No images in this post kids, sorry.
Saw this on your favorite Ubiquitous Persuader’s blog via The Cartoonist and was like wtf? Getty Images in Germany went after copywriter Jürgen Schöneich, claiming he might be using images on his site that he doesn’t have the rights for. Images which were in his portfolio of work agencies had already paid and secured rights for.
(Getty and other stock sites use image recognition software that scans and compares pixel patterns to those in the original already on file. According to their TOS, they pursue anyone to protect a copyright. Hey, wait, maybe they can find Hoffa.)
Protecting photographers is one thing, but this is a desperate move to make more money off an existing revenue stream that was, um, never a revenue stream, nor was it an attempt by users rip them off. It’s not like he was taking an image and selling t-shirts with it. Besides, stock photo houses have been gouging agencies for years when it came to licensing.
$1,500 for an image for the company newsletter that 35 people will see? Yeah, that’s fair.
More reasons this is bad:
Record labels tried this too. “Let’s sue Napster and teens downloading songs.”
Uh, let’s not.
The images aren’t being used commercially. Even if you argued that the images in online portfolios help the person get more work, you’re stretching things. The images are examples of past work only.
How can you accurately tell who your audience is? Just like their inaccurate pricing structure for offline work, what do you base internet fees on in this case, “potential” audience? Actual? Say it’s the latter, what methods do you use to monitor views?
What if nobody clicks on the sample?
The net may be far from private, but an outside agency monitoring your personal blog crosses a line. Plus, how do you go from changing the end use of an image once used in a printed brochure to that of one now living online as a sample. Double dip much?
Based on that logic, Photodisc would let me sell t-shirts with an image on it, but I couldn’t display that same image to potential customers?
(Do software companies charge agencies each time a different user sits down at a computer that only has one license of a given program?)
Possible workarounds. Seems like you could get around this by claiming the samples are being used in an editorial context, much like images on sports and entertainment sites that link back to source images. Worst case, put the work in a PDF and keep it from public view.
Ultimately though, Getty and sites like Corbis could simply grant an exemption to the end-users and anyone associated with the project:
Use the images in the specific case of self-promotion only; maybe even add a disclaimer that points back to Getty and says the images are samples.
Otherwise, stock houses will end up like travel agents wondering where all their business went. People will then use more work off Flickr because a lot of it already has a Creative Commons designation, or maybe they go to places like iStockphoto.com.
Keep doing stuff like this and I know where they won’t be going.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
An exemption for self-promotion would never work with the houses, largely because they make too much money on self-promotion projects. But certainly a exemption for the display of "work that has used a paid-for image" should enjoy protection.
But don't get me started on the whole royalties issue. Coming from the ad side, how many of you have enjoyed the privilege of making a client pay a license fee for re-using an ad you created? Probably none. The client bought the ad and it belongs to the client. So if the talent that puts the ad together doesn't enjoy a repeat fee, why should the talent that snapped the picture?
I'm all for protecting copyrights, and certainly you don't want to see your work reused in new ads without permission, but paying again for the same image in the same ad has become a scam. It's why the RF stock houses are doing so well now. It's really regrettable.
I've considered using a password on my portfolio site. I'd have to distribute it to potential employers. Do you think a password would turn people off?
Yes. Passwords require just enough extra effort to discourage follow-through, at least in some situations. For instance, I haven't joined a particular mailing list or two because it's a Yahoo! group, which requires registration -- and I've already got enough regs and passwords to keep track of.
Getty has a right to protect its business model, so I disagree they shouldn't go after people they believe are stealing their property.
However, Bill, at the macro level you are right: "stock houses will end up like travel agents wondering where all their business went." There is tremendous pressure on the prices of images to fall. There is huge talent in the world willing to charge less, and to let images be used for free under creative commons. I suspect Getty's days are numbered unless it finds a way to push the perception its images are somehow better, and makes its pricing more attractive.
Post a Comment