Comments on: When Getty and Google Team Up, You Lose.

By: Jason Tan

Jason Tan — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:45:00 +0000

Larry and Sergei: “do no evil”.

By: Wolfmeyer

Wolfmeyer — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:17:00 +0000

The number of people you may know or the profit loss you caused to the multinational corporation really didn’t make me change my opinion that this is a lost battle.

By: Mark Holmberg

Mark Holmberg — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:37:00 +0000

Speak for yourself.
I know a lot more people than you realize.

Secondly I am not the only person who feels this way, I am expressing a concept that other people are unable to articulate. Its obviously not “me against the world here” as you insinuate.

I have personally caused a huge amount of profit loss to another multinational corporation because they failed to deliver a product to me. Not a lawsuit, but I was in the right place at the right time.

By: Ideas_R_Bulletproof

Ideas_R_Bulletproof — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:53:00 +0000

I guess we’re not the only ones talking about this… a D-Day (Deactivation Day) is being planned on February 2 by some stock photographers…. take a look:
http://blogs.photopreneur.com/microstock-photographers-plan-d-day-boycott-after-getty-gives-away-images-through-google

By: Kent Andersen

Kent Andersen — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:22:00 +0000

difference here is, that it is the biggest company that are doing it. And they changed the game without telling the photographer. But if the biggest company start giving pictures away for free, they are changing the game.

The problem is that several of these pictures has model release on. Untill Getty started to give away pictures, the risk of seeing them going viral was alot less. To let a bigger company pay 3-500 for one picture is something totaly different, than suddenlty putting the pictures online for free. A company that pays several hundred for the pictures has normaly a more respectful use of the picture. Bob is not making any thoughts about infarmatory use of the picture…. Untill now, a note to the blog would be enough to get a picture offline. Now, they have the right to do it, becouse Getty gave them the right.

By: Eric Lefebvre

Eric Lefebvre — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:22:00 +0000

No, no, no … some contributors have found some of their best selling VETTA Collection work in there. I don;t know if you;ve ever tried applying for IStock but they don;t let just any crap be posted there … or at least they didn’t a couple of years ago.

By: Eric Lefebvre

Eric Lefebvre — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:18:00 +0000

But parts of the contract were not respected … photographers are to be paid as per the pay schedule (this deal isn;t part of the pay schedules), changes to the pay schedule need to be communicated 30 days before so the photographer can refuse and leave IStock (this was not done), Photographers are to be paid a perceantage of the sale but Getty is refusing to divulge de details of the fdeal with google citing ”confidentiality clauses” … how can the photographer be certain he received his percentage of the sale as agreed in his contract?

Photographers who are “exclusive” to IStock are not allowed to give away their images for free or to allow others to do so … Getty is doing that with Google (Google can give the images to as many people as they want).

Alot of carziness like that going on there right now.

By: Eric Lefebvre

Eric Lefebvre — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:14:00 +0000

IStock used to be that until it was bought by Getty. People just need to get up and leave them behind.

By: Eric Lefebvre

Eric Lefebvre — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:11:00 +0000

We’re talking about AMAZING images being given away by Getty and these people, up until recently, were making a fair living off stock photography. Some of these images are from IStockPhotos VETTA collection.
This picture isn;t necesarily one of the ones in Google Docs but an example of VETTA collection quality:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6182374-young-man-smoking.php?st=0e5b4c0

By: Eric Lefebvre

Eric Lefebvre — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:06:00 +0000

They weren’t even informed that they had images included in this … they found out by accident when someone found one of their images in Google Docs.