71–80 of 141 posts
There is a startup yet to be founded to sell inexpensive, high-quality original photos for exclusive use. Unique photos, i.e. photos not considered "duplicate content", are critical if you want to rank organically on Google [0] Getty will eventually be disrupted. [0] https://www.rebootonline.com/blog/long-term-duplicate-image-...
Getty is already disrupted
Getty is the epitome of the evil corporation. They threatened a number of my customers (who all won against Getty via lawyers) for putting photos on their sites with dubious ownership rights. I have experience with copyright law (unpleasantly) and there is a process required by the law to actually win a settlement on copyright infringement, and Getty uses thug tactics and threats to get small parties to pay up. Their…
Yeah, looks like the majority of their revenue is literally based on entrapment: > Just over half of Getty’s revenues, according to industry estimates, come from distributing “stock” photos — images of generic subjects, such as “house” or “orange juice” or “corporate executive,” that a commercial client might use in brochures, websites or advertisements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do wonder if the rights management issue is impacted by the decision referenced in this article regarding training machine learning models on copyrighted material: https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-co... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,... .
It seems like part of that case hinged on economic impact. If you're using copyrighted books and show snippets of the book that's one thing. But using copyrighted material to build something that is attempting to replace the copyrighted material seems like it could have gone the other way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, looks like the majority of their revenue is literally based on entrapment: > Just over half of Getty’s revenues, according to industry estimates, come from distributing “stock” photos — images of generic subjects, such as “house” or “orange juice” or “corporate executive,” that a commercial client might use in brochures, websites or advertisements.
They have some bots crawling around the web and sending out automated letters then to people who they think need to license their photos. I fucked around with the bit and wasted its energy since it came to my territory, at least 4 years ago it wasn't very smart. I just told them point blank to fuck off, probably they go only after American customers since they are in the legislation area to threaten.
Getty is the epitome of the evil corporation. They threatened a number of my customers (who all won against Getty via lawyers) for putting photos on their sites with dubious ownership rights. I have experience with copyright law (unpleasantly) and there is a process required by the law to actually win a settlement on copyright infringement, and Getty uses thug tactics and threats to get small parties to pay up. Their…
Yeah, looks like the majority of their revenue is literally based on entrapment: > Just over half of Getty’s revenues, according to industry estimates, come from distributing “stock” photos — images of generic subjects, such as “house” or “orange juice” or “corporate executive,” that a commercial client might use in brochures, websites or advertisements.
Sometimes people use their images without paying the fee.*
How is that entrapment?
* this is separate from issue of bogus requests to people who didn't copy their images without a license.
Another major shift that the article neglects to mention is global arbitrage. The advancement of camera + software quality and accessibility means people can make great pictures anywhere. These days there are a lot of studios in the stock houses like Getty and Shutterstock that are based in Eastern Europe, or Asia, where the small amounts of money from stock images can really add up over time. Copying styles, composi…
I'm not really sure what the solution is. Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a ton of two-sided marketplaces out there that try to do this. It's a messy challenge involving rights management (no good photographer will agree to the contracts these companies offer), production workflows (all companies do it differently) and assignment complexities (by 'high-quality' you mean 'high-quality and custom to the project' because a nice but generic picture is mostly useless). But you're righ…
1. Let photographers license their photos from a list of standard licenses 2. Let photographers set their own prices 3. Let buyers search by budget and by license 4. Startup charges a X% platform fee The market will take care of the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have some bots crawling around the web and sending out automated letters then to people who they think need to license their photos. I fucked around with the bit and wasted its energy since it came to my territory, at least 4 years ago it wasn't very smart. I just told them point blank to fuck off, probably they go only after American customers since they are in the legislation area to threaten.
So you stole someone else's property and told them to fuck off? And you expect praise for this? Even if you hate Getty, they're a platform that resells images individual photographers take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you stole someone else's property and told them to fuck off? And you expect praise for this? Even if you hate Getty, they're a platform that resells images individual photographers take.
What's it like being a voluntary shill? Nothing that person said implied theft, they talked about a bots and then mentioned fucking with the bot.
They talked about fucking with a bot that caught them infringing copyright because they knew they'd be hard to hunt down. Copyright theft is (currently) theft.
Did you create this account just to leave that comment? Why? What did you think would happen as a result?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, last I checked, AI models of humans looked super, super creepy. Not the sort of content you would want on a marketing campaign, that's for sure.
This has changed. It's hard to tell they're fake. For example, each reload of https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ produces a new computer-generated image of a person.