- Cut Katherine Langford ‘Avengers: Endgame’ scene lands on Disney+ 6 Years Ago
- Planned Parenthood app to show abortion-seeking users their nearest options 6 Years Ago
- ‘The Imagineering Story’ offers touching insight into Walt Disney’s vision 6 Years Ago
- YouTube mom who was charged with child abuse dead at 48 Today 11:39 AM
- Every Marvel Cinematic Universe movie and show missing from Disney+ (and when they’ll show up) Today 11:35 AM
- HBO Max is planning a ‘Friends’ reunion special Today 11:10 AM
- 18 games you’ll want to have for all your holiday parties Today 11:09 AM
- Why the internet is obsessed with the Home Depot song Today 11:04 AM
- What are the ‘nude pictures’ of Trump Devin Nunes keeps bringing up? Today 10:40 AM
- How to watch tonight’s fire Clippers vs. Rockets matchup online Today 9:27 AM
- Ilhan Omar says Stephen Miller emails prove he’s a ‘white nationalist Today 9:00 AM
- YouTubers Trisha Paytas and Gabbie Hanna are feuding—and it’s gotten nasty Today 8:40 AM
- Can buttoned-up Elizabeth Warren memes bring order to a chaotic 2020 election? Today 8:17 AM
- Best CBD edibles: Tried and true favorites from a girl who is obsessed with CBD Today 7:59 AM
- ‘High School Musical: The Musical: The Series’ is a note-perfect Gen Z spin-off Today 7:51 AM
Watermarks, be damned! Getty Images just gave 35 million photos away for free
Getty Images, one of the largest stock photo sellers in the business, just made a big chunk of its picture collection free. Has Getty gone batty? Maybe not.
Getty Images is one of the largest stock photography companies in the world. The company’s revenue comes from people and businesses paying to use Getty’s vast store of images.
So why did Getty Images just decide to give away 35 million of those photos it formerly made money licensing?
The company changed its policy today to allow the use of its images free of charge, so long as they embed the images using code provided and the images are used for non-commercial purposes. This embedding process will allow websites to feature Getty pictures in the same way they include YouTube videos, tweets, and Facebook posts.
Here’s what the embedded posts look like:
Ordinarily this photo of a man pooping could’ve cost up to $699. Yet here it is. This is quite the departure from Getty’s previous policy of aggressively pursuing people who have used their images without paying for them.
Getty did have an understandable reason to hound people who used its images without paying up, seeing as it was, up until today, a business that relied on those payments to survive. Getty plans to make money in the same way YouTube does on these embedded posts. The company will be able to place ads and collect data through them.
Of course, it’d be very easy to circumvent the embedding rule, since anyone can just screenshot the images and upload the screenshot. Getty knows this; Craig Peters, a business development exec at Getty Images, admitted as much to The Verge.
“Look, if you want to get a Getty image today, you can find it without a watermark very simply,” he told them. “The way you do that is you go to one of our customer sites and you right-click. Or you go to Google Image search or Bing Image Search and you get it there. And that’s what’s happening… our content was everywhere already.”
But Getty is guessing enough digital publishers will choose to comply with this new policy to provide an alternative revenue stream.
This is definitely risky, but not ridiculous. And it’s going to enrich articles by providing photography content that was previously prohibitively expensive for certain publishers. That’s good for readers who are tired of seeing the same Creative Commons images over and over.
Whether it will be good for photographers is another matter. The embed includes attribution, but attribution doesn’t pay the bills, son.
Kate Knibbs is a notable tech reporter and pop culture essayist. A former staff writer for the Daily Dot, her work has appeared in Gizmodo, the Ringer, AV Club, Digital Trends, Popular Mechanics, and Time.