Online photo archive Getty Images is opening 35 million
images to online publishers to use free of charge, acknowledging that many of
its pictures are already being copied anyway.The company will allow "noncommercial" users such
as bloggers and tweeters to embed its images using a code similar to what's on
sites such as YouTube.
Craig Peters, Getty's senior vice president for business
development, said Getty saw its content being copied online, and that
"spoke to an opportunity.The use of our content in these venues points to
really the fact that people are excited to be sharing their ideas, their
interests, their passions with our content," he said. By giving users
limited access to its imagery, he said, "We're generating new brand
awareness in this market.
It also clarifies Getty's insistence that any commercial use
of the company's images requires a paid license, possibly bringing in paying
customers, Peters said. And it opens up the door to using the embed code to
post advertising -- a prospect already covered in Getty's terms of use for the
new venture.I think it's a little premature to talk to a specific
business model, but I think we can talk to specific benefits out of the
gate," Peters said
Users will be able to choose from a universe of 35 million
images out of the 150 million Getty has available for licensing to a wide
variety of organizations, from advertising agencies to news outlets such as
CNN. Embedded content must be used for "editorial purposes" --
meaning events that are "newsworthy or of public interest" -- and
can't be used for advertising, the terms state.
Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab at
Harvard University, said Getty is trying to establish "an alternative for
people who otherwise would just copy and paste photos," much as Apple's
iTunes created a way to legitimize music sharing.But the trick for Getty will be to allow those users to
access its images without making it so easy that its paying customers start
using the embed service themselves, he said.
Getty makes a lot of money off folks like The New York
Times and CNN and professional publishers. They do not in any way want to
endanger that," Benton said. "They're trying to walk that thin line
to protect that while at the same time enabling that different kind of
business.Peters said that commercial users have more rights to the
images than bloggers who embed them. They're able to use the images on multiple
platforms, edit them and keep them on their own servers, he said
It's a completely different work product than what any
of our major media companies are looking for," he said.So far, news photos are harder to find in embeddable form
"than a stock photo of a man in a classroom," Benton said. But if
Getty starts using the embedded image to post ads -- a possibility included in
its terms of use -- "then you have a question about how photographers get
compensated.
Yvonne Boyd, a photographer in Atlanta, said the market for
stock imagery has already declined sharply in recent years, and many photo
agencies now expect photographers to pick up a larger share of their expenses.I can't help but think that somehow Getty will gain
something from this, but not their photographers," Boyd said. She and
other photographers who commented on Getty's Facebook page also questioned
whether an ad-supported website counted as a noncommercial venture
When you're potentially making money, even if it's not
a service or a product, that's commercial,she said. "You then are
benefiting from another's work, and they are not being compensated.
But Peters said the feedback he's received from
photographers is "largely positive."
"We have over 200,000 photographers whose work we
represent on a global basis. In that world, not everyone's going to always
agree with the things we do," he said. But he said he met with a group of
photographers Wednesday night, "and they were incredibly excited about
it."
No comments:
Post a Comment