Getty images going free?
- Started
- Last post
- 23 Responses
- i_monk0
lol bing image search
- uan0
they should do a imgur embed type of thing
- uuuuuu0
it will REDUCE people just swiping the images no matter what, even if some still copy it. eventually we will get used to seeing Getty embeds and everyone will start doing it. Just a few popular blogs embeding an image will do wonders.
- Naygon0
1. No Commercial Use
Their official policy states that their embed tool is forbidden: “for any commercial purpose (for example, in advertising, promotions or merchandising) or to suggest endorsement or sponsorship;”2. Photo Must Stay in the <iframe> (“Embedded Viewer”)
You cannot use the image in a derivative work, such as a theme or mashup, but it must stay in its entirety inside the <iframe> html tag that Getty provides.3. “Editorial Purposes” Only
Getty intends its photos to be used for ‘editorial purposes’ which it defines as: “meaning relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest.”4. Expect to be Tracked
Getty will very likely use the embedded <iframe> element to gather data about your website and your visitors. “Getty Images (or third parties acting on its behalf) may collect data related to use of the Embedded Viewer and embedded Getty Images Content...”5. Expect YouTube-esque Ads
Getty states that advertisements may likely appear at random in front of your images: “...and reserves the right to place advertisements in the Embedded Viewer or otherwise monetize its use without any compensation to you.”6. The Photo May Disappear without Warning
Getty reserves the right to take down the photo without warning, which will leave a gaping hole in any web content relying on the subject of the photo.7. You Agree to Remove the Photo Upon Request
Getty has reserved the right to demand you remove the embedded widget without cause. “...availability may change without notice. Getty Images reserves the right in its sole discretion to remove Getty Images Content from the Embedded Viewer. Upon request, you agree to take prompt action to stop using the Embedded Viewer and/or Getty Images Content.”
- dbloc0
the iframe system will not work.
- uuuuuu0
QBN haz Getty embed please?
- uuuuuu0
I don't think this means totally free, presumably they will still have commercial licenses for various uses. This will just reduce the unlicensed web use with their embed that they can track and promote themselves and the photos with.
- ETM0
They've been slowly converting iStock over to the old Getty. Their rates have been creeping up steadily. iStock is a better name to retain, Getty is somewhat tainted by the actions in the last several years. So pivot Getty and focus on iStock.
- yurimon0
They got rich after their crack down on use of their content? PR move?
- CALLES0
remember stock books you had to scan? un and then they came with a cd
- not that long agomonospaced
- Yup haha
microkorg - totally! ah, the old days. And they would send film you had to drum scan.Gnash
- even now, when i buy an image, i instinctively look for dust and scratchesGnash
- Sure do. Christ that was limiting wasn't it. I had 4 pictures of a Hard disk in the late 90's that got used by 95% of clients LOLHAYZ1LLLA
- Bluejam0
The new money comes because, once the images are embedded, Getty has much more control over the images. The new embeds are built on the same iframe code that lets you embed a tweet or a YouTube video, which means the company can use embeds to plant ads or collect user information. "We've certainly thought about it, whether it's data or it's advertising," Peters says, even if those features aren’t part of the initial rollout.
...And as Google has proved with YouTube, it's easy to drop ads or "buy here" links into that embed. "We've seen what YouTube's done with monetizing their embed capabilities," Peters says. "I don't know if that's going to be appropriate for us or not." But as long as the images are being taken as embeds rather than free-floating files, the company will have options.
- Gnash0
the way I understand it, I believe that you can't alter/crop the image, that it needs to appear just as it would on getty. Limits the use. Plus, it's not all their images. It'll be real handy for the no-budget blogger
- microkorg0
Back in days of interweb-yesterday the likes of Getty used to charge for web use with a structure similar to how they would cost for usage in print.
- What page(s) of the website will the image appear on? (Homepage would be most expensive. More than one usage would ramp up the cost too)
- What size will the image be on the page? (The larger the more expensive)
- How many visitors will that page receive? (The more visitors the more expensive)
- How long would you like to licence the image for? (The longer you wanted the image for the more expensive and you had to renew the license every 1/3/5 years if you wanted to keep the image on your site)You could be up into the thousands for usage of one photo easily.
It's no wonder the likes of istockphoto and the likes did so well when they launched with a much more up to date pricing model and system.
- I remember those days.breadlegz
- Yeh, I was horrified to have to go back to a client with options that included the pictures they insisted on. n-thousands of $..mikotondria3
- ukit20
Communism is here?
- Bluejam0
- bwahaha
but needs more latinos and blacksCALLES - "remember everyone, act naturally - don't over-do things, or we'll have to go again"
Take 305...and!,.,,,,
mikotondria3
- bwahaha
- set0
This is interesting to my relevance
- CALLES0
this is interesting