Hat Tip: Imaging Resource
Bloomberg posted an article yesterday on Getty's current financial issues. (The story cites two anonymous sources. Take that as a warning as to potential accuracy problems.)
Getty apparently burned through a third of its cash reserves during the last three months of 2014.
Getty took on $2.6 billion in debt to finance the $3.3 billion purchase of the company by Carlyle Group. The loan terms limits Getty's ability to borrow money when certain conditions are met. The 7% drop in the company's fourth-quarter earnings resulted in debt being more that 6 times earnings. This triggered a clause limiting Getty's ability to borrow against it's $150 Million line of credit.
The news caused the price of Getty's debt instruments to drop. (Bad news for those that own them.)
Frankly, the news doesn't surprise me. Getty has made some troubling moves since the Carlyle take-over. Those moves antagonized the people Getty needs to be successful (photographers) and part of their current issues can probably be traced to that antagonism.
Photographers ending their association with Getty leaves Getty with less material to sell or license. It could also result in the material still on hand being lower quality, lowering the price Getty can charge for those materials.
This seems to be reflected in the fact that Getty Images year over year profits are down 17%
Carlyle apparently thought they could leverage Getty's stock image library in order to turn the company into an Internet giant. Unfortunately, many of the moves made in an attempt to leverage that image library undermined Getty's core business, stock photography imaging.
Undermining your core businesses is never a recipe for success.
Showing posts with label stock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stock. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
New Science Images Available Under Creative Commons Licnse
Hat Tip: CNet
CSIRO, an Australian based science research organization, has a website with over 4,000 images and videos available under a Creative Commons License. These are image and videos are free to use as long as the CSIRO is attributed as the source.
The files can be downloaded or embedded, like so:
The site should be useful for science blogs looking for free image or videos.
CSIRO, an Australian based science research organization, has a website with over 4,000 images and videos available under a Creative Commons License. These are image and videos are free to use as long as the CSIRO is attributed as the source.
The files can be downloaded or embedded, like so:
 Welcome Swallow by CSIRO |
The site should be useful for science blogs looking for free image or videos.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Fallout has Started Over the Getty's Decision to Give Images Away for Free
Recent Getty Images announced it would enable free image embedding for it's stock images.
I predicted the move would not go over well with the photographers that actually owned the images Getty was giving away for free.
The fallout seems to have started. Pixels.com has just announced that it will now offer licensing for the images uploaded by photographers. (Pixels.com is a sister site for Fine Art America. Content loaded to Fine Art America is automatically mirrored on Pixels.)
The call for offering image licensing greatly increased after Getty's move to give images away for free.
The move is a result of the site being responsive to the needs and desires of the photographers that use the site, and that is reflected in the implementation. The photographer uploading the image sets the licensing fee. Pixels then adds a 30% markup.
The end result is a 77/23 split with the majority going to the photographer.
(A licensing fee of $100 yields a $30 markup. The end price is $130. $100, or 76.9% of that goes to the photographer.)
That split is a great deal for photographers, and vastly better than what photographers can get at Getty.
Pixels/Fine Art America seems motivated by meeting the needs of its contributors. Getty's motivation seems to be making as much money as possible and that leads to decisions that benefits the company at the expense of its contributors.
Fine Art America/Pixels.com does limit the number of images that can be offered at the same time for those using a free account. Paying members can offer unlimited images. (The yearly fee is fairly low so this isn't that much of a drawback.)
This decision does effect me personally as I have a Fine Art America/Pixels account. Now I need to decide which images I want to offer and the price to ask, a task I am happy to undertake.
Getty has forgotten those ultimately responsible for its success, and other sites are going to take advantage of that. Pixels is just the first to publicly announce a move meant to cater to contributors unhappy with Getty.
I predicted the move would not go over well with the photographers that actually owned the images Getty was giving away for free.
The fallout seems to have started. Pixels.com has just announced that it will now offer licensing for the images uploaded by photographers. (Pixels.com is a sister site for Fine Art America. Content loaded to Fine Art America is automatically mirrored on Pixels.)
The call for offering image licensing greatly increased after Getty's move to give images away for free.
The move is a result of the site being responsive to the needs and desires of the photographers that use the site, and that is reflected in the implementation. The photographer uploading the image sets the licensing fee. Pixels then adds a 30% markup.
The end result is a 77/23 split with the majority going to the photographer.
(A licensing fee of $100 yields a $30 markup. The end price is $130. $100, or 76.9% of that goes to the photographer.)
That split is a great deal for photographers, and vastly better than what photographers can get at Getty.
Pixels/Fine Art America seems motivated by meeting the needs of its contributors. Getty's motivation seems to be making as much money as possible and that leads to decisions that benefits the company at the expense of its contributors.
Fine Art America/Pixels.com does limit the number of images that can be offered at the same time for those using a free account. Paying members can offer unlimited images. (The yearly fee is fairly low so this isn't that much of a drawback.)
This decision does effect me personally as I have a Fine Art America/Pixels account. Now I need to decide which images I want to offer and the price to ask, a task I am happy to undertake.
Getty has forgotten those ultimately responsible for its success, and other sites are going to take advantage of that. Pixels is just the first to publicly announce a move meant to cater to contributors unhappy with Getty.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Getty Announces End to Partnership with Flickr
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
(Also thenextweb)
Getty has terminated its 6-year long partnership with Flickr.
Under that partnership, visitors to Flickr could request a license to use images loaded to Flickr. The licensing was done through Getty. Getty would also actively browse Flickr images to add to its library. When Getty encountered a Flickr image it wanted to add to its library, it would contact the owner and ask permission to license it.
Both of those are now ending.
Flickr users now have to go through the same contributor process as every other photographer.
The images licensed from Flickr will now be part of Getty's "Moment" collection. This means people that already have images with Getty will just have the location on Getty's website change.
The Moment collection includes something called "Moment Mobile". These are images taken and submitted using a mobile device. Currently only iOS devices qualify for mobile submission. Android devices will be added later.
My take on this?
Getty is abandoning a revenue source with this move. Currently, anybody that finds a Flickr image they want to license can do so by requesting a license online through Flickr. The request goes to Getty and Getty handles the license request.
Ending that process forces anyone wanting to license a Flickr image to contact the photographer directly. Many professional photographers are capable of handling licensing themselves. Those that don't want to handle the licensing themselves can go through a site that doesn't screen submissions first. Forcing the licensee to contact the photographer cuts Getty out of the equation.
A company abandoning a revenue stream is a questionable decision, no matter how small the stream.
Couple the move to allow submission via mobile devices with embedded images for social media sites seems to indicate Getty becoming obsesses with Social Media. Social Media sites had around $16 Billion in revenue in 2013, and Getty apparently wants a piece of that.
The largest share of that revenue was generated by facebook. Facebook accounts for roughly a third of that $16 Billion. (Maybe more, since that $5 Billion was in 2012, not 2013.) Zynga and Groupon are the other "Social Media" companies that had over a billion in revenue that year. (I accused Getty of having Google envy yesterday, I might have to revise that to facebook envy.)
The problem?
Getty is not a Social Media company, and its current business model is largely incompatible with being one.
Professionals that use Social Media use it as a promotional outlet. It is a cheap way to provide information about themselves and their products or services. This includes photographers looking to sell photos or looking for clients. Photographers may upload images to sites like facebook as part of this promotional effort.
These same photographers may then link to sites where there images can be purchased. This would include sites like Getty where they can be licensed for use in magazines, newspapers or on web sites.
Getty as a source of Social Media content has an interest in offering that content as cheap as possible. Free being best.
The lower the price they charge for the content, the less desirable they become as an outlet for those seeking to license their images.
In order to make this Social Media targeted move to work, Getty needs to spend as little as possible on the images it offers. This explains, in part, the termination of its partnering with Flickr. Under the Flickr TOS, the photographer retained the rights to the images uploaded to that site. Getty can not just use those images.
Don't be surprised if Getty's agreement with Flickr is replaces with a similar one with facebook.
Facebook's TOS states that uploading images the facebook provides the company with a transferable royalty free license. Getty could re-market those images without having to pay the photographer that uploaded them. (A product you can get for free and make money off of, what could possibly go wrong?)
This move to becoming a Social Media content provider does not bode well for the photographers doing business with Getty. Getty now has a conflict of interest when it comes to marketing their images.
(Also thenextweb)
Getty has terminated its 6-year long partnership with Flickr.
Under that partnership, visitors to Flickr could request a license to use images loaded to Flickr. The licensing was done through Getty. Getty would also actively browse Flickr images to add to its library. When Getty encountered a Flickr image it wanted to add to its library, it would contact the owner and ask permission to license it.
Both of those are now ending.
Flickr users now have to go through the same contributor process as every other photographer.
The images licensed from Flickr will now be part of Getty's "Moment" collection. This means people that already have images with Getty will just have the location on Getty's website change.
The Moment collection includes something called "Moment Mobile". These are images taken and submitted using a mobile device. Currently only iOS devices qualify for mobile submission. Android devices will be added later.
My take on this?
Getty is abandoning a revenue source with this move. Currently, anybody that finds a Flickr image they want to license can do so by requesting a license online through Flickr. The request goes to Getty and Getty handles the license request.
Ending that process forces anyone wanting to license a Flickr image to contact the photographer directly. Many professional photographers are capable of handling licensing themselves. Those that don't want to handle the licensing themselves can go through a site that doesn't screen submissions first. Forcing the licensee to contact the photographer cuts Getty out of the equation.
A company abandoning a revenue stream is a questionable decision, no matter how small the stream.
Couple the move to allow submission via mobile devices with embedded images for social media sites seems to indicate Getty becoming obsesses with Social Media. Social Media sites had around $16 Billion in revenue in 2013, and Getty apparently wants a piece of that.
The largest share of that revenue was generated by facebook. Facebook accounts for roughly a third of that $16 Billion. (Maybe more, since that $5 Billion was in 2012, not 2013.) Zynga and Groupon are the other "Social Media" companies that had over a billion in revenue that year. (I accused Getty of having Google envy yesterday, I might have to revise that to facebook envy.)
The problem?
Getty is not a Social Media company, and its current business model is largely incompatible with being one.
Professionals that use Social Media use it as a promotional outlet. It is a cheap way to provide information about themselves and their products or services. This includes photographers looking to sell photos or looking for clients. Photographers may upload images to sites like facebook as part of this promotional effort.
These same photographers may then link to sites where there images can be purchased. This would include sites like Getty where they can be licensed for use in magazines, newspapers or on web sites.
Getty as a source of Social Media content has an interest in offering that content as cheap as possible. Free being best.
The lower the price they charge for the content, the less desirable they become as an outlet for those seeking to license their images.
In order to make this Social Media targeted move to work, Getty needs to spend as little as possible on the images it offers. This explains, in part, the termination of its partnering with Flickr. Under the Flickr TOS, the photographer retained the rights to the images uploaded to that site. Getty can not just use those images.
Don't be surprised if Getty's agreement with Flickr is replaces with a similar one with facebook.
Facebook's TOS states that uploading images the facebook provides the company with a transferable royalty free license. Getty could re-market those images without having to pay the photographer that uploaded them. (A product you can get for free and make money off of, what could possibly go wrong?)
This move to becoming a Social Media content provider does not bode well for the photographers doing business with Getty. Getty now has a conflict of interest when it comes to marketing their images.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Getty Has a Terminal Case of Google Envy
Recently, Getty announced that it will allow free use of images on social media sites through the use of embedded images. (See my original post on this here.)
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:
Followed in then next paragraph with:
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.
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.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Getty Continues to Shoot Self in Foot: Now Offering Free Embedding of Images
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?
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?
Thursday, February 27, 2014
What's the Over-Under on How Long IStock Photo/Getty Stay in Business?
HatTip: PetaPixel vis SLR Lounge
Coming off last year's debacle when Getty was found to have violated violated copyright law, you might have expected the company to tread carefully when it comes to bad publicity.
Nope.
Thousands of photographers just received emails from the company informing them that their future payments were going to be limited.
Getty contends that the payment system erroneously overpaid these contributors in September/October 2013. The individuals overpaid will have royalty payments confiscated until that overpayment is recovered.
I predict a great deal of umbrage on part of the affected contributors. There is little transparency on the company's part when it comes to royalty payments. Contributors have no way of determining whether the payments received are accurate. They had no way of knowing they were receiving an overpayment. They probably feel they should not be the party bearing the burden here, since Getty/iStock Photo was the only one in this relationship with the ability to avoid the error.
Getty faces having a large number of contributors defect from their stock site, and the contributors with the largest incentive to leave are the ones hit hardest by the overpayment problems. These are most likely the most successful contributors.
Having the most successful contributors leave the stock site does not bode well for the company's future.
(Note to Getty: Having your most successful contributors flee your stock site is going to hurt your bottom line far more than simply writing off these overpayments.)
BTW, this wouldn't be the first mass defection from the company. There was one last year following a deal Getty mad with Google.
It gets worse when you factor in the Morel episode. Getty has already proven itself to be a bad actor. Some contributors might suspect that this is nothing more than a way for the company to recoup the copyright infringement award in that case.
Don't be surprised if Getty gets sued over this move as well.
The affected contributors have an argument that Getty assumed the risk of overpayment due to the way they structured the relationship between contributor and company. Getty was the only one in the relationship in position to ensure correct payment amounts. They may have lost any ability to recover overpayment as a result of that arrangement.
Then there is the suspicion that this is being done to cover the Morel award. At the very least, a lawsuit would force Getty to open it's books in order to prove that it overpaid. The people running Getty have already proven themselves to have little regard for the law as a result of the Morel case. Why would the people that had no qualms violating one photographer's legal rights have any qualms violating the contractual rights of their contributors?
Getty may very well have inadvertently overpaid some of its contributors, but it should be up to the company to prove that before asking those contributors to repay.
A letter stating that future earnings will be confiscated and the amount being confiscated just doesn't cut it.
Coming off last year's debacle when Getty was found to have violated violated copyright law, you might have expected the company to tread carefully when it comes to bad publicity.
Nope.
Thousands of photographers just received emails from the company informing them that their future payments were going to be limited.
Getty contends that the payment system erroneously overpaid these contributors in September/October 2013. The individuals overpaid will have royalty payments confiscated until that overpayment is recovered.
I predict a great deal of umbrage on part of the affected contributors. There is little transparency on the company's part when it comes to royalty payments. Contributors have no way of determining whether the payments received are accurate. They had no way of knowing they were receiving an overpayment. They probably feel they should not be the party bearing the burden here, since Getty/iStock Photo was the only one in this relationship with the ability to avoid the error.
Getty faces having a large number of contributors defect from their stock site, and the contributors with the largest incentive to leave are the ones hit hardest by the overpayment problems. These are most likely the most successful contributors.
Having the most successful contributors leave the stock site does not bode well for the company's future.
(Note to Getty: Having your most successful contributors flee your stock site is going to hurt your bottom line far more than simply writing off these overpayments.)
BTW, this wouldn't be the first mass defection from the company. There was one last year following a deal Getty mad with Google.
It gets worse when you factor in the Morel episode. Getty has already proven itself to be a bad actor. Some contributors might suspect that this is nothing more than a way for the company to recoup the copyright infringement award in that case.
Don't be surprised if Getty gets sued over this move as well.
The affected contributors have an argument that Getty assumed the risk of overpayment due to the way they structured the relationship between contributor and company. Getty was the only one in the relationship in position to ensure correct payment amounts. They may have lost any ability to recover overpayment as a result of that arrangement.
Then there is the suspicion that this is being done to cover the Morel award. At the very least, a lawsuit would force Getty to open it's books in order to prove that it overpaid. The people running Getty have already proven themselves to have little regard for the law as a result of the Morel case. Why would the people that had no qualms violating one photographer's legal rights have any qualms violating the contractual rights of their contributors?
Getty may very well have inadvertently overpaid some of its contributors, but it should be up to the company to prove that before asking those contributors to repay.
A letter stating that future earnings will be confiscated and the amount being confiscated just doesn't cut it.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Morel Suit Against Getty and AFP, Verdict Now In
Revisiting the "What the Hell Were They Thinking" file, the verdict has been released in the Morel copyright suit against Getty and AFP.
They jury found the companies guilty of willful copyright violations and awarded the maximum amount possible $1.2 Million, stating they were "outraged" over the companies' behavior. Technically, it's $1.2 Million for the copyright violations. There were non-copyright damages awarded, but nothing close to the damages for copyright violations.
The outcome was fairly predictable given the behavior of the two companies in this case, especially AFP.
The financial hit for AFP could be staggering. Getty has an indemnification clause in its contract with suppliers, like AFP, which could force that company to foot the entire verdict amount. That's on top of the millions of legal fees it has incurred over the last 3 1/2 years.
Then there's the hit to the reputation of both these companies. Getty provides a huge amount of material to the daily print media. They now have to wonder if Getty is providing images they have been authorized to use by the copyright owner. News outlets might start avoiding Getty now, creating a financial hit to that company as well.
Source:
EPUK's Daily Coverage of Morel/AFP trial
They jury found the companies guilty of willful copyright violations and awarded the maximum amount possible $1.2 Million, stating they were "outraged" over the companies' behavior. Technically, it's $1.2 Million for the copyright violations. There were non-copyright damages awarded, but nothing close to the damages for copyright violations.
The outcome was fairly predictable given the behavior of the two companies in this case, especially AFP.
The financial hit for AFP could be staggering. Getty has an indemnification clause in its contract with suppliers, like AFP, which could force that company to foot the entire verdict amount. That's on top of the millions of legal fees it has incurred over the last 3 1/2 years.
Then there's the hit to the reputation of both these companies. Getty provides a huge amount of material to the daily print media. They now have to wonder if Getty is providing images they have been authorized to use by the copyright owner. News outlets might start avoiding Getty now, creating a financial hit to that company as well.
Source:
EPUK's Daily Coverage of Morel/AFP trial
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Copyright Infringement Suit Against Getty Images and AFP
Here's one for the "What the Hell Were They Thinking" file.
A trial starts today against Agence France Presse (AFP) and Getty Images for the willful violation of copyright law. They are being sued by Haitian born Daniel Morel for the unauthorized redistribution of photos he took of the 2010 Haitian earthquake.
The undisputed facts: Morel was in Haiti during the earthquake. Took photos of the devastation and loaded those photos online. A second individual copied those photo's and uploaded them to his online account, taking credit for them. AFP downloaded the photos from this second account and distributed copies of them without permission from Morel, the original photographer.
When Morel contacted AFP about the unauthorized use of his material, AFP sued him for "commercial disparagement." Morel then registered the photos with the US Copyright office and countersued AFP, the affiliates that had distributed the images and the media outlets that had used the photos.
Morel's attorneys presented electronic communication between Morel and AFP clearly indicating that AFP knew that Morel was the original photographer before they downloaded the photos from the second account.
A judge has already found in Morel's favor in regards to copyright infringement by AFP and Getty. The issue now is whether that infringement was "willful". Willful infringement would open AFP to damages beyond the $1.6 million in damages it currently faces for copyright and DCMA violations. Luckily for AFP, the fact that they sued Morel despite knowing he was the actual copyright holder was ruled too prejudicial to be part of the willful infringement part of the trail.
That $1.6 million would be on top of the $7 millions AFP and Getty has spent on legal fees so far plus future legal fees (probably another $2 million.) That's a minimum of $10.5 million as a result of their outrageous behavior.
It gets better if you read AFP's defense. They cite Twitter's TOS as defending their use of Morel's photos. That went over well when it was pointed out that the photos were loaded to TwitPic, not Twitter. That's a related site with its own TOS that clearly states that copyright ownership stays with the person that loaded the images.
The only response to AFP knowingly using More's photos without permission, suing him when he complains and then using the TOS on a site that did not host the photos to begin with has to be "What the Hell Were You Thinking".
For further reading:
Photographer takes on agency giants at copyright-trial
Morel Suit Press Release at Photo Attorney
Story on Editorial Photographers UK and Ireland
Russian Photos Blog
and here
British Journal of Photography
On the last link, you'll need to search for articles. Using AFP with Morel as search terms should work. You might also want to search the Russian Photos site for additional articles.
A trial starts today against Agence France Presse (AFP) and Getty Images for the willful violation of copyright law. They are being sued by Haitian born Daniel Morel for the unauthorized redistribution of photos he took of the 2010 Haitian earthquake.
The undisputed facts: Morel was in Haiti during the earthquake. Took photos of the devastation and loaded those photos online. A second individual copied those photo's and uploaded them to his online account, taking credit for them. AFP downloaded the photos from this second account and distributed copies of them without permission from Morel, the original photographer.
When Morel contacted AFP about the unauthorized use of his material, AFP sued him for "commercial disparagement." Morel then registered the photos with the US Copyright office and countersued AFP, the affiliates that had distributed the images and the media outlets that had used the photos.
Morel's attorneys presented electronic communication between Morel and AFP clearly indicating that AFP knew that Morel was the original photographer before they downloaded the photos from the second account.
A judge has already found in Morel's favor in regards to copyright infringement by AFP and Getty. The issue now is whether that infringement was "willful". Willful infringement would open AFP to damages beyond the $1.6 million in damages it currently faces for copyright and DCMA violations. Luckily for AFP, the fact that they sued Morel despite knowing he was the actual copyright holder was ruled too prejudicial to be part of the willful infringement part of the trail.
That $1.6 million would be on top of the $7 millions AFP and Getty has spent on legal fees so far plus future legal fees (probably another $2 million.) That's a minimum of $10.5 million as a result of their outrageous behavior.
It gets better if you read AFP's defense. They cite Twitter's TOS as defending their use of Morel's photos. That went over well when it was pointed out that the photos were loaded to TwitPic, not Twitter. That's a related site with its own TOS that clearly states that copyright ownership stays with the person that loaded the images.
The only response to AFP knowingly using More's photos without permission, suing him when he complains and then using the TOS on a site that did not host the photos to begin with has to be "What the Hell Were You Thinking".
For further reading:
Photographer takes on agency giants at copyright-trial
Morel Suit Press Release at Photo Attorney
Story on Editorial Photographers UK and Ireland
Russian Photos Blog
and here
British Journal of Photography
On the last link, you'll need to search for articles. Using AFP with Morel as search terms should work. You might also want to search the Russian Photos site for additional articles.
Photographer takes on agency giants at copyright trial
Read more at http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540204/photographer-takes-on-agency-giants-at-copyright-trial#PgyKsFguAUhrBdEa.99
Read more at http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540204/photographer-takes-on-agency-giants-at-copyright-trial#PgyKsFguAUhrBdEa.99
Photographer takes on agency giants at copyright trial
Read more at http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540204/photographer-takes-on-agency-giants-at-copyright-trial#PgyKsFguAUhrBdEa.99
Read more at http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540204/photographer-takes-on-agency-giants-at-copyright-trial#PgyKsFguAUhrBdEa.99
Friday, October 4, 2013
MostPhotos Stock account
I now have an account at MostPhotos.
I currently only have a couple of pictures I took of a 1938 Plymouth loaded on the site. Interestingly, if you do a search for "1938 Plymouth" it only brings up one result. Mine.
Don't know how many people are going to search for that term, but I currently have a monopoly on it.
I have more photos to upload. I just have to decide which ones are appropriate to offer as stock and edit them so they look as good as possible. I''ll probably try applying to other stock sites later. MostPhotos does not have a review process for photos offered for sale, unlike other stock sites.
I currently only have a couple of pictures I took of a 1938 Plymouth loaded on the site. Interestingly, if you do a search for "1938 Plymouth" it only brings up one result. Mine.
Don't know how many people are going to search for that term, but I currently have a monopoly on it.
I have more photos to upload. I just have to decide which ones are appropriate to offer as stock and edit them so they look as good as possible. I''ll probably try applying to other stock sites later. MostPhotos does not have a review process for photos offered for sale, unlike other stock sites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)