Author Topic: Getty Loaning Images Instead Of Licensing Them (Read 4177 times)

ProArtwork · « **on:** April 04, 2013, 17:09 »

Read more here: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/04/04/getty-loaning-images-instead-of-licensing-them/

tickstock · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:25 »

Poncke · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:29 »

Its getting crazier by the minute. I scale that in the category batsh!tcrazy.

Oy...

disorderly · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:30 »

Doing something with our images that any of us could do, and taking up to 85% of the proceeds in the process?

Poncke · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:31 »

And probably without the opt out...

tickstock · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:36 »

Poncke · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:42 »

There is so much more wrong with that. They have no business handing out your images. And even if you are not CafePress, you might want to be someday and then what? Also if you are on Zazzle or wherever, you will be then competing with yourself.

Furthermore, Cafe Press does take a benefit or advantage in having these images to their disposal as they can market their business saying they have all those images to choose from. Its good for them as a marketing ploy. Plus they have an advantage over their competition by having the access to these images. All that, for free. They dont have to pay a dime other then royalty on a sold product.

All of the above, its an absolute disgrace.

tickstock · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:43 »

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:43 »

Didn't we all know they did this? Others too...

http://blog.programmableweb.com/2012/11/09/bigstock-launches-new-api-program-partners-with-cafepress-and-emma/

Poncke · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2013, 17:52 »

I believe the people on Bigstock were not happy with that either, for the same reasons I just mentioned. But Getty takes it even further if you ask me.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** April 04, 2013, 18:01 »

Poncke · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2013, 05:18 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 04, 2013, 18:01

Quote from: Poncke on April 04, 2013, 17:42
There is so much more wrong with that. They have no business handing out your images. And even if you are not CafePress, you might want to be someday and then what? Also if you are on Zazzle or wherever, you will be then competing with yourself.

Furthermore, Cafe Press does take a benefit or advantage in having these images to their disposal as they can market their business saying they have all those images to choose from. Its good for them as a marketing ploy. Plus they have an advantage over their competition by having the access to these images. All that, for free. They dont have to pay a dime other then royalty on a sold product.

All of the above, its an absolute disgrace.

Let's hope that Getty never partners with Zazzle then.
http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=401

LOL, thats just confirming what I said. And even worse. Lucky me, I am not on Getty.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2013, 11:06 »

Fotolia started this type of end-run around an extended license purchase in 2008 - see the discussion here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/prints-for-sale-through-fotolia/

If there were (a) notification of contributors up front of all partner deals and (b) individual opt out for any deals a contributor did not want to participate in - because they're on Zazzle, Cafe Press, FIA or whatever - then this would be closer to reasonable.

Unfortunately, Getty doesn't see fit to do either of the above and even those agencies which do offer opt outs are typically all or nothing (Bigstock for example).

IMO it's ripping off contributors unless you let them choose whether or not to participate.

alberto · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2013, 14:27 »

Getty continue to act as distributor, the problem can be solved easily: OPT OUT. All these business are made with the promise of more money. But these are false promises, and they know it. With the opt out who trust that the deal is good can accept. Otherwise the answer is only one, Getty in his infinity goodness doesn't allow anyone to lose money, so forces everyone to get rich with these deal. Uhm, if I repeat 1000 times it seems almost true... no.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Loaning Images Instead Of Licensing Them (Read 4177 times)

ProArtwork

tickstock

Poncke

disorderly

Poncke

tickstock

Poncke

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

Poncke

tickstock

Poncke

Jo Ann Snover

alberto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors