Slashdot Mirror
Getty Images Makes 35 Million Images Free For Non-Commercial Use
kc123 writes "In an effort to deal with copyright infringement Getty Images is launching a new embedding feature that will make more than 35 million images freely available to anyone for non-commercial usage. Anyone will be able to visit Getty Images' library of content, select an image and copy an embed HTML code to use that image on their own websites. Getty Images will serve the image in an embedded player – very much like YouTube currently does with its videos – which will include the full copyright information and a link back to the image's dedicated licensing page on the Getty Images website."
Yuck...
What kind of shit is this...
Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivitives will do the trick. I question the need for heavy-handed control mechanisms such as embedded players. I suppose they want to guarantee attribution and a link back to them, but people who are intent to steal their images are going to do it anyway.
But what good is it, really, without the built-in ability superimpose moronic LOLcats style text on them.
This looks like a trojan horse to allow Getty to gain a wide foothold around the web in a way they can control. There is nothing to stop them — in fact it's in their TOS — from adding ads to the iframe at some point. They will then be in a position of monetizing their images in a different way than licensing them, which mean they probably will not need to share revenue with the photographers.
Getty is currently owned by the Carlyle Group, which makes me wonder if this is part of a grand strategy to break the company up into sellable pieces. Having a segment with a internet-friendly, sharing, youtube-esque, business model and no existing liability to contributors is probably pretty attractive to them.
But my guess—nobody wants their nasty embedded frame on their site and this will be a dud.
My extensions guarantee I'll never see a single one of these 35 million images
Once a hacker gets control of it they can have the embedded players show anything they want much more easily than before. They could possibly even have the player show video. Sounds like a very juicy target.
Tried this out last night. It's highly restrictive to the size of the image they select.
Doesn't fit in the place you want to put it? Find another image.
Don't want the whole image? Find another image.
Getty's new free editorial use policy is unfair to photographers. Writer? Paid. Editor? Paid. IT staff? Paid. Photog? Sucks to be you.
I also submitted this story. Here's a link to the Bloomburg Businessweek article.
From T other FA: "Eventually, Getty could include advertisements within the embedded images, much like YouTube videos embedded on personal blogs show ads [...] But Peters says Getty hasn’t figured out how exactly that will work."
Note that they are also specifically *not* stating that they will stop filing lawsuits over unlicensed use of their images, although they're moving away from that in the case of non-commercial use. The big question is, where will Getty draw the line and decide what is and isn't a "commercial use" of their images? And, is this a means for them to justify seeking larger payments for unlicensed use - because they will be able to argue that there's a "free alternative"?
Get used to using them, expect a charge to come later.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Getty: "Here, take these high quality images and use them for free"
Santajon: "I don't want that image. I want to crop it, and I'd like to apply an artificial aging filter to it so I can look like a douchebag."
Getty: "That's not the image we're offering...for free. If you buy the image, you'll have a file that you can use however you'd like."
Santajon: "Why would I buy an image...photography is free."
That conversation doesn't end well for anybody except Santajon.
Take the free image that's offered or take your own damn picture and use it. The fact that you have to pay to use someone else's product is not a valid complaint.
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
You think the writers and IT staff are pad. That's funny.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Getty Images will serve the image in an embedded player
And as we all know, there is not, and has never been, any way to take a copy of something displayed on your screen. NO WAY.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Good thing I run FlashBlock :)
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
They always throw conditions into it or try to find some way to control us. Nope, I'll just continue to not recognize copyright and will obtain them by other means.
the problem is that if GETTY actually intends people to use these images in their IFRAME embedded player.. then giving people at least the option of choosing the proper size for the layout of their little blog news site/food blog/whatever will go a long way towards doing that..
i tried this yesterday and i don't think id ever use it... it was difficult to find embeddable images and once one did find an image that one could embed: you were faced with an image that didnt fit the layout.
Except photography is not always free. If you're not a photographer, and you need an image, your options are to pay a photographer or buy it from one. And if you're looking at those options, you're looking at which is cheaper: the cost of pay-as-you-need-them images or the cost of a photographer's wage. For a lot of blogs and news sites, the photographer wage is not a great option.
Eh. Getty probably still pays the photographer. They make it back on (hopefully) licensing fees from folks who see the pictures and want to do more with them and (more likely) ads.
Which is, of course, why Getty will sell you a license to use an image however you want. This putz is complaining because they don't offer him exactly what he wants FOR FREE.
Quote: will continue to “pursue online infringing use as we’ve done traditionally.”
Just save the frickin' image to your hard drive, or print screen and crop. Screw those jerks.
I shouldn't feed you, I know, but here goes. This 'putz' wants to use their service for its intended purpose, put in the time to try it, discovered its shortcomings, and explained them clearly. You seem to be reading it defensively - did you work on the embedded player or something?
Thanks for sticking words in my mouth.
To start, you can't buy images from Getty. You may only buy licenses to use an image.
Second, The purpose of the program is to offer images at no cost to non-commercial users. I evaluated for those purposes. For such a program to be successful the images must be useable. I'm suggesting that even non-commercial users will find it difficult to use.
The decision itself will have an impact on photographers who sell stock photographs, as well as other institutions that license stock photography. Getty Images contributors cannot opt out of the new system, for one thing.
I'm quite sure that the embedding tool will change/evolve/improve over time based on mutual desire...keeping in mind that you're not paying for it, so your desires are probably a relatively low priority.
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
No problem man. Anytime.
To start, your point is true, though ridiculously semantic. If I buy a lifetime exclusive licence for use from Getty, what's the difference between that an "buying" the image. Are you planning on giving Getty your credit card number so that you can have the images on your hard drive and never look at them?
To the people who are using Getty, they are "buying images." Yes, the purchase comes with conditions.
Second, the images are usable--they just didn't fit your use case. Have you got any data to back up that people find images so they can only use part of it?
Yes, there's a use case for that but it's not 100%. For what it's worth, every one of my photos that's been stolen has been stolen in full and reposted without more than being resized...but that's not data either--it's just an example.
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
"The problem is that if the FSF actually intends people to use GNU code in their own creations, then giving people at least the option of relicensing that code in any way that might support their business model will go a long way towards doing that."
I don't see how what Getty is doing here (use it for free in this way, or pay money to use it some other way) is any different from what many companies are doing with GPL'd code (use it this way for free or pay money to use it some other way). Other than "in this case, it affects ME-E-E!!"
I've had at least 2 clients extorted over accidental _minor_ usage of parts of getty images. (clip art from one company combined from another through a 3rd party, client wasn't at fault)
They send extortion letters to you, threatening you with litigation for using their images on your site.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/
Stay away from Getty at all cost, just a dirty evil company.
Getty: "Here, take these high quality images and use them for free"
Santajon: "I don't want that image. I want to crop it, and I'd like to apply an artificial aging filter to it so I can look like a douchebag."
Getty: "That's not the image we're offering...for free. If you buy the image, you'll have a file that you can use however you'd like."
Santajon: "Why would I buy an image...photography is free."
That conversation doesn't end well for anybody except Santajon.
Take the free image that's offered or take your own damn picture and use it. The fact that you have to pay to use someone else's product is not a valid complaint.
With an embedded player DRMing their use these photo's are not free. Not even monetarily - they are being paid for by an explicit Getty advertising link.
Unfortunately this is typical marketer dishonesty.
And there you have it. If one were buying anything else, it wouldn't come with a usage agreement. If it were actually buying the image, then they wouldn't be wrapping it up in a usage agreement and merely licensing use for a limited time--if copyright is considered limited because it's a lifetime plus 70 years...well, we can already well establish you'll probably die before the copyright expires and hence any heirs will be in breech of copyright if they continue to use the image once you're dead.
Really, the best you can argue is that Getty is incredibly generous considering whatever circumstances that are imposed upon them to have amassed their collection. Well, then, Getty just might not be the right pick for a lot of people because of the impositions.
Great. So, santajon gives his own anecdote about what his use case(s) and how it's not of much use to him and presumably to others and now you want data to back that presumption because...? Is the presumption unreasonable? I don't think so. Does it cover the majority of use cases? Probably not. But, then, that's not the point. The majority of people who would use Getty considering everything are likely already using them. This non-commercial use aspect doesn't really open the door much for most people precisely because of the various impositions they're placing on the use. And your whole response to "buy" the image to work around them just proves the point.
True enough. Just like what santajon was doing. I don't see santajon condemning Getty but merely pointing out how Getty's technological "solution" to the issue of allowing use has problems. A better approach would be to allow a means of specifying the display size of the final image in the iframe as well as the iframe itself and leave it up to Getty to decide which source image size to use and whether the said sizes are acceptable. Now, perhaps as another has suggested this is v1.0 and things will improve on that front. But, santajon is just giving a review of how as it stands this isn't a solution for him and implicitly others.
In any case, you seem to be rather touchy about the point and have an agenda given your "stolen" images. I'll presume a lot here, but I take it that you like (or at least tolerate) what Getty's trying to do and feel that insufficient encouragement is tantamount to condoning working around Getty's limitations which will further lead to piracy of your or others images. Well, the sad truth is that the people who "steal" your images probably don't even have the mindset of how much effort you put into making your images and certainly don't think in terms of "well, I really should be paying them at least $0.01/100 views." The thought doesn't even occur and most people are too greedy to part with the money or simply not interested in dealing with all the hassle of tracking views or keeping tabs on all the images they may use.
So, I can see Getty's approach actually working--although I'd imagine a better approach would be to do the above iframe thing with display sizing, possibly with a viewport into an image, only allow "thumbnail" (depends on the image, but something like 600x400 or 800x600) images in the iframe, and to have an embedded link to Getty to display ads with the full-size image and recoup t
is that like?
gettyPoliticalParty = "Republican"
or was that supposed to be hardcore?
Saying nothing that a lot of these images are actually in the public domain, which means you can copy them however you want, and are not, and never ever, bound by any of gettys licenses.
Like this here:
http://www.gettyimages.ch/deta...
Whatever getty says is moot, you can copy this over wikimedia commons and tag it "public domain", because replications of two-dimensional works of art always retain the original copyright -- public domain, in this case. there is NO right getty has on this, what-so-ever. Actually, by claiming a copyright, they're committing fraud.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
photography is free
No, it isn't.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
You really should re-read that. Pro-tip while doing that: I run a photography business.
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
I anonymously saw getty images on the street corner the other day beating up people exclusively in classes protected by EEO. OMFG they are TOTALLY SUPER DUPER REPURBLICANZ!!!!
I just tried "/sbin/getty --help", and also "man getty", and haven't found any references to images yet.
Anybody know when this hits upstream?
I just tried this on my site and the main problem I have is that their caption for 'getty images' is really too big. It needs to be just a simple caption one line style. I think it is sufficient to have the image clickthru to getty.
Was this in Fremont near their office? That place is pretty hardcore conservative despite the statue of Lenin a block away.
You mean _anyone_ can use them, just not _for a profit_ as you want to, so their definition of "noncommercial" means you cant use it for "commercial" work? shocking!!! (I like how you added the "for the children" angle with the foster parents, but even rightous people are required to follow the rules you know...)