Google Drive Update + Jan 23

Displaying 661 to 680 of 748 matches.
mikemcd
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:57PM

Posted By cobalt:

...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.


I'm not defending istock/Getty here, but I feel compelled to point out that it has been a long time since this was a company that could quickly respond to contributor issues. We're a long ways away from the old istock that was a bit more nimble and able to quickly get answers out to us, even when they weren't the answers we wanted to hear.

I don't believe we're being ignored, I just think this is how the company operates these days. Things don't happen quickly.

Sadly I also suspect that when the answers do come, they won't be what we want to hear yet again. I'm betting heavily against an opt-out, a royalty improvement, and likely the best we'll see is a change in copyright and meta data inclusion.

I'm confident that some response will come. Just not a good one and not any time soon for sure.
buzbuzzer
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 downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:03AM

If files on Google drive are available on the internet and are not password protected, that means the DCMA complain was wrongly addressed.


I don't have any files on the Google-drive, so it doesn't affect me. But if I had, I would probably send Google a DCMA complain, since they are the one at fault. Not the site reporting it...


 
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 26, 2013 3:25AM
Posted By sjlocke:
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.



On that note, can I clarify something... ASA for Exclusive as per 5.a - it states that all sales must be calculated on a rates schedule, which is applicable both with IS and distribution partners.   So where is the rate schedule for the sales made to GoogleDrive?


Confidentiality is not applicable when the ASA states clearly that any new rate schedule must be notified to suppliers in writing in 30days.   And if any rate schedule is not accepted by the supplier, you can terminate your ASA under these terms.

(Edited on 2013-01-26 04:01:52 by secablue)
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 Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:36AM

Posted By secablue:
On that note, can I clarify something... ASA for Exclusive as per 5.a - it states that all sales must be calculated on a rates schedule, which is applicable both with IS and distribution partners.   So where is the rate schedule for the sales made to GoogleDrive?

Actually, more important is the entire thing (as that part refers to end users), which later on says ... :
iStockphoto agrees to pay you royalties equal to a portion of the fees collected in respect of Accepted Exclusive Content that is downloaded or otherwise purchased by end-users according to the rate schedule for Still and Flash Content and Motion Content, as the case may be, set forth on Appendix "A" to this Agreement, as it may be modified from time to time (the "Rate Schedule") and the license or sale of Exclusive Content recorded by iStockphoto and the Distribution Partners.

Cleaning that up a bit to get to the relevant part:
iStockphoto agrees to pay you royalties ... equal to a portion of the fees collected in respect of Accepted Exclusive Content ... (from) ... the license or sale of Exclusive Content recorded by iStockphoto and the Distribution Partners.

This says that the licensing of exclusive content must be recorded by Distribution Partners, of which Google is one, and must collect fees for that license. This, to me, says that Getty has breached the contract established by iStockphoto with its exclusive contributors, by allowing Google to distribute content without the ability or facility to record its license transactions. As well, whether a $12 royalty divided by an infinite number of downloads qualifies as "fees" would likely not be looked upon well in a court.

(Edited on 2013-01-26 07:36:53 by sjlocke)
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 26, 2013 9:01AM

Furthermore not just on the apparent breach of the ASA to do with rates schedule and accountability, but I read on the WIX user agreement the following:


EIN CONNECTION WITH USER CONTENT, YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT: (I) SUBMIT MATERIAL THAT IS COPYRIGHTED OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THIRD PARTY PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, INCLUDING PRIVACY AND PUBLICITY RIGHTS, UNLESS YOU ARE THE OWNER OF SUCH RIGHTS OR HAVE PERMISSION FROM THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNER TO POST THE MATERIAL AND TO GRANT WIX AND/OR ANY OF ITS USERS ALL OF THE LICENSE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN


Correct me if I am wrong... which I doubt, but the way I read this is... an end user creating a GoogleDrive doc for use on a WIX web site (via the App previously mentioned), is in fact granting a license to WIX for that doc... I didn't think an end user could grant further licenses on our work via GoogleDrive???    I am not talking about GoogleDrive granting WIX the license, but the user must, as it states above.


P.S. Lobo, the bold and cap text was just a copy/paste from WIX
tjhunt
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:54AM
Posted By sjlocke:

As well, whether a $12 royalty divided by an infinite number of downloads qualifies as "fees" would likely not be looked upon well in a court.


Especially when we get more money for licenses that are much more restrictive to the end user. Whoops.
SteveDF
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:23PM
Posted By sjlocke:
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.

That is too bad. This seems that it would be open to legal action. I'm definitely not a lawyer but it seems the copyright holder should have a legal right see to any contracts negotiated for their image.
Susan_Stewart
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:55PM
Legally, the whole agreement would be a money pit for lawyers to work out what it all means, if anything-it's still not clear whether click through agreements are legally enforceable, let alone under what jurisdiction you would try to enforce it, as the two parties are in different jurisdictions. While istock wants it enforceable under Canadian law, just saying that in the agreement may not make it so (or so says my tame household Australian contract lawyer)

(Edited on 2013-01-26 14:58:34 by Susan_Stewart)
JodiJacobson
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:59PM
Getty and Google and the Carlye group are all American companies.
Susan_Stewart
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:16PM

Posted By JodiJacobson:
Getty and Google and the Carlye group are all American companies.

But our contributor agreements with istock purports to be under Canadian law (although given they were "agreed" to via click with participants all around the world they could be enforceable, or not, under the jurisdictions of the contributors, depending on local laws of the contributors). The google/Getty agreement presumably (but we can't see it) was made under US law, as you say. So any legal action about whether the Google/Getty agreement breaches the (probably) Canadian law istock/contributor agreement would involve some complex international law as well as contract law questions.

The only certainty Is that the only people that would do well out of such an action would be the lawyers.

(Edited on 2013-01-26 16:19:25 by Susan_Stewart)

(Edited on 2013-01-26 16:20:06 by Susan_Stewart)
tjhunt
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer Spotlight
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:12PM
From the Getty Content License Agreement:

11.3
Electronic Storage. For all Licensed Material that is delivered to Licensee in electronic form, Licensee must retain the copyright symbol, the name of Getty Images, the Licensed Material's identification number and any other information as may be embedded in the electronic file containing the original Licensed Material. Licensee may not make additional high-resolution copies of the Licensed Material and Licensee shall maintain a robust firewall to safeguard against unauthorized third-party access to the Licensed Material. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensee may make one (1) high-resolution backup copy of the Licensed Material for security purposes only.

I don't see anywhere in the contract where if a third party is granted redistribution rights (section 3.2) they're exempt from this clause. Google has files with no metadata, that surely came with metadata. Has anyone spoken to this issue yet and explained why? Also, the license states that:


3.9
If the Licensee Work is Reproduced on a website, Licensee shall post terms and conditions on the website that prohibit downloading, republication, retransmission, reproduction or other use of the Licensed Material as a stand-alone file.


1.5 "'Licensee Work'" means an end product or service that has been created by or on behalf of Licensee using independent skill and effort and that incorporates a Reproduction of the Licensed Material as well as other material.


I searched through Google Drive help and couldn't find anything speaking to this. Is is buried somewhere? Or completely missing as it appears to be? Either way no end user could be reasonably expected to locate it. The way I'm understanding it is that the "Licensee Work" amounts to Google Drive, and users are reproducing the photos within that service on a website (in fact, that's the purpose of the "Insert stock photo" feature), so Google is required to post a notice about restrictions on stand-alone versions of those files. Where is that? Or if I'm wrong, please let me know why.

(Edited on 2013-01-27 13:13:44 by tjhunt)
markrhiggins
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:08PM

from what I understand if you are using google software you can use all the images for free for private or commercial. Contributors did not agree to that. How about sound files - we could sell all audio out to itunes or a ringtone company on the same basis. Mmm maybe that will happen. One royalty   and then your file is worthless. It is not just about Istock. For independents it will reduce the worth of their files on other agencies.


Is this really worth it for Istock?? 5000 files. Istock gets $100 a file???? Gives contributors $12??? and makes $440,000. With losing contributors and reducing the worth of the files for future revenue. Is this going to be for many, many more files?
Sproetniek
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:44AM

This debacle has just hit South African photographers with warnings going out on freelancers e-groups to the effect that "Anyone working with Getty via Gallo is seriously at risk and should interrogate Gallo directly on the consequences of Getty's unilateral action". Gallo is a regional rep for Getty in my country. The author above calls it "one of the lowest points in the history of stock photography". True or not, the fallout is massive if it has reached this small neck of the woods with such vehemence.
Adventure_Photo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:45AM
/
/This is extremely disturbing and almost insane when you consider.  First, I found out about this on a photography blog regarding how pissed off contributors are.  Why was I not informed about this ahead of time?  Why was I not given an opt out option?  Why is metadata being stripped from images?  I am really concerned about future sales of my images once these are distributed and diluted on the Internet. Most people that find "free" images on the Internet assume they can do whatever they want with them and are clueless as to licensing and copyright.  And for those who use it illegally, how are we supposed to police rampant use of an image?


How do I find out if my files were used?  Is there any recourse I have in removing them?  How do i opt out in the future?  i do not want my images distributed in this manner period.  $12, that's all I get?  Why did you do this Getty?  Why the short-term gain over long-term loyalty and sales?  Seriously, who makes these decisions?  Once again Getty I am so disappointed in the business decisions you make.  These kinds of decisions are unsustainable and will eventually come back to haunt you.


i smell class-action lawsuit...


Want some business philosophy advice Getty?  Read the founder of Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard's book, "Let My People Go Surfing" and then you'll understand a better approach to doing things.

(Edited on 2013-01-28 09:02:38 by Adventure_Photo)

(Edited on 2013-01-28 09:41:35 by Adventure_Photo)
Marko_Marcello
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:49AM

..i think i saw someones child on a mouse pad just designed in an inappropriate manner for sale in some weird tourist shops,,,,no brand name, no artist signature..


It`s a joke, untill proven otherwise...
BigWest1
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:47PM

Yes Marko_Marcello.  I've a friend who is a rather conservative type.  We were talking model releases a couple years ago and agency use of content.  He stated that he would never allow his children to be photographed for commercial use because he would not trust that the releases would be binding in their entirety for an extended period of time.  I tried to disuade him from being overly paranoid  and assure him that iStock was above such deception, trickery, and slight -of -hand and that he could be confident that his kids would not appear in any inappropriate  manner on the web or elsewhere.  Hmmm..  I would like to pose a question to iStock.  Here it is:    GOOGLE?


 
Lobo
This 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 Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:17AM

Posted By Marko_Marcello:

..i think i saw someones child on a mouse pad just designed in an inappropriate manner for sale in some weird tourist shops,,,,no brand name, no artist signature..


It`s a joke, untill proven otherwise...

You know, this type of commentary is problematic. It's like having a contributor tell us that they have friends who are having issues so I ask for site mails and they never come. You think you saw something that might have been an image from here, maybe?

Come on, if you are only sharing assumptions you aren't doing anyone any good.
Lobo
This 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 Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:24AM

Posted By mikemcd:

Posted By cobalt:

...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.


I'm not defending istock/Getty here, but I feel compelled to point out that it has been a long time since this was a company that could quickly respond to contributor issues. We're a long ways away from the old istock that was a bit more nimble and able to quickly get answers out to us, even when they weren't the answers we wanted to hear.

I don't believe we're being ignored, I just think this is how the company operates these days. Things don't happen quickly.

Sadly I also suspect that when the answers do come, they won't be what we want to hear yet again. I'm betting heavily against an opt-out, a royalty improvement, and likely the best we'll see is a change in copyright and meta data inclusion.

I'm confident that some response will come. Just not a good one and not any time soon for sure.

It will come sooner than you expect, Mike. Thanks for the post.

You make clear something that I think people need to understand regarding our ability to respond in a timely fashion. When we were 45 people all in the same room it was considerably easier, and much noisier in the office. We are spread out a little more now and we also have other offices involved.

For the record, every department has been seeing a considerable amount of email over the last few months. It's probably good that they realize just how all this is going. So, IMHO, this is all pretty helpful. It might be later than we needed but the entire company is working on solutions from the top all the way down.
jjneff
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 12,500 - 99,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:26AM
This is very important! people may wonder why I even come in here seeing I have such a small photo port. Well I have doctor's pictures and signatures a load of medical clips in the hospital which is hard to get a release for. If they give away photos to Google with model released people then what would happen if my medical video content ends up on Google for free and I have no protection at all. If this happens to video there is no need to be exclusive because one of the main reasons I am is to protect my IP!!!

When a company gets as big as Getty you can not micro manage, you have to trust the people you hire and give them the ability to make hard decisions. iStock use to make decisions for themselves now Getty makes all the decisions for iStock which slows the process down. With how fast the web changes and news travels you need to be a bit more nimble. I am not just talking about the Getty/Google deal as that is a huge mess and will take some time.

(Edited on 2013-01-29 07:33:32 by jjneff)
jtyler
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 downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:46AM
Posted By BigWest1:

Yes Marko_Marcello. I've a friend who is a rather conservative type. We were talking model releases a couple years ago and agency use of content. He stated that he would never allow his children to be photographed for commercial use because he would not trust that the releases would be binding in their entirety for an extended period of time. I tried to disuade him from being overly paranoid and assure him that iStock was above such deception, trickery, and slight -of -hand and that he could be confident that his kids would not appear in any inappropriate manner on the web or elsewhere. Hmmm.. I would like to pose a question to iStock. Here it is: GOOGLE?



That, along with striping copyright and metadata, iis one of my biggest concerns. Most og my models are children of people I know, These include doctors, lawyers, University Officials, and other profesional people.. I, too, gave exactly the same speech, based on a). the model release infromation befor that part was elimicated and, IS assurances that misuse was very rare and their vigilance in pursuing misuse. Now none of those assurances are valid and I have people I know for sure will sue on misuse. Regardless of who resditributes, ALL my images were born on IS and I have never placed them eslewhere except PP. I now wish I had the option out of that.

(Edited on 2013-01-29 07:49:27 by Lobo)
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 661 to 680 of 748 matches.
Not a member?Join