mattie_p writes
"Getty Images, an American stock photo agency with over 80 million still photographs and more than 50,000 hours of video in its catalog, is offering about 35 million images for non-profit use for free, according to a report from the BBC and recent changes to its terms of use, in an effort to combat piracy.
Getty Images realized that many of their photographs have been utilized in the past without attribution, and embeds the photographs in code that links back to its own site. By offering the ability to embed photos, Getty is saying it cannot effectively police the use of its images in every nook and cranny of the internet. Yet it also may use the code to serve advertisements in the future, allowing it to make revenue by sharing its catalog.
Getty has been both the plaintiff and defendant in several lawsuits regarding use of their images online. This experiment may bode well for the future of freely (as in beer) distributed intellectual property in a free and connected society, but then again, maybe not."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday March 08 2014, @01:58AM
At this point I will take it. Getty is at least looking at different business models and willing to test them out. This is a far cry better than digging in their heels and doubling down on the LawyerPults(tm) and less expensive in terms of what it takes to bribe Senators and steer multinational trade agreements.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 08 2014, @04:28AM
I thought this was a positive thing until I've read the following: "Yet it also may use the code to serve advertisements in the future"
Sorry, but if I were to make a web site, I would want to know from the beginning whether something will introduce ads (I might even have an exclusive deal with another advertiser). So
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mmcmonster on Saturday March 08 2014, @06:58AM
Let's be realistic.
Getty at least is letting you know upfront that they may add advertising at a later date. If that's an issue for you, don't use it. But at least they're upfront about it.
Think of it as part of their Terms of Service for using their images. If you can't handle the terms, don't use the images.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AnythingGoes on Saturday March 08 2014, @10:55AM
It will be a graduated scale (depending on how much you will be asked to pay).
Step 1: First it is free.
Step 2: Then they will embed advertisement links.
Step 3: Then they will add subtle product placements (your Coca Cola bottle suddenly changes to a Pepsi logo, depending on whether Coca Cola or Pepsi paid more that day)
Step 4: Creatively change other parts to make your life difficult e.g. Photoshopping a (short/bald/fat) man into an unpaid photo for man products
Step 5: Link all requests from your site to goatse... :)
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 08 2014, @02:20PM
You forgot the obligatory steps:
Step 6: ???
Step 7: Profit
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jpkunst on Saturday March 08 2014, @05:56AM
Are these images good for anything except for cluttering up news stories with useless stock photos? (Like a certain "nerdy" site has been doing in its "beta", for example?)
I hate that trend. Why must every news story have an image even if there are no actual pictures pertaining to the event available?
Hey, this story is about the police arresting someone. I know! Let's add a stock photo of a pair of handcuffs! Sigh.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Saturday March 08 2014, @10:02AM
Some things can't really be conveyed without images (and that's fine). The real problem comes when people attach any old image to a story just because people today have such limited reading comprehension that without something graphical to focus them, it's all TL;DR. And of course, coddling them just makes it worse. I was tempted to put an ASCII picture of a bunny to help you make it this far, but ... well... I got distracted.
Scientists point out problems. Engineers fix them.
(Score: 2, Informative) by FuckBeta on Saturday March 08 2014, @01:10PM
(Like a certain "nerdy" site has been doing in its "beta", for example?)
Fuck Beta!
Quit Slashdot...because Fuck Beta!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Saturday March 08 2014, @11:23AM
Seems pretty obvious to me that whether they run ads or not, their images will be used as "web bugs" to track people's browsing habits without their knowledge.
I don't see this development as particularly good for anyone but Getty (and the companies that will pay for that data).