sorrowfully considering dropping a chunk of their hard-earned income of being "emotional" seems a bit rash in itself. I don't think anyone WANTS to deactivate files or close their accounts. It's just a matter of seeing the writing on the wall.


This post was taken off this forum as soon as I posted it. I don't see why. I'm speaking plainly and not being abusive. There wouldn't be such a hue and cry if contributors' simple direct questions were simply answered.


 
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 Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:11PM
Just FYI, I officially asked Getty to see the license to confirm Google is adhering to it per 7.b of the exclusive ASA, and was denied, for reasons of 'confidentiality'. So, at least I can say I asked when/if it comes up.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 641 to 660 of 748 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)