Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you were going to require me to use images like that I'd hire someone else.
Why? why do you think it is ok not to give credit where credit is due? why should both loose business because you choose to not appreciate anyone's work?
You are not required to use their service so the tools are already in your hands to prevent them from using your images. As far as them dominating the industry that's how business works, no business is immune from that and neither are you, get used to it.
You're also the victim of technology as so many other business's are, that's not going to change either. The creative aspect is vitally important as the technical aspect has taken a back seat allowing many more people to competitively enter your field.
I don't have to "get used to it" at all. That's like saying: "get used to being ran over by a car!" Why should anyone get used to bad business practices?
My very friendly suggestion is that everyone who wants to post online (where other businesses lurk around to find images for their ads), should spend a bit of time educating themselves about licensing. The more people start waking up and license properly, the less we will be taken advantage off. In reality, we would need a union at this point, but because there are so many who really hate photography and can only focus on their own egotistic noses, we can't. A union will defend us against corporations who want to use our work without paying; companies like Getty, and a lot of other stock agencies who undermine our industry to favor corporations who want to keep all profits to one person, rather than pay their fair share.
I don't take pictures for a living so I still am a bit confused......I read recently where someone was hit pretty hard financially for simply going on the internet finding a picture and using it without paying for it. I will look it up if need be.
So.....I am assuming you are agreeing to this by giving your photo's to Getty services. If photographers are unhappy, why give them your photo's?
I don't take pictures for a living so I still am a bit confused......I read recently where someone was hit pretty hard financially for simply going on the internet finding a picture and using it without paying for it. I will look it up if need be.
So.....I am assuming you are agreeing to this by giving your photo's to Getty services. If photographers are unhappy, why give them your photo's?
Two different things.
1. IF You happen to steal someone else's image online and use it elsewhere online where the original owner can find it, then they can sue you for copyright infringement.
Quote:
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
2. In the case of Getty, the problem is that naive photographers fell for this format thinking that one of their images might sell so well, they'll sell it millions and millions of times making a lot of money when in fact that is not true because:
A) One image can only be used so much before everyone notices the same image being used over and over; why would anyone want to do that?
B) The pay for these images is a joke, and it is under the assumption that one image will sell a lot; when in fact that is simply NOT TRUE. Getty is saying: "we'll pay $0.23 per image"...it did not cost you $0.23 to make that image. IF you knew how to license by circulation (meaning by how many people will see this image; local versus national), then you can license this image yourself to companies who will need to use it for $5000 or more depending on the circulation of that image. You will have to find out what is the circulation of that image, and charge accordingly.
This explains it in more detail: Licensing Guide | American Society of Media Photographers
Getty and other stock agencies are fixing prices and that's not OK.
Now the flip side is this: AFTER "X" company buys that image from Getty (or is subscribed and downloads that image FROM Getty to use in their advertisements), once they post that image online....it is GONE forever. Hence why Getty is now giving out content for free. They finally realized that BECAUSE NOBODY is giving PROPER credit on their images, once one of their images hits the net it is up for grabs for everyone! So now, "X" company who PAID $X amount to subscribe to this type of stock service, not only does NOT have any exclusivity to use X image anymore, but is a contributor to the photographers loss; because the photographer submitted their image to the stock agency, then the stock agency lost their image because they don't keep track of where their contributors images end up.
I know it seems confusing, its pretty simple actually...post online without credit and you loose. Or better, you pay money to loose it later!
Just like it is with all these websites inviting photographers to submit photos. These are back end right grab places where companies feed themselves with photographs and skip having to pay the photographer all together. Why upload to a site which you have no control over, if you have your own website? Promote your own website to which you pay for to a client, and don't upload images all over the place especially if you're not going to use proper credit.
Images are VERY VALUABLE; they don't have expiration dates, they are not perishable items, they are documenting people's lives, events, products and services, so they have a LOT of value. These companies KNOW that, which is why they are trying to figure out every way possible to not pay for them.
So.....I am assuming you are agreeing to this by giving your photo's to Getty services. If photographers are unhappy, why give them your photo's?
Because they market and sell your photos for you. Some of us would rather be out taking and processing photos rather than pounding on doors trying to get editors to look at and perhaps buy our work. Instead of using Getty, put your photos on your own website and see how many photos you sell. Odds are you will sell nothing. Getty has high standards for the photographers that work for them. You have to be an excellent photographer just to get represented by them. Magazines know this so they flock to Getty for their images. As a results, Getty gets a hefty markup for your images. Don't like it, don't use them. Nobody is forcing anyone to use them.
Gettys customers are people who pay for images. However, LOTS of ordinary people who have no intention for paying for photos were stealing images off of the Getty website by screen-saving and posting them in personal blogs or social media. No one thinks that's OK. It's basically stealing. However, Getty or anybody else who posts a picture on the internet can't go after every single copyright violator when there's millions of them out there, most of which are probably kids. Instead, they need to concentrate on the big fish which are the thieves who use the images for commercial purposes. So what about the petty thieves?
Getty came up with an innovative solution to the problem which is a win-win. They're going to make it easy to use their photos on social media by supplying a tool to do it. Their tool allows you to embed their images in your content, but it also displays credit and a link to both Getty and the PHOTOGRAPHER who took them. So contrary to the rants embedded in this thread about metadata getting stripped out of images by errant service providers, Getty is doing precisely their opposite. They are making sure that the images, which are going to be used anyway with permission or without, are properly attributed. That is a HUGE improvement over what's happening today where images are stolen and posted without attribution.
Photography that cannot be seen doesn't exist. It's like singing in the shower. Personally I like showing my photos, and I do two things to protect my work. 1) I watermark my images. 2) I only post them in sizes that are too small to print. I've done google image searches and found my work all over the internet, mostly with my watermark intact. Free advertising! Maybe it won't generate any sales directly, however it does raise my credibility as a photographer and it validates my work. However, if someone does figure out a way to make money off my work then I'll go after them for my cut. Just like Getty.
It's basically an innovative solution to a tough problem. We live in an electronic society that shares data at the speed of light and that changes the world. People always have knee-jerk reactions to anything new, especially when they haven't taken the time to understand the ramifications or think things through. But it's like trying to stop the oceans waves. You can either fight them and lose the battle, or learn how to ride them and find they're a powerful tool. Adapt or die.
1. IF You happen to steal someone else's image online and use it elsewhere online where the original owner can find it, then they can sue you for copyright infringement.
Right. O.K.
Quote:
2. In the case of Getty, the problem is that naive photographers fell for this format thinking that one of their images might sell so well, they'll sell it millions and millions of times making a lot of money when in fact that is not true because:
A) One image can only be used so much before everyone notices the same image being used over and over; why would anyone want to do that?
B) The pay for these images is a joke, and it is under the assumption that one image will sell a lot; when in fact that is simply NOT TRUE. Getty is saying: "we'll pay $0.23 per image"...it did not cost you $0.23 to make that image. IF you knew how to license by circulation (meaning by how many people will see this image; local versus national), then you can license this image yourself to companies who will need to use it for $5000 or more depending on the circulation of that image. You will have to find out what is the circulation of that image, and charge accordingly.
This explains it in more detail: Licensing Guide | American Society of Media Photographers
Getty and other stock agencies are fixing prices and that's not OK.
So maybe I am just repeating what you said but I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear here. People send them their images, pretty much sign their rights away all in the hope that someone will come to them looking for an image and pick theirs. Right?
Basically a shot in the dark for someone not wanting to put the work in themselves?
Quote:
Now the flip side is this: AFTER "X" company buys that image from Getty (or is subscribed and downloads that image FROM Getty to use in their advertisements), once they post that image online....it is GONE forever. Hence why Getty is now giving out content for free. They finally realized that BECAUSE NOBODY is giving PROPER credit on their images, once one of their images hits the net it is up for grabs for everyone! So now, "X" company who PAID $X amount to subscribe to this type of stock service, not only does NOT have any exclusivity to use X image anymore, but is a contributor to the photographers loss; because the photographer submitted their image to the stock agency, then the stock agency lost their image because they don't keep track of where their contributors images end up.
In many cases they don't have a lot of incentive to so do they?
Quote:
I know it seems confusing, its pretty simple actually...post online without credit and you loose. Or better, you pay money to loose it later!
Just like it is with all these websites inviting photographers to submit photos. These are back end right grab places where companies feed themselves with photographs and skip having to pay the photographer all together. Why upload to a site which you have no control over, if you have your own website? Promote your own website to which you pay for to a client, and don't upload images all over the place especially if you're not going to use proper credit.
Images are VERY VALUABLE; they don't have expiration dates, they are not perishable items, they are documenting people's lives, events, products and services, so they have a LOT of value. These companies KNOW that, which is why they are trying to figure out every way possible to not pay for them.
So I'm guessing Getty is betting on the idea that "lazy" photographers will continue sending them photo's because they don't want to put in any more effort than what they currently are?
Because they market and sell your photos for you. Some of us would rather be out taking and processing photos rather than pounding on doors trying to get editors to look at and perhaps buy our work. Instead of using Getty, put your photos on your own website and see how many photos you sell. Odds are you will sell nothing. Getty has high standards for the photographers that work for them. You have to be an excellent photographer just to get represented by them. Magazines know this so they flock to Getty for their images. As a results, Getty gets a hefty markup for your images. Don't like it, don't use them. Nobody is forcing anyone to use them................
Sorry, I didn't want to have to repost the entire thing......I'm figuring this out now. Seriously this has been something I've seen a bit on and I was curious how it worked and I thank both of you for trying to explain it.
This brings me to another question..........so it would seem to me that you still have to do the majority of work to protect your photo's?
You are saying you work something like this? Search for your pic, it's on Suzy Jones Facebook page because she thought it pretty and well, you know there isn't much you can gain by going after her so you simply hope for free publicity.
You search and find it on Kellogg's website and you go after them? You hope to get some easy money from Getty actually selling your pic.
You hope to get some easy money from Getty actually selling your pic.
Easy money? That's like saying you get some easy money from selling your house through a realtor, or your car on Ebay. Getty is a business model that professional photographers use for distributing their work. Typically the freelancers who use them are on the road almost constantly. They'll shoot an event like the Olympics, a football game or a rock concert, and upload all the photos to Getty on their way to their next gig. We're talking main stream events here. Newspapers and magazines who want to put photos of those events on their publications license them through Getty. This is the chosen business model of the photographer, most of whom are some of the best in the world. They are hardly the "naive" idiots they are being made out to be in this thread. This is not Flikr or Photobucket. It's the media world.
I think folks should take a look at the content on Getty. For example, here's a link to the Sports images area on Getty. Seriously, look at the Gallery names, and take a peek at the pics in 'em. These are the real thing you see in newspapers, Sports Illustrated, etc. Sports Images: Sports Photography & Pictures | Getty Images
Those pictures are sold for big bucks. Any of us should be so lucky to get "ripped off" by Getty.
Easy money? That's like saying you get some easy money from selling your house through a realtor, or your car on Ebay.
LOL, yes I just meant money you didn't have to track down yourself. I realize in the majority of cases there is a lot of work put into a sell able picture.
Quote:
Getty is a business model that professional photographers use for distributing their work. Typically the freelancers who use them are on the road almost constantly. They'll shoot an event like the Olympics, a football game or a rock concert, and upload all the photos to Getty on their way to their next gig. We're talking main stream events here. Newspapers and magazines who want to put photos of those events on their publications license them through Getty. This is the chosen business model of the photographer, most of whom are some of the best in the world. They are hardly the "naive" idiots they are being made out to be in this thread. This is not Flikr or Photobucket. It's the media world.
I see, like I said, I had no idea how this worked.
Quote:
I think folks should take a look at the content on Getty. For example, here's a link to the Sports images area on Getty. Seriously, look at the Gallery names, and take a peek at the pics in 'em. These are the real thing you see in newspapers, Sports Illustrated, etc. Sports Images: Sports Photography & Pictures | Getty Images
Those pictures are sold for big bucks. Any of us should be so lucky to get "ripped off" by Getty.
That still doesn't answer how you keep track of your photo's. If Getty just allows anyone to take them how do you know where they are going?
Who makes sure ESPN doesn't have your picture without compensation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
