As some of you know, there was a 100' wide sinkhole that happened Florida EARLY this morning (8-12-2013) near Clermont. I've seen several articles online that are showing photos of it; most of them show: Photo: photographer's name, Getty Images .
Recently there was a new planet discovered that was pink(ish) in color (GJ 504b for those interested). The image in question if of.. well.. a pink planet on the left against a star background with a sun on the upper right. It was released by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the artist is S. Wiessinger. USA Today has a cropped version of this image on their website, credit is being given to AFP/Getty Images. Neither the artist nor his pink planet can be found on Getty, however.
There is another image I've run across of The Helix Nebula that IS on Getty's site and THEY give credit to another stock image website called StockTrek Images.. However, Getty is more than happy to charge for use of said image (and yes, you can also pay for use of said image over on StockTrek's site as well - yet on ST's website they give credit to a Robert Gendler!!!).
I wonder if this is an instance of getty taking an image and trying to "claim" they are the ones who "represent" the photographer. The more I look into and investigate Getty the more I see how "in the dark" they operate.
I'm tempted to break out my camera and start taking a bunch of new photos just to see if Getty tries to take em...
Recently there was a new planet discovered that was pink(ish) in color (GJ 504b for those interested). The image in question if of.. well.. a pink planet on the left against a star background with a sun on the upper right. It was released by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the artist is S. Wiessinger. USA Today has a cropped version of this image on their website, credit is being given to AFP/Getty Images. Neither the artist nor his pink planet can be found on Getty, however.
There is another image I've run across of The Helix Nebula that IS on Getty's site and THEY give credit to another stock image website called StockTrek Images.. However, Getty is more than happy to charge for use of said image (and yes, you can also pay for use of said image over on StockTrek's site as well - yet on ST's website they give credit to a Robert Gendler!!!).
I wonder if this is an instance of getty taking an image and trying to "claim" they are the ones who "represent" the photographer. The more I look into and investigate Getty the more I see how "in the dark" they operate.
I'm tempted to break out my camera and start taking a bunch of new photos just to see if Getty tries to take em...