Interesting Article from a Pissed Getty Contributor

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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/

[Oscar Michelen]

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.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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

[Oscar Michelen]

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.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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.

[SoylentGreen]

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...



S.G.

[Mulligan]

More interesting reading on the Google Drive use of istockphoto images at

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."

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Mulligan]

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

[Moe Hacken]

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.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Getty's business model:

• Alienate its contributors
• Threaten to sue its customers

What could possibly go wrong?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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/

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

...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/

[stinger]

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?