Getty Images has been making some serious mis-steps lately. (Starting with the blatant violation of a photographer's copyright protection and followed by several moves that angered contributors.)
The latest move just baffles me completely.
Getty has just announced that it will allow free embedding of images. (Hat Tip: Amateur Photographer.)
I predict disaster.
Getty does limit the use of embedded images in its Terms of Service to "Editorial" use only. I wish them luck trying to enforce that.
It also limits embedding to certain images, and image size is limited as well.
Part of the problem has to do with implementation.
When first written, this article included an example of what you get using the Getty Code. I removed the code after writing the section in bold below.
The embedding code results in an embedded frame, with buttons to share the image. I have tried reblogging on my Tumblr page. There is a scroll bar visible on Tumblr. (I deleted the post after seeing the results. I was primarily just interested in seeing the results.) This is an ugly result.
There is a greater problem with implementation. The above image can be downloaded from Getty as a comp image. The complementary image includes a watermark. The embed code, as implemented, makes the image available without the watermark.
The price to license this image at 507x308 pixels is $65.
Getty has implemented a program that facilitates pirating its hosted images. At least at that limited size.
Getty has just created a huge headache for itself when it comes to fighting piracy. It has also given its contributors another reason to flee the company.
The code does give Getty the option to include advertising along with the embedded image, and to collect information from the website hosting the code. Getty apparently plans to become the photo equivalent of YouTube.
The problem is that all Getty's content comes from the Copyright holder. The Copyright holder is harmed if Getty gives the product away for free. Doing that to create a revenue stream (through advertising) may be good for Getty, but the Copyright holder is getting nothing out of that unless Getty agrees to share advertising revenue.
There is no advertising revenue right now to share. Getty is just giving away the product for free.
What Getty seems to have forgotten is that the product it is now giving away belongs to someone else. That person has not agreed to having the product given away.
PostScript: Came Across this take after writing this.
Using the images to collect information and sell ads makes sense for a technology company. It makes no sense for a company representing individuals seeking to sell copyrighted material. What images will Getty have left to leverage after this move?
No comments:
Post a Comment