Thursday, January 17, 2013

Discussion: Google Drive Update + Jan 15

Member is an admin

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:40PM

We?ve heard you, and we've met with Google and are working with them to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised over the past several days--including copyright ownership.

Implementation aside, our goal is to do the best deals for Getty Images, iStockphoto and our contributors for the more than one million customers we service on an annual basis.

We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures. Getty Images is a leader within our industry in advancing these ideas - including active participation in the legislative and government regulatory processes with numerous governing bodies around copyright issues. We also acquired and continue to invest aggressively in the PicScout ImageIRC platform to provide technical solutions for copyright compliance and we look forward to sharing new developments with you as this evolves.

To ensure everyone understands the arrangement, we wanted to re-state the basics of this deal:

  • This is a license arranged with Google through Getty Images; this is not a "free" promotional arrangement like the 2007 MS deal also being discussed recently.
  • There was a pool of several thousand images licensed from Getty and iStock RF collections that are on the Getty Images platform.
  • No RM content was included in this pool or deal.
  • Royalties for these images were paid through Getty Images and were processed in October and November of 2012.
  • Of images licensed, just under 700 are from a group of about 490 iStock contributors.
  • Just under 100 of those contributors have multiple files within the pool, the rest have a single file.
  • License information: Under the agreement, Google has a bespoke EULA to allow these images to be used by Google users through the Google Drive platform. Users of this platform are granted rights to place this imagery in content created using Google Docs, Google Sites, and Google Presentations and these end uses can be for commercial purposes; however, users are not granted rights to use this imagery outside of Google Drive created content and Google users have no rights to redistribute image files outside of the context in which they?re used.

Again, we acknowledge and understand your concerns about this specific situation and appreciate your continued patience while we work with Google.

Original Discussion

(Edited on 2013-01-15 21:21:25 by Lobo)

Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:49PM

what about deleting the metadata info from the images? the images are now orphans?
what about letting the artist/owners of the image to opt out to these kind of deals?
Is this thing going to be a "on going project"?

Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a File Of The Week

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:51PM

Working with Google now, on copyright ownership, well after these images have all been released into the wild hardly inspires me with confidence that istock has the contributors best interest at heart. And there are no constraints in the EULA on inappropriate use of model released images mentioned. Anyone who has looked at Google knows that the very wide conditions of use are so fine print that it isn't funny-even if they find them, the average Google user will go "whoopee, stock images I can use how I like" - the average user is totally clueless about copyright etc.

It also worries me that despite the timeframe of the deal, Istock management were totally unaware of the implications for their contributors. What other "specific situations" are there waiting to come out of the woodwork, now and in the future?

(Edited on 2013-01-15 17:54:08 by Susan_Stewart)

Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:52PM

Thanks for the update, still to many questions for my comfort on this.

Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:52PM

This is basically a copy and paste of what you wrote four day ago. ?So in other words, no new info, new answers to the questions raised since then

Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:54PM

Thanks for the update - glad to hear you are working with Google to "refine". Gonna be tough at this point, but I hope those discussions will be able to address all of the valid issues raised.

Member is an adminThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:55PM


Posted By karenhermann:
This is basically a copy and paste of what you wrote four day ago. ?So in other words, no new info, new answers to the questions raised since then


The bullet points are essentially the same. As mr_erin indicates in his post he wanted to re-state the basic points of the deal.Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:56PM

No, lots of copy and paste but new info on the restrictions to within Google Docs and info on working with Google. Still lots of questions but some new info.

Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:56PM

Posted By karenhermann:
This is basically a copy and paste of what you wrote four day ago. ?So in other words, no new info, new answers to the questions raised since then


At least it's something, I guess. Thanks for the update.Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has more than 0 Logo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:58PM

I agree, i do not detect any new information. Not a single concern of the contributors have been addressed.

You are just confirming everyone?s fear, that getty believes that once our content is on their plattforum getty has teh righ to do with our IP whatever they want. the number of imges involved is irrelevant.

You do not own our content.

You have no right to hand it out for free?12 dollar?redistribution deals without requesting our express consent. You have no right to chose our bestsellers whenever you like and set them free on the internet.

(you, means getty of course, not you mr.erin, but I am sure you know that)

Looks like there is nothing for us to do but pull files or upload elsewhere sad

So depressing.

(Edited on 2013-01-15 17:59:26 by cobalt)

Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a File Of The Week

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:59PM

Posted By SteveDF:
No, lots of copy and paste but new info on the restrictions to within Google Docs and info on working with Google. Still lots of questions but some new info.

The only new info is that there is some attempt to shut the stable door after the horse is bolted, but no reaasurance that deals like this will not be done in future (or haven't already been done)

Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 5:59PM

Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:06PM

I think is a legitimate question

"is there any plans to give away my images to another web site and delete all metadata from the file converting it in an orphan file?"

I think I have the right to know

Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:09PM

Oh and don't run away now, start talking in these forums and try to answer some of the concerns raised already!

Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:09PM


It is good to know that the details of this deal may be somewhat fluid.? I take it that when you say you will address the concerns over copyright ownership, that you mean copyright notices will be returned to the metadata.? If that were to happen, it would be a good START.?

But our concerns about copyrights aren't just about attribution.? They are about obtaining permission for each of our images that is added to these sorts of outside deals, and fair and adequate monetary compensation for those usages.? This will efectively kill future saleability of the images included, and as such, we, the copyright owners, need to expressly agree to this and be reimbursed what we think is fair (which most likely be considerably more than $12).? Nobody's pictures should be included without specific, image-by-image permission.

Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:10PM

/
/A lot of words, but nothing new...

First of all there should be an option to opt-out from "deals" like this.

Secondly... our images are not selling, exlusive content is excluded from the search results, so I really don't see any reason to give away our images for nearly free...

Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:26PM

Thanks for the update, You haven't answered any of the questions I need answers to posted here. Waiting.

Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:34PM

Posted By Lobo:?

Posted By karenhermann:
This is basically a copy and paste of what you wrote four day ago. ?So in other words, no new info, new answers to the questions raised since then


The bullet points are essentially the same. As mr_erin indicates in his post he wanted to re-state the basic points of the deal.

Okay, I get that. ?But the point remains that there were a lot of very valid and important (and time-sensitive) concerns brought up by contributors whose images were released, and I would have though that Getty et al would have anticipated these issues and had answers to them prior to this. ?In which case, they'd be able to share them here. ?The fact that they didn't, and have to scurry and delay to come up with them now, just shows that there was no thought given to the consequences of these actions, or the contributors. ?Which is scary as hell to those that have entrusted their work to them. ?

(Edited on 2013-01-15 18:54:22 by karenhermann)

Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:38PM

We know this wasn't a free 'promotion' like the shockingly bad revised MS deal.

However being compensated $12 for Google to then be allowed to give away our most valuable work (VETTA and E+) for FREE with no copyright details and absolutely no link back our file or portfolio let alone iStock is pretty much the same thing.?

You said you wouldn't do the MS deal again today but this looks similar if not worse to me (at least some contribs got an EL payment and iStock got a link back to a landing page). So how come this is such a good deal?

(Edited on 2013-01-15 19:06:16 by PeskyMonkey)

Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer

Posted Tue Jan 15 6:40PM

"We want to stress that we realize the importance of copyright law" - great to hear you realize the importance of copyright law, how about enforcing it and stop giving our images away for free. sure you paid us an insulting $12 for what equats to a buy-out fee and literally eliminates any further value on that image, but what about the millions of downloads that are being freely downloaded for commercial usage? you have in effect stripped us of our copyright. let me ask you a personal question mr_erin, if this was your work, would you be defending these decisions as you are or would you be upset that your work has been in effect stolen and given away for free. if you choose that you would defend these decisions then may i suggest you work for free for getty as you seem like this is reasonable.

Source: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823003&source=rssforums

brooklyn nets may day protests tony nominations 2012 facebook organ donor jessica simpson gives birth carrie underwood blown away chk

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)