Stock and PicScout

of 3Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 49 matches.
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 Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:48AM
In the other thread, mr_erin said:
That said, we are very aware that copyright enforcement is vital to the future of our business, Getty Images purchased PicScout and the Image IRC and we continue to develop new methods for copyright protection on behalf of our contributors and partners, many of which could help this platform and others like it improve in this way over time.


I didn't think PicScout would help at all with the Google Drive situation, and I still don't think it has bearing on it since these are all RF images (as far as searching the web for infringements), but someone pointed this initiative out to me:
Announcing the ImageIRC Post-Usage Billing Service!

It sounds like PicScout hooks up with Pinterest/Facebook, whoever, and whenever anyone posts a protected work, they are presented with an option to license it, or have it blocked. The license results in some sort of payment, part of which would go to the creator.

Now, this sounds like a pretty good idea to me, although I'm guessing our cut will get even smaller due to "fees" and such. Frankly, I would hope our cut would go up, since the program is so automated. However, I thought I'd bring it up for discussion so interested management would have an idea of where the crowd stands on something like this so they aren't surprised by response if/when it ever comes up as a new program here.

(Edited on 2013-01-16 08:49:26 by sjlocke)
asiseeit
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 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 9:13AM
This sounds good to me too... if it works. Seems to me to be a net positive as these are people who wouldn't normally be paying for these images, and some would end up paying. And it also helps educate the average web user.
nkbimages
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:22AM
My impression from reading online about Getty take down notices etc. is that the amounts are very high and the response is very negative and the photographer doesn't see the additional licensing money.  Is that accurate or is overstated?  If the approach here would be a very high amount for license (greater than they would have paid if they had simply purchased the image) it could end up doing more harm than good.  Also there would have to be a fullproof way for that amount to be paid back to the photographer.  Otherwise the incentive for istock would be to let as many images as possible be out there and then make their money through take down notices/PicScout etc.
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 Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:35AM
My interpretation of this thing, is that maybe casual users will find something on the internet and upload it to FB. Picscout "sees" it and pops up "This image is under copyright. Would you like to pay $1 to use it anyway, or upload another image." Something like that.
Westbury
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:41AM

So I suppose facebook/pinterest or whoever also takes a cut? So the payment is split between Getty/Social site/copyright owner?


I would imagine the license fee would be in the region of a dollar or less to purchase in order to share. I cant imagine the average joe/joanne being interseted in paying very much to share an image that they have already found in use somewhere else.


It sounds ok for now depending on the license fee and volume.


Does anyone think this software could be on trial in the background using the microsoft or google drive images?  
landbysea
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:42AM
If it is presented as an opt in program for specific files like exclusives have for PP I would be fine with it. Otherwise no. 
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 downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:43AM
i don't yet understand how they would figure out if the user who posts an image on the internet already has a proper license or not (possible the user already bought the image on, say, istock), but on the overall this is an interesting approach. hoping for more info on how this will work, on whether istockers' work will also be tracked by this and whether we'll get a share of the collected fees.
volschenkh
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:49AM
It looks like you have to upload your images to be "tracked". How is this integrated with iStockphoto? Are all the Getty images already part of the 100 million images on PicScout?
cmannphoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:51AM
Posted By sjlocke:
My interpretation of this thing, is that maybe casual users will find something on the internet and upload it to FB. Picscout "sees" it and pops up "This image is under copyright. Would you like to pay $1 to use it anyway, or upload another image." Something like that.


Not sure the "casual" user would be asked. If it is like the Youtube example, I have never been asked to pay for a video but I did have to watch the "commercial" first.

So I am assuming that the moneys would come from the advertisers on the page the image(s) are posted.


As Westbury pointed out, the list of "hands" in this deal would be nice to know.

With that said, I would be intersted if we would see royalites from images grabbed from a legitimate use and posted on another site, Social Media, etc? Or a watermarked image posted on a Socail Media site or web site?

So many questions.
CaseyHillPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:55AM
Making viral photos is gonna make bank.
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 Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:12AM

Posted By cmannphoto:
Not sure the "casual" user would be asked. If it is like the Youtube example, I have never been asked to pay for a video but I did have to watch the "commercial" first.


No, it's more like if you try to upload "Star Wars", Fox would get notice you tried to upload it, and they would offer you the ability to license it, or dump it. I think.
nycshooter
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 125 Audio downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:36AM

Do particular websites have to give PicScout permission to scout the site for images or does Picscout have some kind of world wide radar?


It reads (to me) like PicScout needs permission to search sites for use or misuse of images.
Feverstockphoto
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:04AM
How would it work with images that may be given to model/models as part of a model release deal and then they post them somewhere like facebook? Would they have to be images not uploaded here? Or when uploading mention model has been given image as part of a usage agreement and has certain usage associated?
StanRohrer
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 11:10AM
Not quite the same topic, but, what about all the printed materials still in the world. True we are headed electronic but still a lot of ink that PicScout can't see.

Closer to topic - what about personal communications? is PicScout going to monitor Email and text messaging? How many "private" ways can pics be moved on the Internet?

Mr_Erin blowing the horn for PicScout is a moot point in my opinion and has little bearing on the Google fiasco.
cmannphoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:12AM
Posted By sjlocke:


Posted By cmannphoto:
Not sure the "casual" user would be asked. If it is like the Youtube example, I have never been asked to pay for a video but I did have to watch the "commercial" first.



No, it's more like if you try to upload "Star Wars", Fox would get notice you tried to upload it, and they would offer you the ability to license it, or dump it. I think.


This video seems to make Sean's point, it is from http://www.picscout.com/imageexchange/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMYIFq3bz0g
stacey_newman
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:16AM

I like this. people who steal images will steal anyways, but I'd guess that many infringements are due to people just thinking images on the internet are free to use.


Sean, you are far more technically savvy. Can you explain how this would help with say the link you provided in the other thread pointing to the Google drive images page? If I were to go to that page, download an image and start posting it somewhere illegally, would you mind explaining how picscout would work to 'track' the image?
cmannphoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:25AM

I found the FAQ HERE 


What does the ImageIRC do?


ImageIRC "fingerprints" images using an advanced image recognition algorithm that identifies unique patterns within the image. Unlike a watermark, this image fingerprint is derived from the image, and therefore cannot be erased, modified or edited. Therefore, the image fingerprint allows PicScout to identify images wherever they appear on the Internet, even if the image has been altered, colorized, edited, cropped, rotated or embedded into another image.


Each image fingerprint is associated with its unique metadata, which the image rights owner supplies along with the image. This metadata can include image owner, licensor, license type, landing page, and other important information or marketing and promotional information.


 
stacey_newman
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:27AM
^ cool, thank you. I like.
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 11:29AM

Seems a good idea if there is an actual and reasonable payment to the copyright holder for each use.
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 Artist
Posted Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:31AM
This can get out of hand really fast as there is no way Getty or even Google would have the time to police all the uses, I love the concept but if people can get an unwatermarked version they will use it all the time. A nightmare to police, think about the staff it would take to police all RF images!
This thread has been locked.
of 3Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 49 matches.
Not a member?Join