Getty Images is Changing Access to its Photos

Site FAQs, calendar of festivals and other helpful tools.
User avatar
Rick Lanham
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:16 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL

Getty Images is Changing Access to its Photos

Unread post by Rick Lanham » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:10 pm

The article at the link below says that Getty Images is allowing freer access to its images by others. It says that it will do this by adding credit information via an embed code. This will make it clear where the image is from, and allow them to gather info about where it is posted, etc. It also allows them, if things change in the future, to remove such access.

The article explains that a lot of their images have been being used without attribution anyway, so they may as well get the publicity from their use.

I tried searching for several people of interest on the Getty site, and could not find such embed information on those particular photos. So either I was unlucky, or it's not fully implemented, or I don't know what I'm doing.

In any case, it's something to be aware of:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/547520 ... ree-to-use" target="_blank


"If you go to the Getty Images website, you'll see millions of images, all watermarked. There are more than a hundred years of photography here, from FDR on the campaign trail to last Sunday's Oscars, all stamped with the same transparent square placard reminding you that you don't own the rights. If you want Getty to take off the watermark, you'll have to pay for it.

"OUR CONTENT WAS EVERYWHERE ALREADY."

Starting now, that's going to change. Getty Images is dropping the watermark for the bulk of its collection, in exchange for an open-embed program that will let users drop in any image they want, as long as the service gets to append a footer at the bottom of the picture with a credit and link to the licensing page. For a small-scale Wordpress blog with no photo budget, this looks an awful lot like free stock imagery.

It's a real risk for the company, since it's easy to screenshot the new versions if you want to snag an unlicensed version. But according to Craig Peters..." The rest is at the link.

Rick

Ken Viewer
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:01 am

Re: Getty Images Reacquired by the Getty Family.

Unread post by Ken Viewer » Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:05 pm

According to published reporting, including in the New York Post citing the Financial Times, a controlling interest in Getty Images, the joint that asserts copyright on what sometimes seems like everything, perhaps including The Book of Kells, has been reacquired by the Getty Family. Mark Getty, a grandson of J. Paul Getty, is to be the new CEO. A majority interest had been held by The Carlyle Group, which purportedly paid some $3.3 Billion for it , $500 million of which was in cash, about six years ago. Apparently it has not been a remarkably profitable venture for them. Mark Getty was one of the founders of the company some 23 years ago.

I've avoided embedding anything or downloading from their publicly-viewable site, instead using links to send people to them who might want to view certain footage/photos... they can afford to litigate any copyright claim they choose to at any time and I can't, nor would I want to.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/04/getty-fam ... 1522415488

Ken

User avatar
Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:28 pm
Location: Born in L.A...NYC is 2nd home...Rustbelt is home base
Contact:

Re: Getty Images is Changing Access to its Photos

Unread post by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:07 pm

Once in a while I blog on Getty. If they watermark them it is free advertising for Getty. Just don't remove the watermark.

https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollectio ... ty-images/

https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollectio ... ty-images/

In my case, it is for educational / editorial work aka fair use. In the worst case scenario I own nothing of attachable value, no real estate, just a few old cameras, outdated Epson ink jet printers and some 16mm VS reels. One of the few benefits of being underground and never making anything out of yourself.

Post Reply