I'm still annoyed that Google bowed down to them in their litigation settlement. Getty wanted have their cake and eat it too, by having Google surface the images, but not really surface the images. Google should have treated it like any other DMCA copyright infringement case and removed Getty images from their index. It would have allowed Google users to use more free images, and Getty would have no copyright claim.…
It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
101–110 of 141 posts
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I appreciate the work of photographers, but plunking down $500 for a high-res photo and knowing they're going to resell that same photo to others god knows how many more times has always rubbed me the wrong way. Honestly, that doesn't bother me that much. What's truly absurd is wedding photography. Photographers get paid $1000+ and keep the copyright. Almost every other work-for-hire intellectual job involves an IP…
It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising, which totally makes sense. Also, if you think the cost is unreasonable, I completely disagree. Photography is a very expensive vocation, and the wedding season is very short. There is little room for error, and the photos have an enormous emotional significance. The event day (or days) is incredi…
The market sets the price. I don't really have a problem with that.
> It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising, which totally makes sense.
I understand the rationale. That doesn't make it any less absurd.
If I'm a freelance journalist I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion. If I'm a freelance web designer I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion.
If a photographer wants a portfolio to show potential clients, they can do what everyone else does: make a portfolio on their own time.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#103https://www.mattcrampton.com/blog/mega_list_of_free_image_si...
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#104Companies like pinterest, getty, and yelp are genuinely the worst. They're like leeches, and I hate how they constantly show up on my google searches.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#105Companies like pinterest, getty, and yelp are genuinely the worst. They're like leeches, and I hate how they constantly show up on my google searches.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#106There 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-...
A long time ago I was Chief Data Scientist at 500px following the acquisition of a company I cofounded and this was exactly what I was advocating for. Professional photographers are cash poor, but with the right interface and contracts we could have done it. I wasn't able to get the CEO to see things my way and other problems with the company led to my departure, but I still think this is a viable business. The key h…
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#107> Getty’s private-equity owners had financed the purchase of Getty with massive debt — $2.6 billion in the case of Carlyle — which became Getty’s debt.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#108I still don't understand how making a purchased company responsible for the debt of its own purchase is legal: > Getty’s private-equity owners had financed the purchase of Getty with massive debt — $2.6 billion in the case of Carlyle — which became Getty’s debt.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#109I still don't understand how making a purchased company responsible for the debt of its own purchase is legal: > Getty’s private-equity owners had financed the purchase of Getty with massive debt — $2.6 billion in the case of Carlyle — which became Getty’s debt.
Can you point to a law that makes it illegal?
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#110I used to earn over 100 usd per photo sale on 500px. Since they started licensing through Getty I get pennies. Litterally. Just a few days ago one of my photos got licensed where I received less than 1 usd in fees. I went to check on Getty's website and saw the cheapest you could license it from there was 50 usd. Talk about greed and getting screwed. I'm removing all my photos from 500px within a month.