Slate article on Getty Images dropping the Paywall.

[Matthew Chan]

More fodder to comment on.  This time by Slate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/05/getty_images_drops_its_paywall_opens_up_photos_for_free.html

[UJB]

If you aren't paying for a product, you are the product.   So with this embed strategy in return for free images, it may be that Getty has decided to monetize low cost images by having access to your blog to put in ads.   And perhaps if you pay, then you don't have the ads.

I just hope this ends the extortion settlement letter crap.

[lucia]

I was curious. I grabbed the "embedd" code. That permitted me to embed the image along with the credit. Fair enough. Some people will think this is great -- in fact, they will be thrilled to include the photo credit with the image.

That said, I was able to "view" the image alone. Then I was also able to take the uri of the underlying image and hotlink that image without the surrounding embedding.   So at least for now it appears that anyone who wants can hotlink the image without the surrounding code. (Not sure why many would want to do so-- but it appears possible.) 

Now, Getty would easily find these hotlinked images-- but if they don't deactivate them, so what?  Or maybe they will deactivate them? You seem to need a query string to display the image. 

It's possible the whole point of this will be to be able to determine who made the copy.... or something. Beats me. But for now, what they are doing seems legitimate enough from the user side. They are permitting hotlinking and at a minimum strongly encouraging getting themselves a photo credit when someone hotlinks.  Nothing wrong with that.

[lucia]

Ok... The TOS which few users will read and possibly even fewer will understand. But this is the bit on links and the embed tool. 

Links

You may not use a Getty Images logo or other proprietary graphic of Getty Images to link to the Site without the express written permission of Getty Images. Further, you may not frame any Getty Images trademark, logo or other proprietary information, including the Getty Images Content, without Getty Images' express written consent.

Note: with respect to copyright, framing Getty Images Content would presumably be a TOS issue. They can't create or inflate rights copyright laws through TOS.   Also, presumably, the Getty Images supplied embed tool constitutes Getty's consent.

Getty Images makes no claim or representation regarding, and accepts no responsibility for, directly or indirectly, the quality, content, nature or reliability of third-party websites accessible by hyperlink from the Site, or websites linking to the Site. Such sites are not under the control of Getty Images and Getty Images is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any review, changes or updates to such sites. Getty Images provides these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply affiliation, endorsement or adoption by Getty Images of any site or any information contained therein. When you leave the Site, you should be aware that our terms and policies no longer govern. You should review the applicable terms and policies, including privacy and data gathering practices, of any site to which you navigate from the Site.

Your participation, correspondence or business dealings with any third party found on or through the Site, regarding the payment and delivery of related goods or services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated with such dealings, are solely between you and such third party. You agree that Getty Images shall not be responsible or liable for any loss, damage or other matters of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings.

I think the above is just Getty saying the fact they link doesn't mean they endorse it.

Embedded Viewer
Where enabled, you may embed Getty Images Content on a website, blog or social media platform using the embedded viewer (the “Embedded Viewer”). Not all Getty Images Content will be available for embedded use, and availability may change without notice. Getty Images reserves the right in its sole discretion to remove Getty Images Content from the Embedded Viewer. Upon request, you agree to take prompt action to stop using the Embedded Viewer and/or Getty Images Content. You may only use embedded Getty Images Content for editorial purposes (meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest). Embedded Getty Images Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship; (b) in violation of any stated restriction; (c) in a defamatory, pornographic or otherwise unlawful manner; or (d) outside of the context of the Embedded Viewer.

This limits use of the 'embed tool feature-- but I think any violation would be a TOS violation-- not copyright. TOS violations can matter-- but they are different from copyright violations.

Getty Images (or third parties acting on its behalf) may collect data related to use of the Embedded Viewer and embedded Getty Images Content, and reserves the right to place advertisements in the Embedded Viewer or otherwise monetize its use without any compensation to you.

The ads aren't there yet, but I suspect they likely will be. Also: if your site has a privacy policy, and you embed you will want to update that policy. 

At least potentially, this seems totally legit to me. Some bloggers will want to embed images, now they can get good ones-- including some of celebrities and so on. And some will be happy to permit advertising in the images.  This doesn't mean Getty will necessarily stop pursuing people who still fall prey to 'free' images through google search, but it could open a revenue stream for Getty Images. If it does: more power to them.