Images for nothin’, pics for free Amid such
Internet users can post Getty images on Twitter, for
As well as promoting its brand, Getty is rewarded with
(Graphic: Amateur Photographer<\/em> magazine)<\/sup><\/p>\n A report<\/a> by IMGembed, a body that aims to track and monetise online photos,<\/em> claims that 85% of images are used without permission, according to an article published yesterday in US magazine Popular Photography<\/a>. <\/p>\n As the colossal scale of online imaging threatens to
Yes, says Charles Swan, a media rights lawyer whose
He feels Getty’s move is a \u2018sign of the times, rather
Many copyright thefts not worth chasing<\/strong><\/p>\n Swan, a director of the Association of Photographers
While many infringements may be \u2018minor’, things can turn
Last year, Indonesian photographer Hengki Koentjoro<\/a> fell victim to having his image stolen online by a third party to win
Media rights lawyer Charles Swan <\/em><\/sup><\/p>\n
Joe Naylor is CEO of ImageRights International, a US
The dust may have settled in the weeks since Getty’s announcement in March, but this has failed to quell the ire of rights
Getty contributors have since received verbal flack
\u2018Egregious’ move<\/strong><\/p>\n Naylor, who describes Getty’s move as \u2018pretty egregious’,
Adding insult to injury, it seems, Getty admits it
\u2018Even if there’s no revenue, photographers want to
\u2018It’s not transparent, which is not a great way to
In response, Getty tells AP it will \u2018explore’ future
\u2018It’s nothing to do with little bloggers’<\/strong><\/p>\n Also still seething is Jeff Moore, chairman of the
\u2018If someone owns something [an image] it is up to them
\u2018It’s nothing to do with getting fivers and tenners
Photographers not paid<\/strong><\/p>\n Royal
\u2018That
\u2018At
Magnum already allows free use<\/strong><\/p>\n The idea of allowing the public to download
Two years ago Magnum
\u2018The benefit to Magnum is that we want people to
\u2018We felt watermarks didn’t really protect the images,
Magnum declined to comment on Getty’s decision. <\/p>\n
The AoP, which serves to protect the rights of
It warns that photographers pursuing future claims, over
Public perception fears<\/strong><\/p>\n
The AoP fears it also sends the wrong message to the
This is echoed by RPS’s Michael Pritchard who adds:
The RPS asserts that the term \u2018non-commercial’ is also
\u2018Getty… has come up with a definition that’s quite
\u2018I suspect the use of the images is going to be so
Keeping a watching brief: The RPS’s Michael Pritchard<\/em><\/sup><\/p>\n ‘Wrong direction’<\/strong><\/p>\n UK photojournalist Jonathan Mitchell edits the Atlas
Moore agrees, as does Nottingham-based photographer and outspoken rights
Jenkins admits he did not see it coming. \u2018Many
It \u2018devalues
Swan doesn’t expect it to deepen any public perception that images are copyright-free, but concedes that it \u2018devalues
In reality, says Swan, the commercial licensing option
Naylor explains further: \u2018The fact [Getty] are
Getty advertising spin-off Getty reserves the right to place adverts in its Embedded
Even if advertising revenue filters through to Getty contributors, Naylor doubts whether it would be \u2018meaningful’
\u2018From a pure business perspective you can’t fault
Any good news? <\/strong><\/p>\n
While, the prospect of future commercial licensing
Neil Turner, a vice-chairman of the BPPA tells AP: \u2018We
Others are more positive. Despite having his copyright
\u2018If Getty’s initiative gains traction then this could also
Getty photographer: It’s a ‘positive thing’<\/strong><\/p>\n The RPS is also upbeat. \u2018We welcome the move in terms
Getty contributor Ron Galella, in a statement released
\u2018When the landscape changes around us, we must be
Will people want it? Jane Fonda does…<\/strong><\/p>\n
Beyond the fear and loathing, there are doubts over
\u2018Buyers don’t go to personal blogs to buy content,’
Swan also questions its popularity: \u2018If you want to
Getty is yet to talk numbers, but we know that Jane
Jane Fonda was among the first to use the Getty tool <\/em><\/sup><\/p>\n Neil Turner doubts it will deliver the \u2018shop window’ he
\u2018So the idea that someone might stumble across
Photojournalism in jeopardy?<\/strong><\/p>\n
There
Turner warns: \u2018Getty will have set a bar that other
\u2018Will Alamy follow, will Corbis follow? Who knows? But
The BPPA’s Neil Turner spoke to AP in a video interview <\/em><\/sup><\/p>\n Small agencies under threat<\/strong><\/p>\n
Michael Pritchard is also vigilant, stressing that
Alamy, which recently launched a service to \u2018monetise
Getty photographer Kevin Mazur is in no doubt that
A ‘trillion’ pics will be taken in 2014<\/strong><\/p>\n With Flickr owner Yahoo predicting that nearly a
The BPPA’s Jeff Moore sees only one outcome though. \u2018It’s just another nail in the coffin of freelance
[All photo credits: C Cheesman]\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n
And here is the (old) news…<\/strong><\/p>\n
It’s not just blogs. News websites can use Getty’s
Picture data bonanza<\/strong><\/p>\n
Data exchange deals are nothing new. Last October
CLICK HERE<\/a> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT <\/a>ON THIS SUBJECT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" AP INVESTIGATES: News editor Chris Cheesman probes the wider impact of Getty\u2019s decision to allow free use of its photographs online. Is the world\u2019s largest picture agency calling the shots?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":324,"featured_media":6347,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[325],"product-category":[],"class_list":["post-6346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-photo-news","tag-photographers-rights"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nmind-boggling figures, the world’s largest photo agency, Getty Images, decided
\nto make 35 million<\/a> of its pictures (almost a quarter of its entire archive) available for non-commercial purposes on websites and blogs, without
\nusers paying a penny – a move many photographers were quick to condemn.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nexample, and if they choose later – buy larger versions of the \u2018embedded’ photos,
\nfor commercial use, by clicking on a link.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\ninformation about the websites that use its images and says it may place
\nadverts next to the photos that appear in the \u2018embedded viewer’ window.<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/keyassets.timeincuk.net\/inspirewp\/live\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/04\/Mars_Infographic.low_.jpg\")
<\/img><\/p>\n
\nsend copyright breaches spiralling out of control, was Getty’s move
\npredictable?<\/strong> <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\npractice has seen a \u2018massive’ rise in cases over the past few years – largely
\ndown to the proliferation of online images but also because people increasingly
\nuse the Google Image search tool to detect infringements.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nthan good or bad…’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n(AoP), adds: \u2018A lot of [copyright] infringements are very minor. They are
\npeople’s blogs… Getty isn’t going to sue them. Not many individual
\nphotographers will.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\ntruly nasty at the extreme end of the copyright lottery spectrum.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\na global photo competition. He is yet to receive an apology from the culprit,
\neight months on.<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/keyassets.timeincuk.net\/inspirewp\/live\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/04\/swan.low_.1.jpg\")
<\/img><\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nbody that searches for online breaches and pursues compensation for
\nphotographers worldwide. He tells us: \u2018One of our photographers had a photo for
\nthe cover of a book used more than 30,000 times online… It’s remarkable, not a
\nsingle legal use.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\ncampaigners.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nover the move, from fellow photographers, according to one unconfirmed report.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nadds: \u2018Photographers have supplied content under a certain understanding they
\nare going to be paid…’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nwill not tell photographers about where their images will be used – for now at
\nleast.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nknow where [their picture] is and who’s using it, because that could inform
\nthem about what type of content they should focus on in future,’ Naylor says, pointing
\nout that Getty’s policy was rolled-out \u2018unilaterally’ – giving photographers no
\nchance to opt out.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nbuild a relationship with your contributors.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\ndata-sharing options.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nBritish Press Photographers’ Association (BPPA). He sees no silver lining.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nwhat happens to it….<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\noff little bloggers… whether that
\nopposition is [agency] Rex Features or 10,000 freelance photographers around
\nthe world… It’s just another way of [Getty] trying to destroy the opposition…
\nTo me, that’s what’s behind it.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/keyassets.timeincuk.net\/inspirewp\/live\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/04\/press_tog1.low_.jpg\")
<\/img><\/p>\n
\nPhotographic Society (RPS) director-general Michael Pritchard is more
\ndiplomatic: \u2018I think it could be beneficial to photographers because it could
\nallow them to commercialise work… <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nsaid, the other side is that photographers are not going to be paid for work
\nthey might otherwise have sold. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nthe moment I think the jury is very much out and I don’t think we will see how
\nthe situation plays out for another three, six or even nine months.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nnon-watermarked images, for free, is not new however.<\/p>\n
\nPhotos revamped its website to allow users to download images for \u2018personal
\nuse’ and blogs.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nengage with the work on our website rather than through Google and so on,’ says
\na spokesman. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nas so many of them are out there anyway. We want to draw people to Magnum so
\nthey can engage with what we are up to.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nprofessional photographers, forecasts an unwelcome side-effect.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nillegal use of images on blogs for example, may find it hard to prove a loss because
\nGetty is now providing pictures free of charge.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\npublic and \u2018perpetuates the unhealthy idea that images are available for free
\nuse’. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n\u2018As we know and what Amateur Photographer
\n<\/em>has been so good about saying is that copyright is important. Photographers
\nshould be protecting their work and this is, perhaps, the one area where the
\nGetty move falls down…’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nopen to question’, warning that any ensuing confusion may escalate infringements.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nloose in many respects and, from the public’s point of view, most people are not
\ngoing to read the terms and
\nconditions…<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nmassive that [Getty] is not going to be able to control, in a big way, how those
\nimages are used’.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/keyassets.timeincuk.net\/inspirewp\/live\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/04\/pritchard.low_1.jpg\")
<\/img><\/p>\n
\nPhoto Archive. Speaking shortly after Getty’s announcement, he said: \u2018It’s
\ndefinitely sending people in the wrong direction.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\ncampaigner Pete Jenkins who says Getty has capitulated to the \u2018abandonment of
\ninternational copyright law’. He fears it will lead to a rise in copyright
\ntheft. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nbloggers and other internet users have been working on the basis that everything
\nis free on the internet… Will would-be infringers realise that copyright laws have
\nnot actually changed?’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nphotography’<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nphotography’ – a view echoed by Mitchell.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nmay promote the idea that photos are copyright protected.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\ndefining a certain set of images as free implies that there’s images outside
\nthat set that are not free.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nViewer, without the photographer seeing any return.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nand, in any case, says it would worsen the downward pricing pressure in the market for professional images.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n[Getty]… This is a new way to monetise their content for all non-commercial
\nuses. It’s just that it is at the expense of the contributor…’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nwould benefit all, this comes with a \u2018big if’, cautions Swan.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nwork in a market-driven economy but, essentially, this can damage lots of
\nindividual creators and eventually it’s going to trip Getty up as well.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nbreached more than 130 times, AP reader Graham Stephen sees benefits, beyond
\nthose for social media users and bloggers.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nbe good news for creators of original photographic content too, if it can raise
\ngeneral awareness of image licensing concerns.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nof its regularising the illegal use of images and ensuring that photographers
\nare credited for their work…’ says Pritchard.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nthrough the agency, adds: \u2018As professional photographers, we can never stand
\nstill and resist change that has already happened… <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nprepared to recognise that, move on and embrace our next opportunity… Anything
\nthat helps more photographers’ work to be seen by a greater number of people is
\na positive thing, especially if that work can be consistently credited and
\nrecognised, be it artistically or editorially.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nwhether it will prove a hit for Getty. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nasserts Naylor.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nput a Getty image on your website or a blog which is non-commercial, it will
\ncome out in a format where it will have a big Getty logo on it… How many people
\nwill actually want that?’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nFonda<\/a> is among the early adopters. The under-fire agency was quick to reveal
\nthat the Hollywood star used Getty’s tool to post a photo of herself on her own
\nblog on 23 March.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/keyassets.timeincuk.net\/inspirewp\/live\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/04\/Jane_Fonda_webpage.low_.jpg\")
<\/img><\/p>\n
\nsays Getty is hoping for. \u2018Photographers work is quite easy to see anyway and
\nanyone looking for a specific image on a specific topic doesn’t need a Getty
\naccount to browse through the Getty library. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nsomething on a blog somewhere in Texas and then go “wow! that’s the image for
\nme, I’m going to use it in a multi-thousand pound marketing campaign” is a
\npretty big jump to make frankly.’<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nare other dangers too. Will smaller agencies pay the price as other agencies
\nfollow suit? Or worse: will it damage
\nfreelance photography and threaten photojournalism itself?<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nagencies will have to try and follow, so I predict that you are going to get
\nother agencies following suit, with embedded images, which is not the way to
\nmake this marketplace a viable concern…<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nwhat we do know is that the photographers concerned are the losers.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/keyassets.timeincuk.net\/inspirewp\/live\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/04\/neil_turner.low_.png\")
<\/img><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nspecialist agencies stand a stronger chance of survival: \u2018There is a potential
\nthreat to the small stock agencies. Inevitably they are going to have fewer
\nfinancial resources to come up with their own scheme and, potentially, I think
\nwe could see one or two of them say “it’s just not worth investment, we can’t
\ncompete with the Getty’s of the world”, and… disappear.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\niPhone photos’, based around its new Stockimo app, declined to comment when
\napproached by AP.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nothers will follow Getty’s policy. In a statement released via the agency, Mazur,
\na co-founder of press agency WireImage, said: \u2018Evolving to embrace technology
\nthat both encourages image sharing and potential new revenue streams, and
\nrespects our rights as artists, is the way forward for the industry.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\ntrillion images<\/a> will be taken globally in 2014, image sharing can only go one
\nway, it seems.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nphotography and there’s a lot of nails in the coffin already.’<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nembed tool to garner images to illustrate an article, for free, provided it’s
\nin the context of a \u2018newsworthy’ or \u2018public interest story. \u2018The problem with
\nthis is that it goes way beyond people’s personal blogs and includes online
\nnews sites in general including, for example, BBC News and Mail Online,’ says
\nlawyer Charles Swan. And, what about a news website where a story is no longer
\ntopical, many months on – will the image still be allowed? Getty tells us that,
\nalthough it reserves the right to \u2018remove and restrict’ image use, it currently
\nhas no plan to issue an \u2018expiration [date] due to news value’. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nGetty struck an agreement with social networking site Pinterest where it pays
\nGetty for metadata, to include when and where a Getty image posted by users was
\nshot, and the photographer who captured it, for example. This allows Pinterest to
\nmatch the extra information against relevant adverts on its site, for instance.
\nGetty – which uses image recognition technology to identify its images on
\nPinterest – says Pinterest users get to \u2018have more fun’, while the agency’s photographers
\nget a credit and a cut of the fee.<\/p>\n