ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on January 16, 2013, 10:10:03 PM
-
Robert found this blog page which appears to be from a Getty contributor who is fed up with Jonathan Klein and Getty. The article as long and briefly and vaguely mentions ELI but it is a very interesting read.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/16/getty-hands-google-users-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/
-
Greg - This is beyond interesting - it is fantastic! I even used bold type! How can Getty claim any value to the images they are trolling about when they have this program in place? Especially when apparently many of these images contain models in them? Those are almost always Rights-Managed and not merely Royalty-Free. This also devalues all other digital image warehouses claims -Masterfile always harps about charging so much more for images with models in them as they are RM and RF. Now their brother in arms Getty Images is establishing a low market value for these images as well. If they are paying their photogs a one time fee of $12 per image which can then be re-used constantly for free, they are valuing stock imagery at pennies! I think this can be a goldmine for us and future letter recipients. Have to read the article again and all comments and sleep on it for a bit.
-
Actually I screwed up Oscar and posted the wrong link in this thread :-[. I am trying to multitask and read three good stories at once and post on them and copied the link from the wrong window. I think I'm starting to slow down as I can remember when I used to have five windows open and keep straight everything I was doing.
I was going to post this topic next and talk about it. This article is absolutely fascinating and if you follow the link contained with in it to the forum and looking at all the photographers that are dealing with Getty and I stock that are absolutely furious right now because their images are being given away it is amazing. I can see another class-action lawsuit resulting from this just like when Getty introduce their premium service and started offering their contributors photos for unlimited use for as little as two dollars.
Anyway here is the link to the interesting article that I was referring to in my first post, this is the one that Robert had found.:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2012/03/getty-images-not-looking-for-cash-in.html
-
That is Interesting but I was annoyed when I read this part of his post:
I know that there is a lot of discourse on the internet about "getty extortion letters" , whereby Getty finds someone who they have no record of having obtained a Getty image legally, stealing an image, and, for a nominal fee of $750, Getty offers to give these infringers essentially a retroactive license.
I am sure that the lawyers behind this, trolling for their own clients to object to Getty, may also be trying to create some form of class action situation down the line. However, companies should be ecstatic that they can get out from under a Federal lawsuit for copyright infringement for that small of an amount. The retainer for a copyright lawyer to defend themselves will be $5k-$10k, if not more - to start. I would find it interesting if there were contributors who took Getty to court for failing to file suit, or, by photographers who had been precluded from filing their own lawsuit by Getty's contract, due to Getty's acceptance of the $750[/size][/size]
We are not trolling for our own clients because if we were the last thing we would do is provide so much FREE information. I could easily build a site where I provide limited information, scare folks into thinking they are likely to be sued imminently and charge much more money for my letter defense. He also surmises that we are trying to troll for class action lawsuits when every chance I get I have posted that I don't see a class action lawsuit in this mess. So while I am glad he linked to our site, I wish he would have been more informed before he posted his erroneous analysis of it.
-
Agreed, but I believe his stance is the same as most Getty contributors where they think that we do not respect or believe them intellectual property rights and are just out to use images for free.
That is Interesting but I was annoyed when I read this part of his post:
I know that there is a lot of discourse on the internet about "getty extortion letters" , whereby Getty finds someone who they have no record of having obtained a Getty image legally, stealing an image, and, for a nominal fee of $750, Getty offers to give these infringers essentially a retroactive license.
I am sure that the lawyers behind this, trolling for their own clients to object to Getty, may also be trying to create some form of class action situation down the line. However, companies should be ecstatic that they can get out from under a Federal lawsuit for copyright infringement for that small of an amount. The retainer for a copyright lawyer to defend themselves will be $5k-$10k, if not more - to start. I would find it interesting if there were contributors who took Getty to court for failing to file suit, or, by photographers who had been precluded from filing their own lawsuit by Getty's contract, due to Getty's acceptance of the $750[/size][/size]
We are not trolling for our own clients because if we were the last thing we would do is provide so much FREE information. I could easily build a site where I provide limited information, scare folks into thinking they are likely to be sued imminently and charge much more money for my letter defense. He also surmises that we are trying to troll for class action lawsuits when every chance I get I have posted that I don't see a class action lawsuit in this mess. So while I am glad he linked to our site, I wish he would have been more informed before he posted his erroneous analysis of it.
-
Good posting. Wow, iStock/Getty contributors are sure fired up about this.
In recent years, there have been many rumblings on the Internet made by disgruntled Getty contributors.
I recall reading about Getty paying less for content, and all the butthurt about that.
Later, Getty made news again by creating a policy of moving (slower-selling) rights-managed content right into royalty-free collections en-masse.
I think that this most recent development just causes more distrust between Getty and their contributors.
I guess that photographers have to be pretty careful about the contracts that they sign Getty.
But, my understanding is that Getty probably provides the same contract for most everyone.
It's all, "business", and it's tough. But, anyone following the stock image industry (even casually) is acutely aware that:
1) Customers are pissed off
2) Contributors are pissed off
-and-
3) Employees are pissed off
So, Getty gets the "Scumbag Hat Award"... McCormack won't mind sharing the glory, I'm sure...
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4350/gettyimageslogoscumbagh.jpg)
S.G.
-
More interesting reading on the Google Drive use of istockphoto images at
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1)
The first post in the above thread appears to be an official istockphoto statement trying to clarify how they're screwing over their photographers.
Note this bullet point in the first post:
o No RM content was included in this pool or deal.
As the thread continues, photographers seem to say the above bullet isn't true because models apparently do appear in the images being distributed via Google Drive and, as Oscar stated above, such images are usually Rights Managed.
The message reminds me of one of Mrs. Mulligan's insightful observations that I suspect a lot of photographers think upon reading this first post: "You can paint a turd purple, but it'll still smell like pig shit if you break it in half."
-
Great reporting and discussion as usual.
While Getty has stated that Rights-Managed (RM) content was not included in the deal, Getty does move images from its RM pool to its Royalty-Free (RF) collection at will.
Additionally, even if the images in question were of the RF variety, they are now low-valued, much like clip art because of the deal.
Here's the complete list of images included as part of the deal (you can search using multiple criteria):
http://kga.me/gds/
I think that photogs need to understand that Getty pretty much does whatever it wants with their images, once they sign on.
S.G.
-
S.G., judging from the very pissed off replies from photographers on the istockphoto.com forum in the "New price slide values" and "Google Drive" topics, Getty Images is losing what little good will it still had left with the people supplying them with images.
Several interesting threads can be found starting at:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=14&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=14&page=1)
-
Maybe some of those photographers will now spit out the Getty Kool-Aid and stop satanizing ELI and its partners in the fight against copyright trolling. Maybe they'll see we're not against their rights as copyright owners but against Getty's abuses as a "middleman" in the stock photography market.
Getty appears to be undergoing a typical private equity firm takeover process. They're now "trimming the fat" on the payroll and sticking their hands deeper into everyone's pockets — both providers and customers — in order to manipulate the bottom line and make the company look more viable on paper. The next move down the line will be another sale or an IPO.
The trick for them is to find a way to make it look like a viable business model and sell it before the whole thing really crumbles. Their moves to the microstock model betray their lack of faith on the long-term viability of the RM stock photography model.
One happy thought: This last firm that bought them may get stuck with a huge white elephant when the music stops and no one in their right mind will invest in this shell of an industrial dinosaur that Getty has become.
-
I think they will see it as everyone is against them which is clearly not the case. I believe pretty much all of the regulars have stated at one time or another that we support the IP rights of the artists and I have never seen anyone seriously make a statement to the contrary.
Maybe some of those photographers will now spit out the Getty Kool-Aid and stop satanizing ELI and its partners in the fight against copyright trolling. Maybe they'll see we're not against their rights as copyright owners but against Getty's abuses as a "middleman" in the stock photography market.
-
Getty's business model:
• Alienate its contributors
• Threaten to sue its customers
What could possibly go wrong?
-
Getty's business model:
• Alienate its contributors
• Threaten to sue its customers
What could possibly go wrong?
this for starters!
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-loses-major-case-brought-by-photographer-daniel-morel/
-
...and this....
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/jonathan-klein-and-getty-images-a-history-of-questionable-business-practices/
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/jonathan-klein-and-getty-images-know-how-to-treat-their-contributors-not/
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/johnathan-klien-and-getty-images-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/
Getty's business model:
• Alienate its contributors
• Threaten to sue its customers
What could possibly go wrong?
this for starters!
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-loses-major-case-brought-by-photographer-daniel-morel/
-
I have an entirely different take on this.
What if Getty is using the Google Drive blog as their 2013 vehicle for seeding the market with images? Will the Google Drive users know that they can't take the free images elsewhere for use? Are there any protections or warnings to stop them from doing so? If they do so, will McCormack and Getty start trolling them and asking for thousands of dollars for unlicensed use?
Getty has shown itself to be on both sides of an issue in the past. Why wouldn't they give away the photos for fractions of fractions of pennies to Google Drive users and then claim the photos are worth thousands later?
What do you guys think? Am I being too paranoid?
-
I've been running the same scenario around in my head that Stinger mentions.. I'm a google drive user, and also creates docs within google.... I could easily see the following happen..
I "create" a doc in google doc, and insert one of these images, which says I can do for "commercial purposes" I then save my google doc as a pdf and throw it up on my site.. I'd be willing to bet Getty or the artist will come knocking..As far as I'm concerend I'm in the clear, the pdf came from a document that was created using google docs and google drive..just a matter of time before this becomes an issue, unless Getty backtracks and removes these images and pulls out of this "contract" with Google...
-
Yes, I concur that Stinger and Buddhapi.
However, I doubt that Getty/Google have set out to "seed" images in order to induce infringements.
I'm sure that the average person may assume that the images are akin to "free clipart", and use them for other purposes.
Getty trolls the Web 24/7 looking for "copyright infringements", so it's logical to assume that the images in question could become part of the problem.
According to Getty, these images are royalty-free. Traditionally, Getty hasn't pursued infringements for its royalty-free collections.
But, let's keep an eye on it...
S.G.
-
Yes, I concur that Stinger and Buddhapi.
However, I doubt that Getty/Google have set out to "seed" images in order to induce infringements.
I'm sure that the average person may assume that the images are akin to "free clipart", and use them for other purposes.
Getty trolls the Web 24/7 looking for "copyright infringements", so it's logical to assume that the images in question could become part of the problem.
According to Getty, these images are royalty-free. Traditionally, Getty hasn't pursued infringements for its royalty-free collections.
But, let's keep an eye on it...
S.G.
yes "royalty Free" containing models, and contributor family members without model releases.. Getty really screwed up with this little project... They pay Joe photog a whopping 12 bucks, I come along and use that image that just happens to have Joe photogs aunt Linda in it.... Aunt Linda now becomes my spokes model for a the latest and greatest anti troll butt cream... sorry photog getty paid you, Aunt Linda should be proud!
-
Just curious... is it in law that there must be a model release for an image to be considered "royalty free"?
Another concern of mine is that Getty can move images from RF to RM without notice.
Even if this is done will no ill intent, people could be getting Getty extortion letters in regard to these images two, three, or five years from now.
If one can't prove that the images were RF "back in the day", it's a huge hassle for the alleged infringer.
The alleged infringer just gets a raft of letters demanding money if he/she doesn't have a license.
Hell, who even knows if Getty's people remember what the status of any given image was even a few years ago?
S.G.
-
Soylent, I am not certain where you get the facts to back up this statement.
Traditionally, Getty hasn't pursued infringements for its royalty-free collections.
I am in possession of a McCormack legal letter that is about nothing but Getty Royalty Free Images. In fact, the images are all still on the Getty Royalty Free page. And their asking price is quite high.
-
Then, I stand corrected, Stinger.
I'm curious. In your case, do they claim that these images are RM (in their letters to you)?
S.G.
-
They only claim that they are images represented by Getty Images. They do not claim that they are rights managed.
-
Ok. Thanks.
Well, it doesn't sound like they have "exclusivity", then.
What a bunch of a-holes.
S.G.
-
Mr Stinger, it seems that Mr. McCormack of McCormack law disagrees with you.
From his faq:
Q: I found the images on the Internet or the Getty Images website; aren’t these free or “Royalty-Free” images?
A: Although we understand you may have believed the images were available for free use, all images represented by Getty Images require an appropriate license for their use. “Royalty-free” does not mean that the images are free; it is an industry phrase that refers to a licensing model where the user pays once and has the continuing right to use the image without additional royalty payments. In any event, the images referenced in our settlement demand are not available from Getty Images under a royalty-free licensing model.
http://www.mccormacklegal.com/blog/getty-images-demand-frequently-asked-questions
McCormack must be lying again.
S.G.
-
Thanks S.G.,
I am just going to take a stab at what happened here. Perhaps someone actually sent that question in, in response to a troll letter. Maybe in their case, royalty free images were not involved. Then, when someone put up McCormack's FAQ page from questions and answers they had lying around, they took the specific response and generalized it.
Having been on this forum as long as you have, you know that you can't take much of anything McCormack says to heart. There is not much quality control in their content, or their grammar for that matter. In any case, I do not expect that just because that statement exists on their web site, it can be used as a defense in court.
This is likely just another case of their using language (improperly) to try and make them look better than they are.