Author Topic: Has anyone seen this? Google is curating their own stock photo library (Read 19133 times)

danoph · « **on:** August 10, 2012, 16:01 »

From the article...

We know how it goes. You’re working on that killer presentation or document and want to add images to go with your work…but lo and behold you can’t seem to find the right stock photo, or any picture that’s suitable. Oh, for the love of god, why would anyone use these images for anything?

On that note, Google is extending its stock image library for Google Drive — which includes its Docs products as well as cloud storage — and the search giant wants you to help pick the contents.

The company has a deal in place with Getty Images-owned Thinkstocks.com and is crowdsourcing the content, giving users the chance to nominate ten photos from the archive site that they’d like to see added to Google’s collection.

Google says it will use the ideas to “create and curate the next generation of our stock image library.”

Sources:
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/
https://plus.google.com/112893701314508522131/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** August 10, 2012, 16:42 »

I hadn't seen that. And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

cthoman · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2012, 16:43 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 10, 2012, 16:42

I hadn't seen that. And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

I was kind of curious about that too. Most of the info on it seemed a little light on details.

danoph · « **Reply #3 on:** August 10, 2012, 16:45 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 10, 2012, 16:43

Quote from: jsnover on August 10, 2012, 16:42
I hadn't seen that. And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

I was kind of curious about that too. Most of the info on it seemed a little light on details.

No idea...But it seems like Google wants to enter the stock photo industry.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2012, 16:57 »

deal with thinkstock? no please no

stockastic · « **Reply #5 on:** August 10, 2012, 17:08 »

It's been fascinating to watch Google slowly but steadily transforming itself from a small, progressive and highly ethical technology company into a gigantic profit-hungry menace.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2012, 17:34 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 10, 2012, 17:08

It's been fascinating to watch Google slowly but steadily transforming itself from a small, progressive and highly ethical technology company into a gigantic profit-hungry menace.

Totally. Thinkstock - the cheapest stuff we can get.

rubyroo · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2012, 17:35 »

Quote from: danoph on August 10, 2012, 16:45

No idea...But it seems like Google wants to enter the stock photo industry.

Do you think? It didn't sound like that to me. It sounds more like they are creating a collection of images for users to choose from for use in their Google docs.

Digital66 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2012, 18:24 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 10, 2012, 16:42

And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

I guess there will be no compensation. Users will get them for free.

OM · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2012, 18:40 »

I thought the last/first comment at the link said a lot:

"That's awesome, there's so many stock sites out there, and half of them are absolute junk and the "good" stock images listed are royalty-pay only."

Letter from Gurgle to photographer: Dear Sir/Madam, Your blindingly superb photo of ....... has been chosen by hundreds of our customers to go into the recently set up Gurglebank. As our customers expect to pay for nothing, would you mind terribly, donating it to us free of charge......we'll send you some AddSenz vouchers you can dish out to friends and so become the most loved photographer in your area. Thanks awfully.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2012, 20:20 »

I think it's pretty simple though. If they would pick an image of mine for this collection and wouldn't be paying me (or just paying me 28 cents to license once), I'd deactivate it from iStock just to keep it from them. At most it'd be one or two of my images and even if it were a best seller I would be willing to forego the revenue from IS/Thinkstock to avoid it being given away under this "deal".

I can't see how under any reading of the ASA they could legitimately use an image if I deactivate it.

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2012, 20:27 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 10, 2012, 17:08

It's been fascinating to watch Google slowly but steadily transforming itself from a small, progressive and highly ethical technology company into a gigantic profit-hungry menace.

Aligned with Getty, to boot.

I can get free istock images from the Microsoft site. This sounds like the same kind of "deal".

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #12 on:** August 10, 2012, 21:07 »

So where is the benefit for the photo owner?

Google gets value out of this. Getty must be getting something out of this otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. And the photo owner gets... what?

Toon Vectors · « **Reply #13 on:** August 10, 2012, 21:42 »

Since I can't find any details about compensation to the copyright holders, it's hard to give an immediate thumbs up or down. Obviously, there at least needs to be a payout at an extended license level. Additionally, the copyright holders of the selected images should also be contacted by Thinkstock about the compensation details and given an option to say no.

However, to play devil's advocate... assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages? A strong parallel might be made to something like an online game such as Farmville where the photo / illustration is just another game asset in Google Drive that you can achieve (i.e. pick from a list) and put on your farm (i.e. embed in a document hosted on Google Drive).

I do feel in my gut that there is a difference, but it's a challenge to spell it out.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2012, 21:47 »

"However, to play devil's advocate... assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages?"

Because they are redistributing for people to use ( use, as in 'derive value from' ).. There is no value in a game icon.

StockBottom · « **Reply #15 on:** August 10, 2012, 22:33 »

yet another proof the microstock model is flawed.

getty and google probably signed a very cheap deal for unlimited use of the whole thinkstock RF portfolio.
how much money will go back to photographers is hard to imagine, certainly a lot less than the peanuts they already
receive by thinkstock.

now what about SS or Fotolia doing similar deals with microsoft, facebook, whatever other big company offering online services and needing photos and vectors ?

sounds like we reached the rock bottom and started digging.
imagine getting royalties of 0.05$ from Google Docs .. with some luck you will one day get the money for a beer
while dozens of people is using your images to make business presentations or even pirating the whole stuff around
with their friends.

first google fonts, now google images/docs, next ?

StockBottom · « **Reply #16 on:** August 10, 2012, 22:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 10, 2012, 21:47

"However, to play devil's advocate... assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages?"

Because they are redistributing for people to use ( use, as in 'derive value from' ).. There is no value in a game icon.

all these images will quickly spread everywhere, they will be used for free on POD sites, downloaded in zip files for free, and finally becoming so popular to be considered public domain, the photographers will never see a dime from all this and considering the zero value of a single image nobody could possibly justify the cost of a lawyer to sue the infringers, just as it is already with micros by the way and with cheap RM images,minimum price needed is for the photo to be sold for 250$ as far as i've read.

Phil · « **Reply #17 on:** August 10, 2012, 23:17 »

Quote from: StockBottom on August 10, 2012, 22:37

Quote from: sjlocke on August 10, 2012, 21:47
"However, to play devil's advocate... assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages?"

Because they are redistributing for people to use ( use, as in 'derive value from' ).. There is no value in a game icon.

all these images will quickly spread everywhere, they will be used for free on POD sites, downloaded in zip files for free, and finally becoming so popular to be considered public domain, the photographers will never see a dime from all this and considering the zero value of a single image nobody could possibly justify the cost of a lawyer to sue the infringers, just as it is already with micros by the way and with cheap RM images,minimum price needed is for the photo to be sold for 250$ as far as i've read.

being the pessimist today

I'd expect them to be under 'promotional use' like the facebook app etc so nothing for the artist

Lagereek · « **Reply #18 on:** August 10, 2012, 23:36 »

Quote from: StockBottom on August 10, 2012, 22:33

yet another proof the microstock model is flawed.

getty and google probably signed a very cheap deal for unlimited use of the whole thinkstock RF portfolio.
how much money will go back to photographers is hard to imagine, certainly a lot less than the peanuts they already
receive by thinkstock.

now what about SS or Fotolia doing similar deals with microsoft, facebook, whatever other big company offering online services and needing photos and vectors ?

sounds like we reached the rock bottom and started digging.
imagine getting royalties of 0.05$ from Google Docs .. with some luck you will one day get the money for a beer
while dozens of people is using your images to make business presentations or even pirating the whole stuff around
with their friends.

first google fonts, now google images/docs, next ?

Ofcourse the micro stock model is flawed! we all knew this. The bosses however has already made their fortunes, quick, speedy and easy. Now, its just a matter of bailing out in the nicest and most legitimate way, saving face, etc.

Graffoto · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2012, 00:53 »

I'm not making much from micro these days anyway. So this really is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
As soon as I hit my next payout, I'm outta here.

Lagereek · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2012, 01:26 »

I am surprised actually! some ppl, are acting as if they thought this was going to last forever? some 5 years back, in this forum, I said this was nothing but a "flash in the pan", a five minute wonder, thats all.
Any business that is relying on constantly undercutting others in order to gain, is doomed! yes they will have a few good years but the end result is always the same, the lifeblood is drained.
I wouldnt say this is more of a surprise then GMs, business model buying up every brand there was and then comes the Japs, Chinese, Koreans, undercutting all of it.
Its like the, Undertaker, business, its a dying business.
In a few years, dont matter if youre a trebble black-diamond, its a gonner.

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2012, 02:56 »

Funny how a persons leaves, saying they're never going to post here again. Then a few weeks later, they start with a different name and think people wont notice. I'm sure I know who StockBottom is

Microbius · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2012, 03:36 »

Quote from: sharpshot on August 11, 2012, 02:56

Funny how a persons leaves, saying they're never going to post here again. Then a few weeks later, they start with a different name and think people wont notice. I'm sure I know who StockBottom is

well duh

StockBottom · « **Reply #23 on:** August 11, 2012, 05:54 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 11, 2012, 01:26

I am surprised actually! some ppl, are acting as if they thought this was going to last forever? some 5 years back, in this forum, I said this was nothing but a "flash in the pan", a five minute wonder, thats all.
Any business that is relying on constantly undercutting others in order to gain, is doomed! yes they will have a few good years but the end result is always the same, the lifeblood is drained.
I wouldnt say this is more of a surprise then GMs, business model buying up every brand there was and then comes the Japs, Chinese, Koreans, undercutting all of it.
Its like the, Undertaker, business, its a dying business.
In a few years, dont matter if youre a trebble black-diamond, its a gonner.

i think anyone doing RM agree wholeheartly on this.
we all "told you so", and now step by step the sh-it is hitting the fan.

even Yuri in other thread is scared about flat earnings and agencies squeezing contributors like a lemon
including himself who is the self appointed top micro seller ever.

if they can scre-w Yuri, imagine how they can scr-ew the rest of us.

next they will tell us that due to economic crisis prices must go down furthermore, along with yet another small
cut on photographers' fees.

so you will get 10% of a sale, next year maybe 5%, they don't care, plenty of new and fresh contirbutors joining in droves
happy to get 0.10$ per download.

and i can tell you, of course they're happy, they have it better than on Flickr where they get zero !

i don't think it's a dead business, not at all, it's a great biz for the agencies and they're here to stay,
there will be always a huge demand for rock bottom cheap images suitable for design and web.

if prices are too cheap they will just blame us for having a small portfolio .. work harder nor smarter !

again, we all told you so, and we laugh.

cathyslife · « **Reply #24 on:** August 11, 2012, 06:05 »

I don't think the microstock model is flawed, I think the greedy, rat ba$tard agencies are flawed. They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value. That's not how the microstock model started out. Even the first images I ever submitted as a noob had value and sold. And as my photography improved, they sold better and better. It's some of the agencies that are supposed to be representing us that are changing the model to suit their own greedy pockets.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Has anyone seen this? Google is curating their own stock photo library (Read 19133 times)

danoph

Jo Ann Snover

cthoman

danoph

luissantos84

stockastic

Sean Locke Photography

rubyroo

Digital66

OM

Jo Ann Snover

cathyslife

PaulieWalnuts

Toon Vectors

Sean Locke Photography

StockBottom

StockBottom

Phil

Lagereek

Graffoto

Lagereek

sharpshot

Microbius

StockBottom

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors