Tom
31st Dec 2007, 02:41 pm
I came across this post today "Wow, when I joined iStock we were paying $0.50 per credit and spending 3 credits per image. From $1.50 for a decent size photo to $12?!!! And it's only been three years." I guess this is what we should have exptected from the family of a man who put a pay telephone for the use of guests in his Surrey mansion (Sutton Place). For those who need digital photos my first recommendation is of course: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/. After that, I suggest trying: http://www.everystockphoto.com/.
Wikipedia contains the useful information that "In 1993, Mark Getty and Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Klein co-founded Getty Investments LLC, which today is the principal shareholder of Getty Images. Mark Getty is the company's chairman." And this: "Getty Images uses a firm called PicScout, to scan the web and Archive.org for unauthorized and unlicensed usages of its protected images. Websites that are found to be in violation are queried via the Whois database and sent financial settlements that retroactively licensed the image. However, the settlement also demanded damages, which were said to have been incurred against the copyright holder. Thousands of these letters have been sent out, yet according to the Wall Street Journal in October of 2005, Getty had not taken any of these potential cases to court".
I used to love iStock; soon I'll hate them! I thought iStock belonged to an art foundation, The Getty Trust. Not so. It belongs to a rapacious wolverine. Caveat emptor - and no more rants from me (in 2007, that is).
Wikipedia contains the useful information that "In 1993, Mark Getty and Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Klein co-founded Getty Investments LLC, which today is the principal shareholder of Getty Images. Mark Getty is the company's chairman." And this: "Getty Images uses a firm called PicScout, to scan the web and Archive.org for unauthorized and unlicensed usages of its protected images. Websites that are found to be in violation are queried via the Whois database and sent financial settlements that retroactively licensed the image. However, the settlement also demanded damages, which were said to have been incurred against the copyright holder. Thousands of these letters have been sent out, yet according to the Wall Street Journal in October of 2005, Getty had not taken any of these potential cases to court".
I used to love iStock; soon I'll hate them! I thought iStock belonged to an art foundation, The Getty Trust. Not so. It belongs to a rapacious wolverine. Caveat emptor - and no more rants from me (in 2007, that is).