Getty Images has announced that after poring over sales data and customer research, they’re ditching the rights-managed licensing options and going over to royalty-free for their “creative” images. Announced over email, the news makes sense from a business standpoint. This will make it a better deal for customers and make Getty more money. But, it’s not necessarily such a great deal for photographers.
Dallas-based digital marketing company CixxFive Concepts has recently filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images. The lawsuit claims that Getty is allegedly licensing images that are in the public domain. But in addition to that, CixxFive Concepts also accuses Getty of using all kinds of “deceptive techniques” to make customers think that the company is the legal copyright holder.
Getty Images has announced an exclusive distribution partnership with 500px. Starting from late June 2018, 500px Marketplace will quit direct sales and e-commerce. Instead, Getty Images customers will be able to access royalty-free content from 500px, along with over 300 million images already available on Getty.
You’ve probably noticed by now that Google has removed the “View Image” button from its Image Search. The decision helped Google to settle its dispute with Getty, but it has made many users unhappy. The community, then, is finding ways to reclaim the View Image button, somehow or another.
A few days ago, Getty and Google announced the upcoming changes as a result of a licensing deal. The announced changes have arrived, and now you can’t see the “View Image” button on Google any longer. Instead, if you want to see the photo, you’ll have to go directly to the website where it’s hosted.
Photoshopping female bodies has been a question of many debates. Getty Images, one of the largest stock photo agencies in the world, has just changed their rules concerning this issue.
According to their new rules, along with the submission of the images, you’ll also need to declare whether the model’s body size and shape have been digitally manipulated or not. If they have, you shouldn’t submit the images.
Although some quite enjoyed the idea of seeing Getty get a good legal spanking for once, that is not how things are turning out. US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff has dismissed all of Carol Highsmith’s federal copyright claims. After the dismissal on October 28th, he left three of Highsmith’s state law claims intact. Those, too, have now been voluntarily dismissed after Highsmith and Getty have reached an agreement to settle the case.
For those who missed it, Highsmith filed suit in July after she discovered that Getty had been charging fees to license images she had created without her consent. She only realised this after they attempted to bill her for the use of one of her own photographs and did a little digging. They had attempted to sell almost 19,000 images she had created.
The technological advancements that can be made in just four short years are amazing. 11 time Olympic photographer Al Bello is taking advantage of that fact this year. He’s covering the swimming events using underwater robot cameras.
Robotic underwater cameras at the Olympics aren’t a new idea. Reuters used similar robots during London 2012. But this is the first time Getty will be giving them a try. With an extra four years of research and development, though, these cameras should get some fantastic and unique shots.
The nine page civil complaint was filed by Zuma Press, an independent press agency, on Monady. In the suit, Zuma alleges copyright violations and unauthorised licensing of more than 47,000 images.
Getty can be pretty quick to send out infringement letters, as well they should. In the case of a real infringement, they absolutely must be protecting the rights of their contributors. But what happens when Getty screws up and sends an infringement notice to the creator of the photograph?
What then happens if Getty also try to sell almost 19,000 of the same photographer’s images without permission? Well, that’s what happened to photographer Carol M. Highsmith and she’s suing Getty for the maximum available under the law.