Google Drive Update - March 21, 2013

First pagePrevious pageof 3
Displaying 41 to 56 of 56 matches.
matthewleesdixon
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 Mar 22, 2013 6:37PM
I have some files in the program, when I deactivate these from istock how long will it take to remove them from showing up in google drive?
SteveDF
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:43PM

Regardless of what you deactivate here at iS or Getty, any files on Google Drive will be there as long as Google chooses to keep them there. They bought a license.
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 Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:06AM
IMO there are only 2 acceptable scenarios in this ordeal..

 1. Images are removed (unless the artist wants to keep it in there)

 2. Photographers are paid properly for such an extensive license

 Otherwise I would like to see an explanation as to why Getty thought this deal would be beneficial to the photographer?

 If there is no such explanation, then I think at least a sincere apology and a promise that it will never happen again is in order..


 


 

(Edited on 2013-03-23 02:07:10 by loooby)

(Edited on 2013-03-23 02:51:36 by loooby)
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 Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:12AM
Posted By SteveDF:

Regardless of what you deactivate here at iS or Getty, any files on Google Drive will be there as long as Google chooses to keep them there. They bought a license.

This is despite the fact that the photographer owns the copyright. For me, if the photographer requests the removal of the image from iStock, then iStock should request its removal from Google. If Google what monetary compensation then iStock should pay it. It is Getty/iStock who created the mess in the first place.
wdstock
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 Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:30AM
Posted By GavinD:

Posted By SteveDF:

Regardless of what you deactivate here at iS or Getty, any files on Google Drive will be there as long as Google chooses to keep them there. They bought a license.


This is despite the fact that the photographer owns the copyright. For me, if the photographer requests the removal of the image from iStock, then iStock should request its removal from Google. If Google what monetary compensation then iStock should pay it. It is Getty/iStock who created the mess in the first place.

Lobo, can we get an official company answer on this? It seems ludicrous for contributors to be speculating on such an issue.
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 Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:50PM

Posted By wdstock:
Posted By GavinD:

Posted By SteveDF:

Regardless of what you deactivate here at iS or Getty, any files on Google Drive will be there as long as Google chooses to keep them there. They bought a license.


This is despite the fact that the photographer owns the copyright. For me, if the photographer requests the removal of the image from iStock, then iStock should request its removal from Google. If Google what monetary compensation then iStock should pay it. It is Getty/iStock who created the mess in the first place.

Lobo, can we get an official company answer on this? It seems ludicrous for contributors to be speculating on such an issue.

It's not like I take the weekends off, so sure. The images were licensed, I appreciate the royalties paid for those licenses are the crux of the main complaint, but there were licensed.

So no. I don't think you'll be able to pull the images off google drive.
traveler1116
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:18PM
Is there a time limit for files on Google Drive or will they stay there forever?

(Edited on 2013-03-23 13:18:43 by traveler1116)
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 Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:37PM

Google bought a license. The RF license does not expire. This is the difference to the Microsoft Deal. The files could be taken down, because Microsoft had not paid anything for them. So Google pays 0.0000000282 USD per Google Network user and the files stay. 


We may not like it, and I am not a lawyer, but I really don´t see the files that are already there coming down. 


You can only hope they don´t do it again. 
gladassfanny
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:31PM

Actually Lobo, Trust Is the crux of the main complaint. Contributors trusted iStock/Getty to do the right thing when representing them. The Getty/Google deal squandered that trust. Since the deal was revealed (actually unmasked), a lot of dancing has taken place on the part of the company.


The changes in the licensing agreement remind me of applying lipstick to a pig to make it look better. It is still a pig when one is finished.


The deal is the deal, and it is an extremely bad one for contributors and for the industry.


Your game, your rules, but the Google Drive deal writes a book about the practices of Getty/iStock and it is not a positive one.
gillian08
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:38PM
Posted By Lobo:


Posted By gillian08:

Posted By Lobo:



Posted By Westbury:
Will more images be added to Google Drive from istock or Getty?



We have no future plans to add any additional images at this time. I can assure you we will let you know if this changes.



with all due respect Lobo, you say "we" like you're part of the decision making process, are you? This assurance shouldn't reassure anyone, as the iStock Soap Opera gets more unbeleivable each week, and more unbeleivable things keep happening.


 


I just decided that you aren't really able to identify me as the only person in here responding to contributor question(for the last several years I might add) nor do you understand that when I say 'We" I mean the company I represent. If you don't think I didn't ask this question in order to confidently post it then I guess I have also decided you must be kidding me.

Don't get to upset by the fact that I find your question a little silly. It's clear someone at my pay grade isn't making all the decisions related to how the company operates. However, I make sure to get as much information as possible so that I can manage to respond to the majority of the questions the contributor base asks in here.


sorry, I totally forget what's it's like to be on salary and to use terms like "we" and "us" to describe the company I work for. You have every right to do so, as their paid mouthpiece. My bad.


although, it does kinda remind me of the way my kids say "my car" and "my house" to their friends. makes me chuckle.
bezov
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 downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Apr 5, 2013 2:54AM
Guys, the deal has been made,  images are exported to Google Drive and Getty got the money. The only thing you can do is to take the 12 bucks happy or not.

(Edited on 2013-04-05 07:18:05 by bezov)
gillian08
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:41AM
Posted By bezov:
Guys, the deal has been made,  images are exported to Google Drive and Getty got the money. The only thing you can do is to take the 12 bucks happy or not.

(Edited on 2013-04-05 07:18:05 by bezov)


I reckon that's been the fear all along, and everyone here knows it. That's as good as it gets. Lobo said (2 months ago?) something like "trust me, we aren't hoping time will make this go away" .... but actually, that's the plan, right? I've already had a WME in March, which is illogical given i've been growing my port. The fear that posting here can result in lowered sales in an interesting test. Of course Sean paid a far greater price...or not. He seems pretty upbeat.
georgeclerk
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has won a contestMember has had a File Of The Week.
Posted Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:20AM
Posted By gillian08:

Posted By bezov:
Guys, the deal has been made,  images are exported to Google Drive and Getty got the money. The only thing you can do is to take the 12 bucks happy or not.

(Edited on 2013-04-05 07:18:05 by bezov)



I reckon that's been the fear all along, and everyone here knows it. That's as good as it gets. Lobo said (2 months ago?) something like "trust me, we aren't hoping time will make this go away" .... but actually, that's the plan, right? I've already had a WME in March, which is illogical given i've been growing my port. The fear that posting here can result in lowered sales in an interesting test. Of course Sean paid a far greater price...or not. He seems pretty upbeat.


It's a fair point, and a positive response would be good.  It's been very widely agreed that this deal was appalling for the contributors involved.  What actions have been taken to improve the situation, and to prevent a mess like this from happening again?  


Is there a way for Google Drive users to even know who the artist is, if they choose to give correct images attribution?


 Choosing one of my images from a search in Google Drive, and placing it (at very high resolution) within a document, I can't see any way for the user to know who created the image or where it came from.  If you click through some links, there is text saying '...most licenses require that you give credit to the image creator when reusing an image', but how can the user possibly know who the 'image creator' is?
gillian08
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:15AM
Posted By georgeclerk:


Posted By gillian08:



Posted By bezov:
Guys, the deal has been made,  images are exported to Google Drive and Getty got the money. The only thing you can do is to take the 12 bucks happy or not.

(Edited on 2013-04-05 07:18:05 by bezov)





I reckon that's been the fear all along, and everyone here knows it. That's as good as it gets. Lobo said (2 months ago?) something like "trust me, we aren't hoping time will make this go away" .... but actually, that's the plan, right? I've already had a WME in March, which is illogical given i've been growing my port. The fear that posting here can result in lowered sales in an interesting test. Of course Sean paid a far greater price...or not. He seems pretty upbeat.




It's a fair point, and a positive response would be good.  It's been very widely agreed that this deal was appalling for the contributors involved.  What actions have been taken to improve the situation, and to prevent a mess like this from happening again?  




I'd say the "let's wait and see if it blows over" approach has been successfully implemented. I swear there are tumbleweekds blowing about these forums.


and the fear of complaining=lowered sales (or getting Locked out)...


although it is promising to note there are no longer any plans to add more images, which is not what was said when this first broke.

(Edited on 2013-04-19 02:21:31 by gillian08)
StanRohrer
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 Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:53PM
iStock, how about another status update on this issue?
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 Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:03AM

Posted By Lobo:
Copyright protection is absolutely central to our business and we remain committed to doing all we can to support and maintain your intellectual property rights. We've been working closely with Google to improve the way in which the images are presented in Google Drive. Our agreement with Google allows for the images to be made available to Google users for personal or commercial use--however, the individual user's rights are restricted, and clarifications addressing use are now live in the Google Drive’s interface.

Google Drive copy changes:

1. Now when you search for an image to insert into a document in Google Drive, the following language appears directly under the search field for visibility:

"Results shown are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive, and may not be independently redistributed or sold. Learn more."

2. You will see the revised language (below) when you click on "Learn More."

"Stock images available in Google Drive are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive and must be used in accordance with our program policies. Images may not be offered for sale or used within templates provided to third parties. If you use stock images depicting a person in connection with a sensitive or unflattering subject, you must include this or a similar statement: "for illustrative purposes only; individual is a model."

The Program Policies link takes you to a page restricting pornographic or otherwise unlawful uses, etc., describing these restrictions in detail.

Still Pending: image metadata is in the process of being included.

We truly appreciate your patience in waiting for these changes to be implemented. We will post another update when all is complete.

(Edited on 2013-03-21 15:34:53 by Lobo)


The moment I have anything else to provide I'll let the community know. As it stands we have Metadata in place I'll let everyone know.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 3
Displaying 41 to 56 of 56 matches.
Not a member?Join