Author Topic: Getty—images not available in your location (Read 4321 times)

Yay Images Billionaire · « **on:** August 06, 2015, 02:20 »

I found my images on Getty and they all have a notice saying the images are not available in your location. This bothers me as buyers in my location would probably be the main buyers.

I'm not with Getty directly. All my content there is ported either from IS or Zoonar. Could this be a reason for the restrictions?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2015, 06:00 »

I can't speak about Zoonar, about which I know nothing, so my comments apply only to your iStock images.
Brace yourself - the answer belongs to that branch of Illogic peculiar to iStock/Getty, so totally unbelievable to anyone else.

You are indie, so all your iStock images are available on Getty Plus (fka Getty 360), but only to a certain subset of Getty buyers. They are not licensable by any other Getty buyers.

So although your images are searchable via e.g. Google, they cannot be bought other than by the G+ buyers.

Months ago, a friend alerted me to the same screen you saw on one of my images he'd happened to come upon. I saw a message something like not available in your location due to IP or other legal restrictions, which was a mystery, and the image was still on iStock.
I questioned it on one of the facebook groups and was given the above explanation. I asked what was the point of having an image findable via Google, but not purchasable. I got a snide reply (the snidemeister trains his minions well) to the effect that didn't I like good SEO?
The logic escapes me because:
1. The G+ buyers are already in the Getty system, so would surely be searching within Getty. (It might even be arguable that encouraging them to search via Google might lead them to find content elsewhere.)
2. What's the point of having good SEO to lead organic buyers to Getty, where they can't license the file?
3. Why isn't there AT LEAST a link on the Getty page to the iStock page from which the file can be licensed?
I asked about points 2 and 3, and did not get a reply.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2015, 09:22 »

Snide remarks and arrogance will be their downfall.

w7lwi · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2015, 15:43 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 06, 2015, 09:22

Snide remarks and arrogance will be their downfall.

Snide remarks and arrogance are their trademarks.

Yay Images Billionaire · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2015, 02:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 06, 2015, 06:00

I can't speak about Zoonar, about which I know nothing, so my comments apply only to your iStock images.
Brace yourself - the answer belongs to that branch of Illogic peculiar to iStock/Getty, so totally unbelievable to anyone else.

You are indie, so all your iStock images are available on Getty Plus (fka Getty 360), but only to a certain subset of Getty buyers. They are not licensable by any other Getty buyers.

So although your images are searchable via e.g. Google, they cannot be bought other than by the G+ buyers.

Months ago, a friend alerted me to the same screen you saw on one of my images he'd happened to come upon. I saw a message something like not available in your location due to IP or other legal restrictions, which was a mystery, and the image was still on iStock.
I questioned it on one of the facebook groups and was given the above explanation. I asked what was the point of having an image findable via Google, but not purchasable. I got a snide reply (the snidemeister trains his minions well) to the effect that didn't I like good SEO?
The logic escapes me because:
1. The G+ buyers are already in the Getty system, so would surely be searching within Getty. (It might even be arguable that encouraging them to search via Google might lead them to find content elsewhere.)
2. What's the point of having good SEO to lead organic buyers to Getty, where they can't license the file?
3. Why isn't there AT LEAST a link on the Getty page to the iStock page from which the file can be licensed?
I asked about points 2 and 3, and did not get a reply.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. "Here is the exact file you want but we are not going to let you buy it." seems like an excellent marketing strategy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2015, 21:03 »

Here's a very strange one. I looked on http://www.photos.com, a Getty brand. The home page has some featured galleries. I clicked on Horses, and got 0 results.
It might just be me, but I tried in FF and IE:

They've heard of customers, but want no truck with them (adapted from Douglas Adams)
The portrait gallery works in both browsers.

BTGW: Is 'to awake' an American-English usage? It looks totally wrong to me: it should surely be 'to awaken'.

skyfish · « **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2015, 01:22 »

@imagesbykenny
this is similar to zazzle or ss - potential client spent time for search but then cannot buy what he wants, your image is not showing up on their site, the company proposes other goods from their favorities. They just use your images to find out more about user demand. For free. Add here google's disgusting "showing results for ... not what you searched for. - and - Show you what you search for?" . Last time i use more duckduckgo, it is more straight. At least for now. There more often i have direct links.