ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: canuckistan on March 05, 2014, 06:48:18 PM
-
I buried this in my other thread but it's big enough news for its own post:
The world's largest photo service just made its pictures free to use http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use
The article explores some issues around embedding, but one wonders if this is the end of the era of Extortion!
-
I, for one, am not buying it.
I don't trust this company and never will.
From 2005-2007, Getty's Royalty Free Images page looked like they were doing the same thing - giving those images away in order to build a clientele that might license their more valuable images later.
Then they changed their policy - and covered their tracks. All traces of their Royalty Free Images page prior to 2007 were removed from the way back Machine. The new page made it clear that Royalty free images were not free.
Five years later, they began sending extortion letters to people who had used the free images when they appeared free. In those five years, the company had gone public, and then private again. That gave them plausible deniability - e.g. We don't know what the policy was back then.
The problem is that the same sharks who were running the company then are still running it today. Jonathon Klein says on tape that their images are free for non-commercial use, but chases down everyone they can find who is small enough to not have a legal team behind them, and dumb enough to have believed him.
Tread carefully on this announcement. Who knows what their policy will be next year?
-
I agree with Stinger, I am skeptical. I want more to see them announce that they are changing the way they enforce their non-willful infringement claims. They can increase their revenues by asking realistic and reasonable amounts for their images.
I offer Glen Carner as an example. He changed his approach and we were all shocked and pleased, I can only assume he has continued with it as we have not had one single complaint against him here on ELI since he adopted his new kinder, gentler policy.
-
There are, of course, many catches to Getty's new "free images:
The embedding tool is intended only for noncommercial uses. In many cases, Peters says, publishers will prefer to pay for images because they will get more control and won’t have embedded images sending information about their Web traffic back to Getty. Embedded images will not be allowed in contexts that promote products or businesses. “That’s a pretty clear delineation,” Peters says. “We’ll enforce the terms of this license if people start using these images to do that.”
above from story at... http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos)
And I'm confident Getty isn't going to donate PicScout to the "Save the Whales" foundation so they can auction that Israeli company to the highest bidder.
-
I would think that infringements would increase with this strategy. I wonder if that is the real intention? Sort of a veiled seeding?
-
Have no fear, Getty may allow the embedding of images, but those innocent infringers who find images via google search results, Pinterest and other place will still get demand letters. Their "FREE" image embedding is anything but free, they will show ads that they choose, links back to their site, and they will also be data mining..not exactly free. PLUS who determines "non-commercial"...how many times have we seen hobby bloggers or other site that make no money get the demand letter?
-
I totally agree with you guys. Getty is going to draw far more stringent lines with this program than many believe.
Infringement claims will likely go up. I wonder if this new direction is part of why Timmy is trying to clean up his image.
-
I totally agree with you guys. Getty is going to draw far more stringent lines with this program than many believe.
Infringement claims will likely go up. I wonder if this new direction is part of why Timmy is trying to clean up his image.
Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack from McCormack Intellectual Property Law is trying to clean up his image cause he does not like the "BUTT HURT" associated with it
-
Canuckistan,
This is a very important find. Thank you for sharing. My head nearly exploded when I read the article. I have many opinions, some that go beyond the scope of the article but extremely relevant to the issues at hand.
I find it interesting that there is not one user comment that informs or indicates that the Verge readership has any clue of Getty Images' smelly and moldy armpit operation called the extortion letter campaign. Getty has only reluctantly acknowledged the program exists only if it is called out on it but it is largely secretive and out of the PR light.
Getty reminds me of the big dinosaur publishing companies sitting in their ivory towers with huge overhead. Their employess better get ready to move into industrial warehouses because their days of sitting in the ivory towers paying exorbitant commercial rents will soon be over.
Photographers like writers/authors are going to have to get off their asses and start learning "the business" and become entrepreneurial if they want to continue being in "the business" vs. being a hobbyist. Depending on Getty Image and their ilk is going to be suicide for most photographers because most of the sales earned will go to keeping Getty's rent paid, lights on, and Klein's minions on payroll. There will be very little left, if any, going to the photographer.
And like everyone else here, I feel Getty cannot be trusted. They have not earned their trust. They have lived on the cachet of their name from 10-20 years ago. It is clear that the Getty name means very little now and very few care about them. And they have done very little to earn any fans. In fact, they have gone out of their way to literally create enemies by the thousands each and every year.
Getty and Timmy wonder why ELI has so much influence. That is because we publicly make a stand against them with authority and credibility. Getty has successfully seeded the Internet population with haters, enemies, and people who will go out of their way to NOT be their customer. From a karma point of view, they have thousands of people looking to see them put out of business.
Klein and their equity partners don't really care about photography anymore. It is just a money machine for them because there is nowhere to go if Getty goes out of business. Most of the upper management will be unemployable.
Ironically, people who truly care about photography and the business will be outsiders. I hate to admit it but I honestly do believe people like Carolyn Wright of Photo Attorney do care but certainly not Masterfile that she now represents. The problem with Carolyn is she leads with her lawyer hat vs. being innovative and taking what she knows with law and business and doing something radically different.
Anyhow, I have to cut this post short but I will be back to revisit.
I buried this in my other thread but it's big enough news for its own post:
The world's largest photo service just made its pictures free to use http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use
The article explores some issues around embedding, but one wonders if this is the end of the era of Extortion!
-
I totally agree with you guys. Getty is going to draw far more stringent lines with this program than many believe.
Infringement claims will likely go up. I wonder if this new direction is part of why Timmy is trying to clean up his image.
I'm not sure whether infringement claims will go up. These are hotlinked. But they may have "Terms of Service" claims, which is a different thing.
business week probably has the most balanced intro:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/since-it-cant-sue-us-all-getty-images-embraces-embedded-photos
It starts
Since It Can't Sue Us All, Getty Images Embraces Embedded Photos
By Joshua Brustein March 06, 2014
For the past decade or so, the best defense Getty Images could find against the right-click button on your mouse—home of the “copy” and “save” functions—has been a team of scary lawyers. By copying one of its images and using it on your blog, you’re entering a random drawing where the prize is a terrifying letter offering a tutorial in copyright litigation.
-
Good find Lucia! I see two very interesting quotes in this article.
Embedded images will not be allowed in contexts that promote products or businesses. “That’s a pretty clear delineation,” Peters says. “We’ll enforce the terms of this license if people start using these images to do that.”
What this one means to me is that they will continue to use their bullying tactics on those that meet the profile they define (as good victims).
According to records compiled by Bloomberg Law, Getty has only filed seven copyright infringement lawsuits in the past five years. Of those, five came in a single week this January.
This one means that people who get threatening letters should calm down. Somehow we should find a way to plaster this stat all over ELI. It doesn't mean you won't be sued, but you should take the time to breath, relax, research, and find your first best way to deal with this issue.
-
It's a total trap. I am seeing a lot of buzz among the professional writers/bloggers I work with about the new "free" images. No one understands what "commercial use" means. They think that if you don't slap the image on a product for sale, it's "non commercial use"
-
It's a total trap. I am seeing a lot of buzz among the professional writers/bloggers I work with about the new "free" images. No one understands what "commercial use" means. They think that if you don't slap the image on a product for sale, it's "non commercial use"
Therein lies 1 major issue, Getty will determine what falls under "commercial use"..me simply having a link to my zazzle shop, could make my cr-trolls site appear "commercial"...this will be an epic fail on getty's part, and you can bet your ass that current "contributors" will once again start bailing en masse, as they won't be getting paid, but their images will be used...and the letters?? they'll still pumping those out, it's the only way getty makes any money, besides having big media partnerships.
-
Extremely good points Robert.
It's a total trap. I am seeing a lot of buzz among the professional writers/bloggers I work with about the new "free" images. No one understands what "commercial use" means. They think that if you don't slap the image on a product for sale, it's "non commercial use"
Therein lies 1 major issue, Getty will determine what falls under "commercial use"..me simply having a link to my zazzle shop, could make my cr-trolls site appear "commercial"...this will be an epic fail on getty's part, and you can bet your ass that current "contributors" will once again start bailing en masse, as they won't be getting paid, but their images will be used...and the letters?? they'll still pumping those out, it's the only way getty makes any money, besides having big media partnerships.
-
As a matter of technical capability, the embed tool will permit Getty Images to simply yank the image or replace it if they diagnose the use commercial. Possibly that's what they will do- and then suggest someone who is using them commercially (or however Getty thinks commercial is defined) pay for them. Given the history, communications might be very heavy handed with threats about taking someone to court for violations of TOS. We'll see.
The main reason I won't be using these images is that I was never a big user or any stock images. I only got at cross purposes when I hot-linked a picture of a cardinal because one of my European readers wanted to know what they looked like!!
-
Lucia if you ever need bird images for reference, hit my photoblog! : ) I'll even let you use them, FREE no strings attatched, no nasty-grams either!
palmbeachdns.com/wp
-
It was just one of those things were someone said "what do those look like?" So, I found an image and hotlinked.
-
Yes I know I was just being snarky..
-
I didn't think it was snarky. This would be snarky:
http://bit.ly/1ikAOjG (http://bit.ly/1ikAOjG)
lol :)
Yes I know I was just being snarky..
-
I'm generally inclined to agree with others here that this is far from a change of heart at Getty, but if it catches on it does give them the option of shutting the image down when they think the use is commercial. Personally I think this looks like a death knell for the extortion letters -- after all under this scheme they now have complete control over whether an image is displayed. It's going to be hard to send a demand letter for that!
Instead I think they'll take a broad and inconsistent approach, sending letters telling people "hey if you want our wonderful, glorious image back on your site, just send us $400". I think they're going to find that approach less fruitful than they expect but we'll have to wait and see.
One of the personal ironies in this is I'm also a pretty decent photographer. I pulled my stock from iStockphoto when Getty acquired them (moved to Dreamstime). I've since had two invitations to list with Getty (both before I got my very own demand letter for my business site). Both times I'd told them that hell would have to freeze over twice before I'd let criminals represent my work.
Lastly this should be on my other thread, but I'll keep it brief: I had a lawyer look at my approach of billing Getty for responding to their demand letters. His only advice was that I bill for time spent researching and preparing the letter, rather than for the letter itself. Other than that his comment was "a judge would probably find these costs quite reasonable". So if they continue with their extortions, don't forget to bill for every minute you spend reading these forums! In my case they went quiet just after I sent them registered mail indicating that they now owe me more than they claim I owe them!
-
I have not read the TOS for Getty's new program. Does it say what the penalties are for a commercial violation? Just wondering if they are going to use the TOS that you agreed to as a club to aid in collection/suits.
-
I didn't see any monetary penalties for violating TOS. Also, unlike copyright, there are no specific statutory penalties. So it's not clear Getty could do much beyond decreeing you can't use their embed tool anymore and/or prevent your domain from hotlinking.
-
Thanks Lucia!