Getty Images releases 35 million photos for use

[Rodney]

I can see why they are doing this but...

 

The BBC reports that Getty images is releasing 35 million photos from its collection for use by bloggers, etc. but will still charge for commercial use of the photographs.

There are some prid pro quos and caviets attached.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26463886

 

The plan is to have those using the images embed them with code through which they may eventually be able to generate revenue.

Although not likely to dissuade pirates and producers of derivative works at least that part of the plan is innovative.

Providing a means for everyone to legitimately reference their image collection is a good idea.

 

 

Here's a direct link to Getty's embed tool page:

 

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Creative/Frontdoor/embed

[robcat2075]

Wow! Another dent in the traditional notion of copyright.

 

Hard to "steal" something if they're just gonna leave it lying around like that.

[Rodney]

The wheels have to be seriously turning at Getty and I see this move as only a bit player in a more strategic view.

There are a lot of moving parts to this so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

I see this mostly as a means to redefine the current playing field because there is a lot at stake.

They have no doubt seen their revenues drop significantly over the days before digital technology and yet they know they need to press even more deeply into digital in order to remain relevant.

 

This strikes me more as a preemptive move on the fringe of a much deeper strategy.

In other words... the article from the BBC says, "They've given up"... "They accept defeat" but that is a considerable oversimplification. This move isn't an act of someone giving up anything but more accurately just trying to reorient to the real world environment wherein they are trying to operate.

 

Let's examine this a little.

Another move they could have made would have been to lower the price of their imagery but this would seriously impact future revenue and do little or nothing to stop current hemorrhaging.

In other words they don't want to put a tiny bandage on a catastrophic injury. It won't resolve anything.

 

And of course there is the future of higher def imagery and video that is to be considered waiting in the wings.

How can they possibly hope to maintain a revenue stream if they can't even maintain their position with legacy imagery.

 

In this light it becomes entirely practical to change tack; to leverage html technology to have everyone embed their imagery in their webpages.

A side effect of this is that it also gives them a significant means to track usage; who is legitimately referencing their images.

Note here that I assume the proscribed embedding will be the only authorized way to legally share Getty images short of a commercial license.

This effectively and further narrows the definition (and playing field) for derivative works because one cannot embed an image into most things other than html.

So, any image not embedded can therefore be considered inside the commercial realm.

 

The difficulty with this is that embedding is a very narrow field although HTML5 and CSS do provide some means of extensive usage.

 

This is a long way of saying that this announcement doesn't impact A:M Users very much, especially in the short term, but the effect over all (and movement by Getty's competition) can impact pixel pushers in ways yet to be seen.

 

 

**It isn't always clear where the legal line is drawn for definitions of derivative works and that appears to still be an area of much contention... the Getty release is not concerned with derivative works so much as usage of the original image or copies of the same.

[Clipping Path Specialists]

Your Idea is not bad