Sydney Morning Herald article on Copyright Infringement

The SMH published an article where I am quoted regarding copyright infringements here and the comments of the ill informed are interesting, if not novel.

Getty/Google deal

A veritable s**tstorm has broken out at the contributors' forum at IStock, a Getty subsidiary.   Read about it in a post of photographer Sean Locke here and Getty's response  here    (They locked the Sean's thread!) and continued here  While I have little sympathy for microstockers, I think that Getty has just stepped over the boundary of avarice bigtime.  In a nutshell, they have licensed thousands of Getty/iStock/Flickr (plus other subsidiaries) images to Google to be downloaded free to Google Document users (amongst others) without restrictions.  Well, there are restrictions (if you read the small print) but in my experience, anyone using Google to find images don't bother with the copyright issues relating thereto or "This image may be subject to copyright" on every Google Images search page!  The photographers do get paid - $12.00 for the honour of supplying their work to Google to be used in perpetuity via a freebie download.  This, of course, will affect those finding their images via the Google Search by Image function illegally by infringers as they can now state that they downloaded it from Google legitimately - again for zilch.

I quit Getty in July and the contract ended in mid October so none of my images will be subject to this.  I do have a few images on Getty via AGE but they are RM images and, to date, only RF images are part of this deal.  What is of great concern to those affected is that images of model released people (including children) are part of this nefarious deal between Getty and Google.  Reading the IStock forum, there is still some naivety amongst a few contributors (many are just plain angry) that this is all just a mistake and that some over zealous sales people did this without Getty knowing anything about it.  Yeah right!  Getty would have sent their best lawyers and marketing folk to Google to stitch up this deal (and stitch up their contributors) and with Getty's usual aplomb, not actually mention it to their contributors.  It was only Sean Locke publishing a thread on IStock that anyone knew anything about it.  There is a lot of anger over at Getty/Flickr  when the link was placed to the IStock forum (by a Flickr member Lawren Lu) and the proverbial s..t hit the fan!

It will be an interesting read on Tuesday when someone, poor sod, has to front up to all of these forums with an explanation on why Getty is yet again screwing their contributors.

16 January 2012:  Still no official response from Getty management.  Just employees attempting to put out fires but instead just fanning the flames!  There has been some talk of a class action but I think that it will be like herding cats trying to get photographers organised enough!

19 January 2012: Just received a message from Yahoo.  I have just had the great honour of being banned from the Getty Contributors Forum probably for my views on this fiasco.  They were instructed to ban me by Getty Images.  No reason was given!  Even though I quit Getty last July, I have been posting on the forum without any repercussions from Yahoo until now.  Speaks volumes - Getty does not like any form of dissent. Technically, I am still a Getty contributor - via AGE fotostock but that doesn't seem to count!

20 January 2012.  Just received yet another missive from Yahoo.  Banned from Getty Images Artists Pick - oh, noooo!

For all those Flickr togs reading this, don't wait until 2 February (as some have indicated) to cancel contract.  That leaves even more time for Google to gobble up more of your work as apparently the total is rising by the minute.  It should also be noted that not once did I suggest to anyone on these forums to quit Getty as this decision is purely theirs. So I guess Getty just did a hissy fit, stomped its little feet in a tanty (Aussie for tantrum) and lashed out to Yahoo.  I am certainly not the only photographer on the forum who is no longer a Getty/Flickr contributor or has never signed up for Getty.  Have they also been banned or am I just being singled out?  This is not an ego thing here. Just an observation and a, somewhat rhetorical, question!

Getty has been given enough time (now over a week) to come up with an explanation which will satisfy their very angry photographers who are seeing their work being treated so shoddily.  But that is where the problem lies with Getty.  I cannot see anything that will placate Getty photographers other than them scrapping entirely the "deal" with Google, but of course as that is set in concrete and has been in effect since towards the end of 2012.  Enough time for hundreds of thousands of Getty images to be distributed worldwide for use by websites, commercial sites and every Tom, Dick and Harry.  Photos of their children, their parents and friends - all being distributed without any reference to the photographer and certainly no respect for the content.  Stable doors and horses springs to mind.