Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

newsroom.gettyimages.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#141

Post by RogerL »

infecto wrote: post #137
karmasimida wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photo ofc will not be replaced Photo is an image but also a record. The fact something really did exist and captured is probably more valuable than ever. So wedding/event photographer really don’t have to worry about lose their job to AI But in places where photo, as an image just to express abstract idea, without concerning where and when it happened, then that part of value goes to AI already

I don’t think the market agrees here. Sure if you want a super obvious ai generated image of an elephant with wings great. But even for the most generic stock photos, the models are not there yet. People still want to buy photos of an abstract idea.

It's like a person in the 60s saying "computers will eat everything". Were they in every device at the time, in every home, on your wrist, in your pocket? No, capability wasn't quite there yet, but it would be. Today we get uncanny valley, but I mean today, as in there are images coming out that are far better than uncanny valley, and it is obvious to all that this is (at least very very likely)a surmountable problem in the very near future. I think if you can put what you want the photo to be in words, stock photos are largely (not entire) dead.

"give me an elephant under a tree" "make it later in the afternoon". "not that late". "emphasize eyes just a scooch and make it look sad and pensive". "Not quite that much". "Clouds could be a bit whispier" Like you'd talk to a photographer, but with instant updates and no retorts like "great, are you going to pay me to camp out for days waiting for the clouds to move in the sky and then somehow hoping the elephant revisits this tree?"

Beats scouring a huge catalog (which, sure, will have AI powered search, but still), and suddenly, it isn't stock anymore, it is very particular to your specific needs. Custom to your needs, faster than getting a stock photo, and so, so much cheaper.

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#142

Post by RogerL »

probably_wrong wrote: post #95
cloudking wrote: post #16

Anecdotal, but I haven't bought a stock image since Stable Diffusion was released. Edit: with Flux, you can't even tell the difference: https://blackforestlabs.ai/

The "ee" in "Coffee" is a different shape, the tie of the no-longer-in-a-suit guy changes style midway and the pockets of the woman for the depth example don't match. I'll agree that people who don't care about sewing and calligraphy probably won't notice, but there's a difference between "you can't even tell" and "you can't even tell as long as you don't care too much about the result".

And that is true for the foreseeable future, which unfortunately, if my math is correct, is around 17 hours.

In 2 (time units) we'll be doing computer analysis of lens distortion or something to try to suss out the AI. At which point it won't matter for the stock image use case, of course it matters for legal matters and such. And then in 1-2 more units we're going to need public/private key signing implemented in 'cameras of record', because detection will be practically, if not actually impossible.

Is that 'unit' days or years? Dunno, but I bet it is a lot closer to the former.

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#143

Post by eviks »

harrall wrote: post #109
righthand wrote: post #32

Shutterstock and Getty do not make money from their stock photography catalog, most of their revenue comes from maintaining exclusive contracts for editorial content (news photos, videos, etc) and selling licenses to those assets. Someone could easily displace them as they haven’t done anything with their companies but shrink contributor earnings and buy out smaller stock asset companies in the last decade. Shutterst…

Why do they need innovation? They just have a product that works, like a company that makes nails. Is there much for a nail company to innovate all the time? It’s a boring job that has been long figured out. Sure, they can diversify by adding other services, just like how a nail company could start making screws, but that’s not really innovation… that’s just doing something else altogether. Should Getty diversify? Ma…

> Is there much for a nail company to innovate all the time?

Of course there is, you can innovate to use less metal maintaining quality (see aluminum cans as an example of this in a similarly boring tech with "no innovation potential")

In services there is an even bigger potential to create more value

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#144

Post by karmasimida »

infecto wrote: post #137
karmasimida wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photo ofc will not be replaced Photo is an image but also a record. The fact something really did exist and captured is probably more valuable than ever. So wedding/event photographer really don’t have to worry about lose their job to AI But in places where photo, as an image just to express abstract idea, without concerning where and when it happened, then that part of value goes to AI already

I don’t think the market agrees here. Sure if you want a super obvious ai generated image of an elephant with wings great. But even for the most generic stock photos, the models are not there yet. People still want to buy photos of an abstract idea.

Someone wants to buy something doesn't mean there is a market there, or that market is functional.

There is a difference between out of necessity and out of appreciation. Those are two completely different economies, later IMO, is much less predictable and reliable.

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#145

Post by infecto »

karmasimida wrote: post #144
infecto wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the market agrees here. Sure if you want a super obvious ai generated image of an elephant with wings great. But even for the most generic stock photos, the models are not there yet. People still want to buy photos of an abstract idea.

Someone wants to buy something doesn't mean there is a market there, or that market is functional. There is a difference between out of necessity and out of appreciation. Those are two completely different economies, later IMO, is much less predictable and reliable.

Not sure what your point is here? Current gen models don't satiate the need for photos yet.

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#146

Post by infecto »

RogerL wrote: post #141
infecto wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the market agrees here. Sure if you want a super obvious ai generated image of an elephant with wings great. But even for the most generic stock photos, the models are not there yet. People still want to buy photos of an abstract idea.

It's like a person in the 60s saying "computers will eat everything". Were they in every device at the time, in every home, on your wrist, in your pocket? No, capability wasn't quite there yet, but it would be. Today we get uncanny valley, but I mean today , as in there are images coming out that are far better than uncanny valley, and it is obvious to all that this is (at least very very likely)a surmountable proble…

Lots of quotes and perhaps you missed my point. Its going to happen but in the near-term models are not good enough to satiate the demand.

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#148

Post by xp84 »

miki123211 wrote: post #134
ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TLDR; Just use http://www.unsplash.com for free professional photos. 100% agree. Years ago I signed up for Getty images (royality based) back when they were competing with Fotolia (royalty free) before they were bought by Adobe, and actually clicked through the shopping cart to see how much it would be to license a picture of some nice autumn leaves for a billboard or a calendar. It was an insane amount in the hundre…

This is called "panorama rights" and is actually how it works in some countries. In e.g. Italy, one is not allowed to take photos of (new?) buildings without the architect's consent, as far as I'm aware.

Insert reference to the most infamous “Eiffel tower at night” situation

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#149

Post by xp84 »

denysvitali wrote: post #119
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they suppose to do that without coming across shady?

The shady part is the part where the price of the image magically increases (on their website) as soon as they detect a copyright infringement, so that they can get even more money from you. All in all, as stated in the original comment, I believe it's in their right to do so (because the copyright infringement happened), but they take advantage of this in a shady / scammy way

It should be easy enough to prove if the image price itself changed, using archive.org or something. But if what you’re describing is just a penalty for using it without permission, I tend to agree with the others who feel that’s fair game. If the penalty for shoplifting was always that you had to pay for the merchandise you shoved in your pants, well, I think you’d see a lot less visiting of the check stand on the way out if you know what I mean.

Re: Getty Images and Shutterstock to Merge

#150

Post by righthand »

paxys wrote: post #130
ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TLDR; Just use http://www.unsplash.com for free professional photos. 100% agree. Years ago I signed up for Getty images (royality based) back when they were competing with Fotolia (royalty free) before they were bought by Adobe, and actually clicked through the shopping cart to see how much it would be to license a picture of some nice autumn leaves for a billboard or a calendar. It was an insane amount in the hundre…

> It was cheaper to hire a photographer to get the pictures you want, rather than license them from Getty. And how much time would that take? People who are using these services need the photo NOW, and paying a few hundred dollars for licensing is perfectly acceptable for companies when the alternative is missing a publishing deadline or accidentally infringing on someone's copyright.

If you plan to hire a photographer arguably you would factor in that time it would take to get the assets delivered and there wouldn’t be this implication that you need the photo NOW. Savings with planning.
Post reply on HN