Getty Images Changes Watermark, Tries to Change Image

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Earlier this month, Getty images announced that it was changing its iconic watermark on its images. The move marked both a huge shift for Getty Images but, possibly, for watermarking on the Web entirely.

Getty Images, as the largest stock photo provider in the world, has always been at the forefront of image watermarking. It’s previous watermark, which was simply a translucent version of their logo positioned across the center of the image, was probably the most-viewed and most-recognizable watermark anywhere.

However, as Getty Images also came to recognize, it was also one of the most disliked....


"After all, the watermark is just a facelift, the bigger problems lie underneath."

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2012/05/30/getty-images-changes-watermark-tries-to-change-image/

[Doc]

That is curious.  Could this be another clue to the possibility of their going public?  If they have negative attachment to their icon's, it would make sense that they would try to distance themselves from it to getter a better IPO price.

[Moe Hacken]

I must say that I applaud and encourage any help they can give the consumer to identify the fact that the image is rights-managed, and a way to acquire the proper licenses. It should stated be as clearly as possible.

[SoylentGreen]

This is really quite curious.
The article states "This made the image viewable, but largely useless for anyone who was trying to take the image for some other use, online or off."
Wow.  What use would that be?  "Let's use an image with a watermark all over it for our stuff!!  Yayyy!".

The people at Getty don't understand branding.  That's all that I'll say on that point.

The most interesting aspect is that they're putting the artist's name on the watermark.
There must be some legal strategy at work here.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I think it's great that they put the artist name on the images, this way folks can just contact the artist, license the image and cut Copyright Troll Getty out of the equation..

[Moe Hacken]

I think it's great that they put the artist name on theimages, this way folks can just contact the artist, license the image and cut Copyright Troll Getty out of the equation..

Unless they're bound by contract not to play the "End-around-Getty" game! But that's between the photographer and their chosen legal representatives, of course.

[SoylentGreen]

Buddha makes a good point.  I believe that people have done that successfully.

The only type of contract that would keep an artist from the "End-around-Getty game" as Moe puts it would an exclusive contact.
Getty doesn't have those with most of it's artists, as it's pretty expensive.

Now, getting back to Getty's watermarking.  The only place that one would see a Getty image with a big watermark on it would be on Getty's website where the images are sold.
If you're seeing a watermarked image, you're probably already on Getty's website and the artist name is listed there already.
Is this new watermarking scheme intended to give the false impression that Getty has an exclusive agreement with the artist in question?

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Interesting question Doc, I don’t know if it’s a clue or not but it should certainly help anyone find the image, although I would never support them in any way until they changed their policies.  As buddhapi said, I would just try to bypass them and talk to the artist directly if I should ever need an image.

I would welcome Getty Images going public for a couple of reasons.  First, there would be a wealth of information about their business structure and practices that would have to be released and made public prior to an IPO that could be used to support our cause and help take the fight to Getty.  Secondly, I think that having made all this information public any potential shareholders would not look to kindly on the current extortionist practices of the Copyright Compliance department making it a business practice to harass people and small business who can clearly prove they are non-willful or innocent infringers, demanding outrages sums rather than a simple cease and desist or license the image request. 

As for getting a good IPO price, in my opinion which this whole thing is, I think they would face the same kind of issues that Facebook is having.  Computer glitches on opening day aside their stock has continued to fall partly due to several lawsuits filed against them.  I can see the same happening to Getty, there are a lot of people out there who have been treated badly and unfairly that would love a look at Getty’s files.  I hope Getty does go public though as it would probably result in them having to change the way they do business or watch their stock continue to fall.

That is curious.  Could this be another clue to the possibility of their going public?  If they have negative attachment to their icon's, it would make sense that they would try to distance themselves from it to getter a better IPO price.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

My (slightly cynical) belief is that they are trying to make it easier for inexperienced designers to crop out the water mark and use the middle and upper left portion of the image.