Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF News

RFF News News related to photography and rangefinderforum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Getty Images Says Google makes Stealing Photos Easy
Old 04-28-2016   #1
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,707
Getty Images Says Google makes Stealing Photos Easy

Getty Images filed a complaint with the European Union's Anti Trust Division

Saying Google makes it easy to unknowingly steal copyrighted photos

its midnight, do you know where your photos are?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #2
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,008
Getty is the real thief. They've driven down the prices of stock photography, while paying the photographers they represent almost nothing.

I like Google; I make a lot of money selling prints and licensing photos to people who find my work through Google image search. I'd never sell anything living in Fort Waste if it were not for Google.

If people are having trouble with image thieves, they should stop posting high res images online. Mine are small, so users have to contact me with money in hand to get the high-resolution file.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #3
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,654
i was going to comment but Chris has it covered.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #4
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,774
I didn't know what to comment so I read Chris' comment. I'm with Chris and emraphoto.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #5
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
 
jpa66 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 798
Well, let's make it three. Totally agree.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #6
JP Owens
Registered User
 
JP Owens is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Age: 69
Posts: 358
You mean Getty is just figuring this out? I agree that Getty is the real villian here,though.
__________________
_______

"Nothing exists beyond the edges of the frame."
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #7
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 756
Chris covered most of what I was going to say about Getty,although their recent decision to give away/make available 35 million photos royalty free through Google apps (in some cases without consulting the photographers who were affected) should be mentioned too.

It's somewhat ironic that they're now complaining about Google.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #8
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,774
I don't really know much about these internet privacy fights, but for us that do analog is our case better if we can produce the negative or slide? Or is it the same for digital images which are just in the cloud (exif)?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #9
JP Owens
Registered User
 
JP Owens is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Age: 69
Posts: 358
Digital, analog, in the end it's pretty much that Google can do what they want to do with most of our images. The problem with an inherent (because you took the photo) or commercial (because you registered the image) copyright is that you have to defend it legally. For most of us, the cost of defending that copyright far exceeds any financial value the image will ever have. Neither Getty nor Google have much to worry about if they steal images.

The best we can do is ask nicely that the offending company please stop violating our copyright. Sometimes that works.

As Chris pointed out, the best way to protect your images is to never put anything but small, low resolution images on the Internet.
__________________
_______

"Nothing exists beyond the edges of the frame."
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #10
wolves3012
Registered User
 
wolves3012's Avatar
 
wolves3012 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Age: 62
Posts: 2,815
The problem nowadays is that anything digital can be cloned or altered in an almost unlimited fashion, so copyright has become unenforceable in this area (and many others). If you willingly submit a high quality image on the internet, which is inherently a worldwide distribution network, you must be very naiive to believe you can retain control over it. Someone, somewhere, sometime will see no need to pay you or give you proper credit. I don't condone such theft but that's the reality. Add to this that many people happily share their photos on social media sites and give up any rights, so that to them this is normality.
__________________
Zorki: 1e (x2), 2C, 3M, 4, 4K, 5, 6
FED: NKVD, 1g, 2e
Kiev 4, 4A
Leica IIIC
Yashica Minister III
Zenith C, Zenit C, Zenit E
Minolta XG-M, XD-5
Nikon P50
Panasonic Lumix G2, 14-42 Kit lens + 45-150mm

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2016   #11
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Owens View Post
You mean Getty is just figuring this out? I agree that Getty is the real villian here,though.
Getty do not have exclusivity to most images they represent - indeed (given that they have several times accessed me over images never traded through an agency) they often do not have any rights at all. Their USP was not buying the primary publishing rights, but having a huge catalogue (by buying out publishers and agencies back stock archives, which tend to have no unlimited rights to the originals). So at the core they attempted to monopolize image research rather than image ownership. It is quite obvious that Google gets into the way of that, with photographers or primary agents linked straight from Google there is no more need to go to Getty. The whole business model of Getty is going the way of the Dodo - if they want to survive, they must make it legally compulsory to use their services...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2016   #12
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,755
I wonder if Getty is taking proper care of images they are selling. If they don't provide authorized access only to full rez pictures why blame Google? What do I miss here.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2016   #13
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
The only way you can protect your images online is to not put them there in the first place. I won't even drop off a CD of art work w/ a gallery anymore (they stopped wanting to see slides eons ago). They can come by and look at the work, or I can swing by w/ some of the stuff. That's the only way it happens. You just can't trust people in this dicital age, as people don't "get it" about appropriating someone else's images. It's a totally different mindset than what used to exist, exactly as wolves3012 so concisely put it.

Google is not your friend on any level.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2016   #14
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,534
If you see what kind of photos people like and are prepared to pay for, we shouldn't worry at all.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:52.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.