Getty Images signs controversial content deal with Google Drive

That's not all

The other important part of the story that has irked the photographers involved is that the embedded image metadata, including copyright notices, have been removed by Google. Getty called this '...not ideal from some perspectives...' and according to a statement on the iStock forums are now 'refining the implementation of the deal', but clearly the damage has already been done.

Model Releases Violated by Deal

Many of the images that have been placed in the Google Drive collection are of photographer's trusted clients, friends and indeed children. These people were supposed to be protected from defamation of their likeness and not be used for any pornographic purpose. However the way this deal was structured allows anyone to ignore the model release and Getty policy and uses these free images for any commercial purpose.

Orphans

Getty fights against 'Orphaned images', but they supply images to a company that are stripping metadata ?

save our Copyright please.

p.s, contributors were paid $6 for subsequent months sales.

Images Rendered Worthless

The following post is by landbysea from the iStock forum. I think this is extraordinarily well said:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2

"I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material result of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives."

Rights?

"According to Getty's spokeswoman, Google Drive users 'are granted rights..."

This spokeswoman has obviously not used the service or is just parroting something a salesperson said. There is no statement of rights/license anywhere near this facility on the site. There is only a general mention buried in the overall Google EULA somewhere else, which no one will ever read or see.

Besides, these images are easily downloaded or hotlinked without ever using the service.:

The irony...

How ironic that Getty is reported here to be preparing legal action against proposed orphaned works legislation.

Images Rendered Worthless

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2

It has been blatantly obvious from the outset that Getty have shown little interest in their contributors' wellbeing, the reason I continue to refuse to support their greedy business model.

The dominance of a small number of proprietors' who control only a handful of photo stock libraries ', in particular, Getty, Corbis and Alamy have devalued photography for their own selfish gains.

The best thing Microstock contributors' can do is withdraw images on mass and start up their own collective stock library - what will you loose initially a few bucks?

There is no such thing as 'fair trade' between the likes of Getty and their contributors.

I am surprised that it has taken this long for some people to wake up.

Ongoing sales for as little as $6 per image

Sales to Google Drive continued in December and those images are not available yet on Google Drive. While in November I received $12, in December it was only $6.

This deal affects every single stock photographer

Because Google has now saturated the market with freebie images via this nefarious Getty deal and thousand more being added daily, who exactly is going to purchase stock images from photographers or other stock libraries? I quit Getty in mid 2012 (still a few images on their site via AGE but they are RM) and was very vocal in the Getty/Flickr forum - until an hour ago, when, on the instructions of Getty, Yahoo (Flickr's owner) banned me from commenting on this now very angry thread on the forum. Google does not brook dissent!

Correction

Sorry, that should read "Getty does not brook dissent".

glad I quit

I am glad I quit Getty in 2012, their commission split was way too low and as a participant I felt as though I was screwing my fellow photographers.

Then Quit

If you're not happy, then quit. I did, and if enough photograhhers quit, Getty would have to rethink its policy and business model. Put the power back where it needs to be, with the photographers, not some lame venture capital company who wants to earn a quick billion.