Sharing of Embedded Getty Images now available

This is a surprising move by Getty, considering the past attitude towards image use.

Interesting and surprising indeed. If ya can't fight 'em, join 'em?

I wonder a little about the permanence of these images. Could a policy change break them all in a year or two? Not a big deal for ephemeral news posts, but for bloggers and content sites creating evergreen content it could be a risk.

The other problem I see is thumbnails and resized images - I didn't dig into the terms, but for software like Wordpress that creates versions of images for different placement an iframed image won't work. Ditto for social shares that grab an image and thumbnail it.

Cropping to fit your space seems to be out of the question, too. On the plus side, they have a lot of editorial images that you can't find at inexpensive stock photo sites.

Hmm im not sure what to say to that, a company that loved to sent out letters to collect money for copyright issues. Then i 2 years they change that new attitude and everyone have to remove the images or else, that sounds like them. :)

I suspect the real reason is this:

Getty Images (or third parties acting on its behalf) may collect data related to use of the Embedded Viewer and embedded Getty Images Content, and reserves the right to place advertisements in the Embedded Viewer or otherwise monetize its use without any compensation to you.

Probably expect to make more from the ads than the fees they have been charging. I always check out the gift horse...

And for all who run ads on your site, these "getty" ads are beyond your control. Much the same as the youtube embeds...

[wrote this before tangor's comments on the ad model - that changes things a bit]

For many of the situations where I use stock photos, this would be fine. It opens up a huge store of free images and creates some virality for Getty, but for anyone who wants a strong corporate or editorial presence, this won't work.

So it seems pretty savvy - get a lot of your best images out there and give them for free to people who weren't going to buy from you anyway, but make it restrictive enough that the people who were going to buy still will.

[edited by: ergophobe at 5:32 pm (utc) on Mar 6, 2014]

Oh, and it's ironic, today, there's a Getty demand for use of a copyrighted image, so they have not stopped chasing after image use.

BEWARE!

The images are only for "editioral" purposes, e.g. "news/blogs" only. If the stock photos are used on a commercial/business website, expect to pay thousands in legal fee PER image.

I just checked the price they charge to license 1 single image for use on a commercial website and it came to be $ 1,765.00, and that was for 1 YEAR.

If you use 5-10 of their images and they were not licensed, expect to pay THOUSANDS of dollars in copyright fees.

Getty have amazing bots that scour the web looking for their unlicensed images and have been sending infringement notices for years, they probably make millions of dollars a year doing this. Opening up the library will probably net them many more $$$

Haha, I was just coming to post the same thing.

I just talked to chat because I could not find the embed icon.

She was very strict about popular news articles and quizzed me hard about usage.

When I explained it was for my local search forum and I do lots of stories about Google. She jumped on me and said Google is commercial you need to buy a license.

I explained that even though I work WITH Google, I don't work FOR Google and am not selling Google products. It's more of a support forum for Google Local users.

She jumped all over that and said - no images can only be used for popular news stories and current events.

Then she came right out and said if you crop images or use any way we don't agree with we will sue you!

I almost saved the chat log to post here, but got ticked and closed it.

That 1st page makes it sound like it's wide open, so lots are going to get suckered that don't go to the next page and read the fine print!

Linda Buquet

I trust Getty Images about a much as I trust a rabid dog. They say one thing then a year latter take it back and begin issuing letters.

as I said:
Changes to Site Terms

Getty Images reserves the right to change any of the terms and conditions contained in the Site Terms or any policy or guideline of the Site, at any time and in its sole discretion. When we make changes, we will revise the "last updated" date at the top of the Site Terms. Any changes will be effective immediately upon posting on the Site. Your continued use of the Site following the posting of changes will constitute your acceptance of such changes. We encourage you to review the Site Terms whenever you visit one of our websites.

Com'on guys and gals! This "getty embed" is about the ADS!

They did shot themselves in the foot with the phrase "in the public interest" which means a fishing blog can embed getty fish pictures. What they WANT is millions of embeds running their third party buddies' ads and nicking a dollar along the way.

No mystery, kiddies. Question is: Are you going to play along?

Another look at this topic:

Photo giant Getty Images has announced it will allow 35 million of its images to be embedded on non-commercial sites such as blogs, message boards and social networks.

It's via a new Embed tool, similar to Twitter or YouTube's iframe HTML, which allows the image to be pasted onto a web page, and allows Getty to track usage.

Getty retains the copyright – although most of it is other people's stuff – and host the image, but only at the size and resolution Getty permits. The terms and conditions of use state that the image can't be used for commercial purposes, promotions, or political or defamatory uses.

That doesn't rule out Getty itself commercialising the images, of course, as it will be able to inject advertisements into the player. So one day it might look similar to Facebook today, and use the internet's scale to monetise other people's creativity.

[theregister.co.uk...]

Getty has to pay me to play along. I know the logic behind their turnaround I for 1 won't fall into this trap.

Com'on guys and gals! This "getty embed" is about the ADS!

I don't think it is just that...

You get traffic data, lots of it, really a lot when image is served.

We use to do it all the time on parallel niche sites. 1x1 px, throw some JS around it and there ago.!

GETTySclamer later: In order for us to share our most valuable images with your most valuable users, the best way will be to serve it via getimage.js

Data Baby! DAAATTTTA!

Getty have amazing bots that scour the web looking for their unlicensed images and have been sending infringement notices for years, they probably make millions of dollars a year doing this. Opening up the library will probably net them many more $$$

If this takes off there will be far more Getty images on the web, and all it will take to copy them will be a right click. There will be a massive increase in infringement so that may be as much part of the business model as ads and data.

Its a better business model than selling stock photos because lots of people who would have rather not used a photo than pay for it will happily copy it, so it expands your potential market.

Of course, I will not see these images as this is sure to get added to the Ghostery block list.

Actually, this really concerns me.

Never mind the ads, don't you think there will be more claims coming for innocent misuse? That seems to be one of the problems many are caught out on with Getty. I'm not talking about blatant misuse, i'm talking about the borderline of fair use and bullying tactics by a large company on a small business.

For me, I will not use any Getty images (or their subsidiaries) whatsoever. I'd rather pay, as we do, for a photographer to take a picture for our purpose. That's been the case for many years now.


Having investigated the latest Getty claim, it appears to be an image that was paid (licensed) and adapted, and permission was granted to use in 2008, however, nobody can find the permission documents going back that far. DOH! Additionally, it's worth investigating how long the licence lasts. What concerns me is how many more old images they going to find?

Haha, I was just coming to post the same thing.

I just talked to chat because I could not find the embed icon.

She was very strict about popular news articles and quizzed me hard about usage.

When I explained it was for my local search forum and I do lots of stories about Google. She jumped on me and said Google is commercial you need to buy a license.

I explained that even though I work WITH Google, I don't work FOR Google and am not selling Google products. It's more of a support forum for Google Local users.

She jumped all over that and said - no images can only be used for popular news stories and current events.

Then she came right out and said if you crop images or use any way we don't agree with we will sue you!

I almost saved the chat log to post here, but got ticked and closed it.

That 1st page makes it sound like it's wide open, so lots are going to get suckered that don't go to the next page and read the fine print!

I think we would have to be bonkers to use this 'service', whatever is on the website will be called commercial in one way or another and thus you will have broken the aggreement and liable for big $ - personally I do not go near Getty images I do not trust them at all.

Really they have been so litigious I believe it has held back their business - although the big photo sites use them a lot.

Getty is an awful business, I would never do business with them, even if they paid me. Yes, I had to pay a demand amount for a tiny image I used on my site for a few years. They are scum, extorting money out of unknowing webmasters.

It seems like a fair enough quid pro quo to me. If your use qualifies as an "editorial use," you have access to photos that otherwise wouldn't be available without stealing. (And if you're dumb enough to use the embedded viewer in ways that are forbidden by the terms of service, you shouldn't be surprised when the photos are suddenly replaced by ads.)

Also, nobody is being forced to use Getty Images. There are plenty of other places where photos can be obtained legally, either free or for a small payment.

It seems like a fair enough quid pro quo to me. If your use qualifies as an "editorial use," you have access to photos that otherwise wouldn't be available without stealing. (And if you're dumb enough to use the embedded viewer in ways that are forbidden by the terms of service, you shouldn't be surprised ...)

Good for Getty for coming up with this--and I do hope they still actively pursue those who ignore, try to stretch or circumvent copyright statutes. Copyright and fair use are easy enough to understand if one reads them with minimal objectivity rather than wishful thinking, before having at whatever they want to. Respect for our laws. If you don't understand these statutes, first of all, don't use images until you do understand. If you can't figure it out, then talk to an attorney. Declaring your stupidity/faux-innocence only makes a bad situation wor$e.

Got to ask. How many chatting on this topic are NEWS or CURRENT event websites? Those are the ones most needy for the Getty giveaway so I can data (as noted) or ads (as I noted) pictorial fun?

Getty "free" is Googly, kiddies. They win in ads you cannot control. They do something G is not doing: get on YOUR site and mine it for the data, and do ads, too.

Might work for some, might fool some, will sum $ for Getty one way or the other. READ THE FINE PRINT!

Got to ask. How many chatting on this topic are NEWS or CURRENT event websites? Those are the ones most needy for the Getty giveaway

Or maybe not. In an article about the Getty giveway on the Nieman Journalism Lab's Web site, Joshua Benton writes:

"...the share of editorial/news images available seems much smaller than the share of traditional stock photos. If you need a purely illustrative photo--something to communicate the idea of 'hotel room' or 'pulled pork sandwich' or whatever--it seems you're more likely to find something. But if you're looking for photos from this morning in Crimea, you're likely to have a harder time."

Full article:

[niemanlab.org...]

I was wondering when this was going to happen. Too many often write out the Getty snoop bots and go about their business.

Getty is one of the oldest bottom-feeders I know of .. If anyone out there actually believes that Getty is in the business of protecting the copyright of presumed images as a whole, they are sadly mistaken. Getty only protects it's bottom line. Buying, supposedly, the rights to public images that have been on the internet freely for over 10 years, and then bullying site owners into paying for the rights to use them to the tune of thousands of dollars ... inventing fictitious artist names for other presumed images and claiming copyright infringement all the while knowing that Getty themselves are the ones that put the images on in the first place.

I wouldn't trust Getty as far as I could throw them, and possibly even less than that. Any dealing with these extortionists are at your own risk ..

By the article above, all I see is Getty throwing another carrot out to the unwary ... This whole scheme of theirs is going to make them a lot more money in the end .. of that .. you can be certain.

I suspect Getty's reputation for its tactics will result is a natural distrust by those that know of "the letter."

Sad thing is that "those in the know" aren't the ones who will get that letter.

Oh, I'm in the know about the letter, but stil get them because of some complex licencing issues. The letter is very agressive and does not take into account the licencing. It steams in there with guns ready to open fire. I dont believe for one moment that has changed with this new approach to image use, if you cross their line you'll get the letter.

I have. Also told them to sit and rotate (ie. show proof they hold the image in license). Was easy for me. I short the pic myself on my nifty keen Fuji. Also sent them a letter in return demanding $250,000 for using my image in their "getty" without my permission, per image they had issued a suit as all where MINE....

Obviously I did not get my condo... obviously they got nothing.. But I am o n the verge of pursuing as I would really like to know how they got MY IMAGE in their getty corral and are suing others, etc.

Just an aside. Not really part of this whole "freebie embed" thingie...

Also told them to sit and rotate

I learned about Getty from a few friends who discovered Getty trying to sue them for their own works as well back in 2005 .. Funny how Getty gets all quiet when someone calls them out, isn't it?

By the time I got the letter last year for a shot I took of the Space Needle, I was pretty well primed to do business .. Long story short, I showed up at their Seattle office, in person. I didn't call, I didn't write -- I just showed up. They didn't have 'my' photo in any of their files, but they were sure that it belonged to someone else and not me. Long story short, and after a couple of calls Getty came away with this .. "it was all just some sort of misunderstanding". ..

I've never done business with Getty, but their rep is so bad I never will. And I do run the kind of news blog they're targeting with this embed offer.