Megan Garber explains the photo agency’s decision to make 35 million of its photos freely embeddable for non-commercial use:
It’s important to note that, while many millions of Getty images are now available for embed, not all Getty images are. And there seems to be a fairly significant split, from what I can tell, between stock images and photojournalism images when it comes to embeddability. So do a search for “Ukraine,” and you”ll get lots of photos … but that one of John Kerry shaking hands with Sergei Lavrov in Rome yesterday? Nope, not embeddable. …
That distinction is important; it emphasizes, among other things, the bet that Getty is making by opening this new revenue stream. News outlets, after all, will always need news photos. Keeping the newsy stuff out of the “free photo” pool allows Getty to preserve its value for its already-paying digital subscribers, while the embed system could be a way to capture some value from The Rogues. This is Getty attempting to have its cake, and eat it, too.
The Dish has paid for Getty images for many years now, both within larger media companies and into its independence, and we couldn’t be more satisfied with their service and quality. A special thanks to Stephen Hanley for shepherding our account through the stressful period of setting up our own site and company last year. Meanwhile, Pat David points to some downsides of Getty’s new feature:
First of all, the embed tool generates an <iframe> element to show the image. For anyone not in the know, it is basically creating a frame in the web page that will load whatever Getty wants inside of it, not just the image requested (more on that in a moment). While not necessarily a problem in and of itself, it does present a problem for possibilities of link-rot across the Internet. If for any reason Getty decides it no longer wants to serve its images in this way (and it’s absolutely within their right to do so), then every site that used these images will now have a dead space where the image used to be… or worse.
Some photographers are not happy about the change:
“It’s going to put people out of work, without the shadow of a doubt,” Jeff Moore, chairman of the British Press Photographers’ Association, told trade magazine BJP. “The first ones to fall will be small and independent freelancers and smaller agencies that are relying on small Internet sales.” [Picfair founder Benji] Lanyado agrees, and has written an open letter to photographers in the wake of the deal, warning them to be wary of middlemen like Getty.
“Getty was one of the big agencies that was helping the creative industry in trying to make the internet work, making it pay, and they decided to go into the opposite direction,” Moore continued. “This is a massively cynical move from Getty.”
And it’s not the only move the agency is making, either:
While Getty is opening up to small users, it is also escalating enforcement against commercial infringers. After years of not filing lawsuits against infringers in spite of blustery demand letters, Getty suddenly filed five suits this January. Where there is a carrot, there is often a stick. … I suspect these two policy changes are not concurrent by accident. Getty has the same frustratingly persistent infringement problems that plague all online content creators. By granting the little fish a pass, they free up resources to more effectively counter the rule-breaking sharks. I would not want to be one of Getty Image’s corporate infringers in 2014.
The Dish 