The consensus analysis seems to be this is just Getty acknowledging it can't prevent pirating of the images it licenses to media outlets for use on the Internet. This is merely a way for Getty to get something out of those sites, when they are just going to use the images anyway.
The problems with that analysis is that the embed program does nothing to address image piracy by bloggers or other social media outlets. The piracy occurs when someone sees a news article on a media outlet. That person then performs a cut and paste operation on the image licensed by that site.
The individuals pirating Getty images don't get them from sites that will be using the embed tool. They get them from sites that official license the image. That means that the image pirates are not going to be re-posting the embed images.
The original piracy is not going to involve an embedded image. That means this program will do nothing to address piracy.
The fact that this does nothing to address piracy suggest that Getty has a different goal. That goal seems to be leveraging its image library in order to become an information technology company. (For some needed background I suggest Getty did What? at the DAM Book. That's "Digital Asset Management" for Photographers.)
Why this Goal?
As the article above points out, Getty was recently acquired by the Carlyle Group.
They paid $3.3 Billion for the company. They have a $1.2 Billion loan payment due in 2016.
Getty had $900 Million in Revenue. A typical profit rate is around 10%. That would mean Getty had roughly $90 Billion in profits.
There is absolutely no way for the Carlyle Group to make that loan payment using Getty's current revenue stream. Carlyle has two choices.
1) Increase the revenue stream by a factor of 10, and do so over a two year period of time. (How realistic is a goal of 50% revenue increase per year for a mature company like Getty?)
2) Increase the revenue/profits enough to sell the company for far more than they paid for it. Carlyle is in for $3.3 Billion plus whatever the interest in on the loan when they pay it back. A conservative estimate would put interest at a minimum of another $300 Million by the time that first payment is due. They probably have to sell for at least $4 Billion to make the sell worth while.
The problem for Carlyle? There is no way to increase revue/profitability to the extent needed while Getty's core business is that of a Stock agency.
The Carlyle Group needs to change Getty's business model, and that seems to be the motive behind the move to offer embedded images.
What Embedded Images Do for Getty
To understand what Getty gets out of embedded images you need to understand a little about how they (and web sites) work.
Briefly, a web page is nothing more than a special kind of text file. The text file tells the web browser what should be displayed on the screen and gives the browser the location of any files it will need. (Modern browsers will allow you the view the source code for a web page. Look under "Web Developer" or "Developer Tools" if you want to see what you browser actually uses to display a web page.)
Embedding adds code to the web page telling the browser to contact a computer run by Getty in order to display the embedded image.
Among other things, this allows Getty to determine the site visited by the person viewing the embedded image. They can determine which image is being viewed. They can also determine the context in which the image is displayed and may even be able to track the browsing habits of the people visiting sites that have embedded images.
This type of information is Internet Gold.
It is how Google makes oodles of money. The people running Getty have apparently decided they want to make Google type money (Goodles?) and are attempting to do so by leveraging Getty's image library.
Getty's Problem
Getty has a fundamental problem when it comes to using its image library this way: Getty does not own the images in its library. It sells them on behalf of the owners.
Check out the first sentence from the press release sent out when Getty was purchased by the Carlyle Group/Getty Management:
Washington, DC and Seattle, WA – Global alternative asset manager The Carlyle Group (NASDAQ: CG) and Getty Images management announced today they have formed a partnership to acquire Getty Images, Inc., a global creator and distributor of still imagery, video and multimedia products, from Hellman & Friedman for $3.3 billion.
Followed in then next paragraph with:
Getty Images consistently demonstrates growth, leadership and prominence as one of the world’s leading media companies.
Read those carefully. Creator of imagery? Media company?
Do you notice anything about Getty being a Stock Agency?
Getty has apparently forgotten who is actually responsible for creating the images in its library. Getty does not own the content it sells, it licenses it on behalf of the owner.
That makes them an Agency, not a "content creator" or a "media company", and the difference is extremely important. Getty does not have the right to use property belonging to someone else in whatever manner they see fit.
(And before you cite the license agreement I suggest you look up "Adhesion Contract.")
They also have a duty not to facilitate image piracy. Their embed code implementation does the opposite. It actually facilitates copyright theft. If you visit a site with an embedded image, all you have to do to steal the image is right click on it then "save as".
Before the embedded image program, photographers were guaranteed that the image would be licensed at least once before being pirated. Now, they don't even have that guarantee, and that is due to Getty's behavior.
At the very least, Getty has a duty not to lower the value of the image to the copyright holder. That copyright holder is the photographer, not Getty. Couple Getty basically giving someone else's Intellectual Property away for free with the Morel Copyright Lawsuit, and it seems clear that the people running Getty have no regard for the Intellectual Property Rights of individual photographers.
Getty's core business is selling content created by someone else. Getty's attempts to leverage its library in order to become an information gathering company undermines its core business.
Right now, photographers looking for an agent to represent them when it comes to licensing their images have no reason to choose Getty. They don't see themselves as the photographer's agent.
If you are a photographer, why would you use a Stock Image site that does not view itself as your agent?
The photographers that loaded images to Getty's site agreed to allow Getty to license the image. They did not transfer property rights to Getty. Getty is now licensing those images in a way that benefits Getty, not the photographer. (In my opinion, that is a violation of the photographer's Intellectual Property Rights, and could very well result in lawsuits.)
It should, at the very least, result in mass defections.
How long will Getty last as a content provider if it loses the content it provides?
(As a footnote, I'd like to add that the problems at Getty seem to predate any involvement on part of the Carlyle Group and they may in fact wind up being harmed as a result of this "the images are our property" mentality that seems to permeate Getty right now. The current actions by Getty are very likely to result in enough problems that Carlyle may have difficulty in recouping their initial investment, let alone making a profit.)
As to Getty being an Agent: the company accepts Intellectual Property from the creator. In return, they agree to market the property and share the fee collected from the person purchasing the right to use it. That is, by definition, what an agent does.
Getty may not think of itself as an agent. They may deny an agent/client relationship exist. But a court will probably disagree with them if the issue ever becomes part of a lawsuit.
They have voluntarily taken on the duties of an agent. That makes them an agent.
That creates certain legal duties for Getty. They appear to be ignoring those duties.
No comments:
Post a Comment