Getty To Allow Free Embedded Images For Non-commercial Use As Alternative To Theft

"Admitting that combatting unauthorized image use by the world's Internet users is impractical..."

Ya think? Finally. What took them so long?!

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I wonder how many people will decide this means that you don't need to use getty's implant, anyway, you can just take what you like and copy it to your own hard drive.
The technique of defeating crime by legalising simply because you find it hard to police is counterproductive. It means those who were paying a fair whack for what they use will no longer do so, to the detriment of artists.
Meanwhile, Getty seems to be planning to use all those embedded pictures to push advertising on people, for which it will get the click-through money without having to pay the content owners anything.

The embedded images are the same size as the freely downloadable, watermark-free compositional images that you could already get from the Getty site simply by creating a (free) account. I doubt many legitimate Getty users are going to suddenly decide to use the embed functionality to steal something they've already been able to trivially steal if they wanted to.

Additionally, the size of the embedded images (approximately 400-600 pixels on the long edge, depending on aspect ratio) is far smaller than many other places people could steal my photos from (including this site), so I'm not personally overly concerned. And for those who use the embed functionality properly, which will be the majority (because most theft is laziness or ignorance rather than maliciousness), it increases the chance of driving a future stock sale.

Regarding advertising, Getty's stated position at present is that the artist will earn royalties based on the income the advertising generates.

Good to hear that artists will earn royalties, but I'm still skeptical. Curious as to how much these royalties would be. Is there any mention of how much they are planning to share Alexis?

The article below is also an interesting read.

"It's a real risk for the company, since it's easy to screenshot the new versions if you want to snag an unlicensed version. But according to Craig Peters, a business development exec at Getty Images, that ship sailed long ago. "Look, if you want to get a Getty image today, you can find it without a watermark very simply," he says. "The way you do that is you go to one of our customer sites and you right-click. Or you go to Google Image search or Bing Image Search and you get it there. And that's what's happening… Our content was everywhere already."

http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use

Well, it won't be stealing, will it? So people who were careful to get properly licensed files in the past won't need to do so. I didn't know that by registering you could get a comp (which is intented for mock-ups) and I'm sure most bloggers didn't know that, either, but now Getty will do all it can to make sure they know about its free images.

I'm concerned that people will see this as meaning that all images from stock sites are available for free use for anything, and that GI has approved that. Rules about embedding, image size, image source and links back are the sorts of details that may get ignored, so far from ending the problem of illegal blog use it may create a much bigger problem of illegal commercial use that becomes impossible to police and so has to be accepted.

Where did you see that about royalties from advertising?

Dean - Getty is overlooking that fact that stealing an unwatermarked image depends on your ability to find it. If it has only been sold once or twice for internet use the chances of finding it are slim. If it's only been sold for print (or not been sold at all) then it is still one sale away from escaping into the wild. Now Getty is going to flood blogs with images that were previously hard or even impossible to find, so the cut-and-paste merchants will have it a lot, lot easier.

This is what the embed looks like. I found this in seconds. I can see the appeal for bloggers, and really there is no need to steal anymore. There is even a re-embed button. Still haven't been able to find anything about royalties though...

Dean: Getty contributors have a set percentage they earn based on their contributor agreement (it can vary depending both on the licensing model of an image and the route you took to become a contributor). Advertising revenue will reflect that same contracted percentage rate, although the question remains as to what that will actually work out to -- advertising revenues per view typically earn a few microcents, so it's likely you will need to have a lot of images embedded on a lot of popular pages to see a significant income stream. As here, the more work you have, the larger your cut is likely to be.

Paul: I'm not sure what you mean by 'it won't be stealing'? You can only embed images for non-commercial usage, and you must use them within the confines of the embedded image interface. So if you download the image directly from the embed and use it outside of the embedded frame, or use it commercially, then that absolutely is stealing. The full terms of the agreement are:

'You may only use embedded Getty Images Content for editorial purposes (meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest). Embedded Getty Images Content may not be used: (a) for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship; (b) in violation of any stated restriction; (c) in a defamatory, pornographic or otherwise unlawful manner; or (d) outside of the context of the Embedded Viewer.'

Whether Getty will take legal action will depend on the exact use, but that doesn't alter the fact that doing so would be just as illegal as it is today.

Full copyright EXIF data is embedded in the files as well, which is a nice touch, and retains the ability for the image author to be identified even if the image is downloaded from the embedded frame (something which most other sites, including this one, do not do).

The information regarding royalties and rates for advertising are as stated by Getty to contributors.

OK thanks Alexis. I read somewhere that Getty takes anywhere from 80 to 60 percent of the pie. That would mean lots of clicks to make up the same amount as a sale. Especially when microcents are involved. Then again, new markets are being explored that were previously not using images or maybe stealing them. Ultimately though this sounds as a much better deal for Getty than it does for the photographer.

Dean: Contributors who sign up via the Flickr collection (which is how most semi-professional photographers join) earn 20% for RF imagery and 30% for RM imagery. I believe that some big-name photographers who sign up through other routes can have arrangements as high as 50%. These figures are fairly standard in the stock industry.

Very few bloggers buy stock images anyway, so while it absolutely will require a huge number of views to earn the same as a sale, if the sale was never going to happen then overall you end up slightly ahead. To be honest, at the moment at least, the fact that bloggers can legally embed one of my images, which is fully-credited to me, has the chance of earning me a stock sale from someone seeing it (and even a print sale, since my name is unique and easily-searchable), and could earn measurable advertising revenue on a popular site, doesn't upset me too much. Of course, ask me again in 6 months and I may have a different opinion!

Stock agencies are not for everybody or even most people, and I always warn anyone considering them to read the terms and conditions very carefully and understand exactly what they are letting themselves in for. Personally, while Getty is far from perfect, it's pretty much the only agency that you can earn rent money, rather than beer money, from, and I do very respectably with them. I sell a decent number of images per month to big name companies for sensible money, and personally, I don't have big name companies coming to me directly to license images. Should initiatives like this alter that significantly, then I'll have no hesitation in ending my contract.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/50/

Alexis, are you sure that contributors are entitled to royalties? People in the forum above state that since Getty is not selling an image no royalty needs to be paid. Is there any official link stating you will receive a share for this kind of use?

Dean: Getty Contributors have access to a private area where discussions of this are taking place. I'm not at liberty to cut and paste the relevant section, so you'll have to take my word for it, but the statement from Getty to contributors on this subject, at least at present, explicitly states that image owners will receive a percentage of any advertising revenue at their contracted rates.

Alexis according to the BJP the possible advertising revenue is a future possibility, not certainty, at present it seems the getty contributors will get no payment at all.

http://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringement/

Ian: I can only relay the information I'm being given. I couldn't see anything claiming that contributors wouldn't be paid a share of advertising revenue in the article you linked, although I only skimmed it.

Edit: Re-reading, I think you mean that contributors won't be paid for views before advertising is added -- this is indeed correct. No advertising means Getty doesn't earn any revenue, and so neither does the contributor (x% of nothing is, of course, nothing). Getty could decide not to monetise it, but I don't see that as being a particularly likely outcome, assuming it proves in any way popular. (But I'll agree that there's no 100% guarantee from Getty stating a date when they'll monetise embeds)

Thank you very much for your input, Alexis.

Alexis, thanks for that info about the advertising revenue. Given the many, varied problems over PP payments there I have serious doubts about their ability to process the data from billions of clicks and assign it all to the correct people, assuming they do get round to trying to monetise it in that way.

I'm more or less aware of the terms these images are being supplied under. My concern is that A) they will cut off some revenue from content providers, both on the Getty sites and elsewhere and B) that people don't read all the rules and this will have the effect of persuading a lot more people that everything on the internet is free for any and every use.

Alexis, no one's asking you to defend Getty but thank you for your edit that confirms what I said re the BJP article, that as we stand, images can be freely used for editorial purposes in the embedded viewer with no payment to the photographer as the intended advertising revenue stream is not even in place at the present time.

To be perfectly honest I haven't thought through the full implications of this yet and this will obviously unfold over the coming months, it may well turn out to be a master stroke from Getty which introduces potential new income streams who knows.

Paul, I do agree that this could have serious consequences for the likes of other providers such as Alamy who rely heavily on the editorial market and the move to a pay per click form of revenue stream will muddy the waters further in terms of a contributor being able to ensure that they are being reimbursed fairly and correctly for their work.

First of all "non-commercial use" is hard to define. There are a ton of blogs out there that are selling something by using "editorial" content. For example, I know a mountain bike enthusiast who blogs about biking and reviews new products. He puts a special referral link to the products on Amazon for which he gets a percentage of every purchase. Commercial use or not? Who will decide and who will police it?

It seems to me that Getty (and other stock agencies) are just looking for new ways to monetize their assets. And, it's clear that they view the photos in their collections as *their* assets. This is just the latest in a string of moves (selling thousands of images for a one-time fee to Google, implementing subscriptions at iStock) to increase revenue for the agency without regard to how it affects the photographers. I quit iStock back in 2010 when they forced everyone to opt-in to the "Partner Program," which basically allowed them to sell images for whatever price they wanted and pay the photog the agreed upon percentage. This is just another way for Getty to capitalize on what they consider to be their assets. They will end up making a big chunk of change on advertising revenue while only paying the photographers a few pennies.

Seems like it could be a great strategy for Getty. Their brand is splashed everywhere for uses on sites that never would have paid them anyway and if Google and other search engines recognize those links its a huge bump in search engine rankings for Getty.

Could be a good way for FAA to get images much more visibility, many more links back to the FAA site and even better search rankings if the engines recognize the links. There could be a 'buy a print' link under each image embedded under the image anywhere it is used.

Actually I guess that could already be done with the current setup, its just not encouraged or publicized.

Loree, they seem to be applying a very loose view of non-commercial use at present as it seems there will be no restrictions at all on blogs which use external ad programs such as Adsense to raise revenue.

Come to think of it, could be a good time to start an image heavy blog :)

This is a stellar move for Getty, who was fighting a losing battle and drowning in bad publicity. This solves a lot of problems and makes them not just heroes, but geniuses who will revolutionize the stock industry. They have gone from oppressive jerks to shining good guys overnight -- and are poised to save a bundle in legal fees by firing their boiler-room legal departments.

Monetization won't happen for a while, so they will reap tons of good Google juice and positive vibes while they work that part out. Once implemented, they will no doubt get it wrong and there will be growing pains, but I'm optimistic that they will eventually get it right.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I'm very glad that I cut my ties with Getty after the Google Drive fiasco. Because of subscriptions and things like Getty Connect, I often literally made pennies or even fractions of pennies when images were licensed or viewed.

There's a lively (if angry) discussion about the latest news over at the Microstock Group forum: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/. I agree with the quote below (from the MSG forum):

All the agencies are looking for ways to make money off of an image without calling it a "sale", because if it's a sale they have to pay a commission. Any sort of up-front fee (subscription, "membership", etc) isn't subject to commission - even if, in reality, those fees are where the real money changes hands.

And they want to keep eroding the idea of a "license" for a "usage". So, it's "personal", or it's "temporary" (i.e. a "comp", that someone uses to sell a deal or develop a concept). Or it's just in a "viewer", or via an "API". No one is really using your image. They're just looking at it.

One way or another, the agency makes more money from your image, and you don't. Best case for them is that you never know how much is really being paid for an image, where, when or in what form.

Can't understand why people seem happy for Getty over the artists they exploit.

Getty is feeling the pressure from Shutterstock who is roaring ahead after going public. Getty's Istock recently announce that it will be selling subscription deals. Contributors not happy about that as they've just took a major hit in the pocket book. Many became exclusive with iStock because iStock didn't have a sub plan.

Now Getty has pulled the bottom out of the microstock market. Agencies doing good business selling small images to blogs and websites and the contributors who make royalities on these images will start seeing a snowball effect as the market for small images vanishes.

Once Getty has their embed everywhere, then they can start pushing advertising through the embeds. No one really expects the contributors to get any piece of that action.

The next shoe to drop will be Photo.com, Getty's POD scheme which will be a direct competitor to FAA.

I will say here what I said in the other thread just now

Actually Getty, (seeing the images they are allowing) have not changed or lost anything.... or given up anything.

I saw the image Dan loaded on the forum earlier and it is clearly (very clearly) marked as theirs and embedded, not downloaded. So it is a VERY good marketing ploy but basically exactly like the widgets we already have here next to each image. CLEARLY marked as Getty's and clearly shown as copyright to them

I see nothing at all saying they have given up their rights to the images in any way, shape or form, and are just giving the same tools that FAA and other sites have been giving for a long time

All of us here have the same thing but with smaller images next to each of our images on FAA, always have had

Jim Hughs. The only ones whistling in the dark are the on the outside. You said contributors would be paid a token amount and not a percentage. It has already been announced that we will receive our normal percentage. If it works out being monetized contributors will have an income stream from that. If not then it is target advertising. For example an oil and gas editorial blog uses my image, then it gets seen by O&G people with deep pockets and there is a link to a stock photo for their own blog or brochure at full Getty prices. If they want a framed print for the office they can buy that too. And if there is an ad involved I would get my usual rate on income from that.

Thanks Dan that's a little more representative of what Getty have said as far as I'm aware, it's also worth noting that in similar articles it was attributed to Peters,

" He adds that Getty Images’ existing licensing business will not be affected and that the stock library will continue to “pursue online infringing use as we’ve done traditionally.” "

I seem to think that illustrates they're not too worried about http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

It is an interesting website though which I'll research in more detail when time permits, from a very brief look however it's interesting to see that even the website founder clearly refers to "stealing licensed images" so even he accepts the principle that it is indeed theft. Having read his case I have sympathy with it as it appears he was not directly using the image on the site but it was merely part of a banner provided by a third party Indian company.

I will research further and no doubt there will be other instances of misguided or heavy handed approaches from Getty that should never have happened but that should never be allowed to disguise the fact that in many cases people are blatantly misusing images and that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.

London Photographers agree on Getty boycott:


LATE NOTICE MOTION AGREED UNANIMOUSLY AT THE LPB MARCH MEETING:

This DM is appalled at Getty’s decision to make its photographic content available free of charge for so-called “non-commercial” use, thereby further undermining the ability of photographers to earn a living. This DM instructs the NEC to ensure NUJ publications avoid the use of Getty Images and to call upon all members to boycott the purchase or use of Getty Images photographic content wherever possible until Getty reverses this decision.

http://londonphotographers.org/2014/03/lpb-calls-for-getty-images-boycott/

source (https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsBohemian)

Thanks, Ed. That segment of the market is over saturated. Photographers who specialize in photos nearly everyone can take (and are taking) are finding themselves in the same no-job position as gas station attendants. The union is doing them a disservice by delaying the inevitable, namely that it's time for these photographers to move on to the next thing.

The money is in custom shoots, and in producing unique work.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Thanks, Ed. That segment of the market is over saturated. Photographers who specialize in photos nearly everyone can take (and are taking) are finding themselves in the same no-job position as gas station attendants. The union is doing them a disservice by delaying the inevitable, namely that it's time for these photographers to move on to the next thing.

The money is in custom shoots, and in producing unique work.

Dan Turner

Are you here Dan, simply to insult other artists?

Oyy, you see right through me! Tiny, click the link below to see just how insulted they are :-)

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Ed, one thing I have a hard time making out: have the photographers now pulled their work off Getty? If not, then what kind of a statement are they really making?

They are saying that they will not purchase images from Getty if they are in the position to do so. No idea if they had images with Getty or not. They are raising awareness to the issue in support of fellow artists.

As far as Dan is concerned. He has a very narrow perspective on these issues. Not everyone can be in the upper echelon. In his world there is only room for the Novelist but not the beat reporters, Soloists but not session musicians, Generals but not grunts, Quarterbacks but not linemen, etc.

Not all Getty photographers are unhappy with this. False rumours were spread here and elsewhere that Getty will not pay photographers when this is monetized. They have already given us the royalty rate and are already paying contributors on the other pay per click image licensing. Getty is doing this to make money and photographers will share by increased sales or pay per click. If it doesn't make money then contributors will take their images down. Simple as that. Most of those bothered by this are not Getty photographers. Here is a more realistic perspective.

http://mashable.com/2014/03/05/getty-free-photo-embeds/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfb3A2cDVsM3kyZm94cXlheXF0czlwc18ifQ

@ Bradford ~ when I was with Getty, the pay-per-click payout was a fraction of a cent per click. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but I think it's probably still in the same ballpark. From what I gather, the majority of Getty photographers are indeed unhappy with this. The more time and effort invested in your Getty portfolio, the less inclined you are to simply quit when things go in directions that you're unhappy with. I know that was the case for me.

Most likely will have the same effect music streaming sites like Spotify have had on artists royalties - fractions of what traditional radio pays.

You don't have to be a Getty contributor to see that moves like this drag the entire industry down to lower payouts to contributors.

Exactly, Edward. It affects all of us.

According to current Fair Use Copyright Law, you are still financially liable for posting copyrighted images, EVEN IF:

- The pic is embedded instead of saved on your server

Getty may have decided to allow users to take and embed the code in their blog or website, but that may not exonerate the user of that embedded image from "financial liability" for not having permission from the image OWNER prior to use. Getty does not OWN the images. The copyright holder is the only entity that can give that permission.

All it will take is a handful of artists to actively pursue the law, as it is written and hold to account the end user for embedding the "copyrighted image" in their blog or site.

Will the user who infringed, then go back and sue Getty for making the code available?

Here is a good example of the effect of "streaming" content on royalties from the music world (Great bands by the way - love the song "Low") :

"In June, David Lowery, singer-guitarist of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, posted part of a royalty statement to his blog The Trichordist. Cracker's song "Low," he revealed, had been played 1,159,000 times on Pandora in three months; Lowery, in his capacity as the song’s co-composer, was paid $16.89. For 116,280 plays on Spotify, Lowery got $12.05. Meanwhile, "Low" racked up only 18,797 plays on AM and FM radio stations during the same quarter. But for far fewer spins, Lowery received far more money: $1,373.78, to be exact."

Read more: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/spotify_and_pandora_artist_payments_not_as_exploitative_as_they_re_made.html

It would be one thing if your agency was actually looking out for YOUR best interests and had the history to prove it. I have yet to see a deal from Getty or anyone else that was positive for the artists.

Tiny, I am sure Getty has this covered in the licensing terms and contracts with photographers. Say what you will about them, but they are not dumb and would never open themselves up to such a legal liability I think.

Dean.

That might be the case for Getty with regards to their Photographers, but what about Getty and the end user who uses the embedded image on their site or blog without permission from the actual copyright owner. If it can be proven that according to current copyright law the use of the embedded image is still infringement, would the end user go after Getty for making the code available. (I know I would, if I was told it was OK to use the code on my site)

I understand that the photographer (image owner) has no recourse with Getty, because they agree to the new TOS simply by keeping their images on the site.

However the image owner has no such Terms with the end user (blogger maybe) who uses the code. The copyright holder could still go after the end user and try to prove infringement. According to current law and with the right lawyer, they may win.

The end user doesnt need to worry about the photographer. Getty is the mandated agent and has been given the right by the photographer to exploit the copyright. And that includes the 'free' pay per click model. Its all 100% legally solid otherwise Getty wouldnt even consider it. It's no different from buying stock in that regard.

Wow. So the photographer is giving Getty permission to give the end user permission, to use the embedded code (image). So no need for the end user to get permission from the copyright holder, thus no infringement.

Who knows what else that could escalate to, with regards to Getty simply "giving permission" for use.

Interesting.

Remind me why photographers are keeping their work on Getty? :)

Because they get money for it, some quite a lot

I can't check every sale but statistically I would say 0% of my thousands of images sold are being used now for non-commercial blogs. So now I will be using the blogs to get a link to the sales page out to a targeted blog reading market. And the images are much higher priced then the microstocks. This sounds like a better way to market than say, Pinterest. Plus a chance to increase my pay per click revenue in the future. Why would I be upset? I get a nice check from my images there every month and the only problem I have with Getty is I wish they would take more of my images.

Peggy. Yes the payouts per click are small but they are real. Views add up. It's not the time and effort invested that keeps me there. It's the revenue, To say that one of the highest priced stock companies is devaluing the market is ridiculous. All they are doing is inventing new ways to monetize images in the face of market realities and how people want to use images on the internet.

Bradford, I'd like to expand on two excellent points. For anyone clicking on the link (and even before), it is good marketing for the photographer. Also, besides adjusting their business model to accommodate market realities, Getty's embedding is a non-threatening way to begin to educate users on purchasing/licensing options.

I think we'll see more stock houses start working with the market rather than against it.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

So now we know. The payouts per click are real, REAL SMALL that is...

"Getty photographers are getting some surprising insights into the use of their images on Pinterest as they review their Getty sales reports this month. For many photographers over half the reported sales are for “Pinterest/Portal” usage. The gross fee paid to Getty for such usages is $0.03 and the photographer’s royalty share is $0.01."

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-photographer-get-surprising-insights-in

Who pays Getty the 3 cents?

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"As part of our agreement, we’ll pay Getty Images a fee for the data they share and will help make sure that their images get proper attribution,” Pinterest notes today. “We’re just getting started with Getty Images but we’re excited about the possibilities of what their data can help us deliver.”

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/pinterest-inks-deal-with-getty-images-will-pay-a-fee-for-the-photo-agencys-metadata/

They want/need the metadata. Most images on Pinterest have no words associated with them (no photo credit, no keywords, no descriptions).

I suppose the contributors should be thankful they haven't started using fractions.

Thanks, Ed. It's good to see people working together.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Not even news. And not something anyone is complaining about. The Pinterest deal is not the same as the original post. It also allows the pins on Pinterest to always link back to Getty or the licensee. Using the Picscout software all images that originated at Getty are tracked. Something no one else is doing for photographers. If the meta data has been found to be changed it is corrected. Who wouldn't want that? And there is monetizaton for the photographer. If Pixels.com wants to correct the meta data on my images to make sure they link back to me or my licensee and pay me a few pennies also I am not going to complain. In fact nothing would thrill me more than to have FAA track all our images that originated here using Picscout, correct missing links, notify me of misuses on the web and pay me royalties for extra uses to boot.
I think if Getty started handing out free cameras to contributors people would find a way to twist that to a negative.