Getty/iStock have teamed up with Slidely (slide.ly) to offer our images FREE so people can create slideshows (also featuring FREE copyrighted music) to share on Facebook. I just joined quickly to test it out and in a few seconds created a slideshow with images I recognize from my fellow microstockers, including really popular photos and vectors (just jpgs of the vectors), then added FREE copyrighted music and shared it (only to myself) on Facebook...just to see if I was hallucinating or what....though you have the option to share it with friends or make it public for everyone to see. Within a couple of minutes I had a lovely FREE slideshow to watch. Yay! No attributions, no copyrights, no watermarks, nothin'.

The slideshow can be blown up to full screen. Images are a bit low res, but certainly good enough to take a screenshot and steal.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150617006284/en/Slidely-Collaborates-Getty-Images-Provide-Professional-Imagery#.VZqRv6bndiU

Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 10:08

Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

I dont understand why you keep defending the free giveaway deals by Getty, but question any other deal / agency which actually ask money for the use of images?

This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?  You can create a noncommercial slideshow that links back to the site where people can purchase rights to use the images.  I don't see this hurting sales but it will probably get more eyes on the sites licensing the work if anything.  It's all about rights.  That's what we are licensing.  This doesn't give any rights that will compete with sales, it doesn't make unwatermarked images at high res (even medium res) available.

Seems like much more work to take a screen shot of a low res image, crop it, downsize it, etc.. than to go to google and get a 4000x4000 size copy.  The link is located in the camera with the � in the center.

Why would anyone want to make a slideshow of someone else's images with rf music except as an advert for iS?

How else would an advertising agency find low res images that require screen shots, cropping, and downsizing to steal?

I just did a search, found two of my most popular images, created a slideshow featuring "Uptown Funk" as my background music,

Should really be "Getty funk you up..."

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 10:08

Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.

It's marketing I think the benefit you get is from people going to Getty through the links and buying images if they need commercial uses.

well ... a web designer friend of mine recently had a law firm asking him to rebuild their old web site, they were literally shocked to discover each image was 10 bucks and they asked him to find something cheaper !

now, if even lawyers think images should be free or sold for 0.5$ what the F is going on ?

@tickstock It seems you, like Getty lost touch with reality.

I'm sure you can do better than a petty insult, can't you?   These are the kinds of posts that have made this place what it is today.  What are there maybe 10 people left here who do this for a living?

Some articles about Slidely - perhaps others knew all about them, but I didn't. I'm assuming that paid services like Animoto aren't too thrilled about the growth of free services (even though freemium is apparently in the future for Slidely)

http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/10/slidelys-40m-users-and-7-3m-in-funding-shows-slideshows-may-be-sexy-after-all/

http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/27/slidely-launches-new-show-app-for-making-videos-out-of-pictures/

http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/slide-ly-is-bringing-back-the-mashup-with-its-social-slideshow-service/

http://startupbeat.com/2013/05/03/featured-startup-pitch-easyhis-slide-ly-app-enables-people-to-easily-create-dynamic-slideshows-with-photos-and-videos-id3234/

Oddly, although the Getty press release area had something about the Fiverr deal, I couldn't find anything about Slidely

This article says it's a selection from Getty's stuff that's available. I did a search and the results making finding anything difficult  (it appears to do an OR not an AND search, so narrowing things down is really hard)

http://thenextweb.com/creativity/2015/06/17/slidely-pact-with-getty-gives-users-access-to-professional-images-for-their-creative-work/

I also uploaded some of my own photos to create something short (a photo collage with the Ken Burns effect and some Sound Cloud music) and the results were pretty awful - very jerky, slow to load, and not something I'd consider posting for family to view. Doesn't encourage me to use it, free or not.

I tried the link in Safari and things worked fine, then went back to Chrome and Shockwave had crashed, which may explain all the bad behavior I saw. It does work better with Shockwave running

I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."

People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place.  I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images.  I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image.  If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect.  I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 14:09

Quote from: cathyslife on July 06, 2015, 13:46

I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."

People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place.  I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images.  I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image.  If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect.  I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?

TO some extent I agree with the thing about freebies not buying images anyway. I've thought for a long time that the main selling market is business users wanting images that are safe to use.
However it's one thing seeing the odd nicked image online in some schoolkid's blog, and quite another giving the use of images away, thus reinforcing the idea that these images are "free"
They're not. They were uploaded by people expecting sales. "Promotional use" by Getty/ iStock on their websites or whatever is a very different proposition of encouraging people to think that images are free.
There's no way of knowing that it does no harm, and I really can't see that it does any good. Certainly not for the individual contributor.

They aren't given away, they are used within the slide.ly environment.  Giving them away means something different to me.  You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

Whatever you make of the the semantics of the matter. Given away for no charge is free in my book. They're being given away. Someone  benefits from this deal, otherwise why bother. So someone gets a benefit from it, where is the payment?
When you go to buy fuel for your car, they don't say, "Oh you're just using this to have a ride round for fun. No charge for that"

If it doesn't matter then just don't do it. Or ask the membership, and listen to what they say first.

People get to create fun slide shows to show their friends, slide.ly makes money from adverts, and Getty and us benefit from eyes on our files that are for sale.  It can be mutually beneficial to all parties.