Really nice images on your site blackheath. Good luck with Getty, I use them a lot through my work, they've got a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Aren't Getty also a Seattle based company, any tie-up between them?
Thanks Nug. Not sure who you are referring to when you refer to Getty being based in Seattle. A tie-up with whom?
Dont get me wrong. My experience with Getty so far has been great. They take a very large cut but it's all profit to me. It's just this situation that I'm angry about. But they havent come back yet so I cant start slagging them off yet. That can wait for when they offer me 20p and a mars bar.
Getty are the major player in the world of photography.....
As mentioned on wicki......When Picture Post folded, Sir Edward Hulton sold the archive collection to the BBC in 1957. It was incorporated into the Radio Times photo archive, and the BBC expanded the collection further with the purchase of the photo archives of the Daily Express and Evening Standard newspapers. Eventually, the BBC disposed of its photo archive and the BBC Hulton Library was sold on once more, this time to Brian Deutsch, in 1988. In 1996, the Hulton Deutsch Collection was bought for £8.6m by Getty Images. Getty now owns the rights to some 15 million photographs from the British press archives dating back to the 19th century.
They also bought the Telegraph......Redferns, and a host of others. There still is the Press association, Camera press, Science photo library, and the good old Mary Evans photo library in Blackheath for archive material, Robert Harding but they tend to be specialist......... Quite a few photographs I have taken have been 'bought' by libraries, and as an art director even more that I have art directed, trouble is I was largely employed by IPC, emap, and there like . I have had to adopt a philosophical approach about the whole issue of IPR. As a designer you have to, because you are part of a team. There is a world renowned brand that uses my logo (no it is not the bbc chirpy!) the individual has gone on to make more than a few shillings from.....
I did the work for the 'brand' when I was at art school, years later the same person employed me to work on his magazine....... At the time they had a couple of things going, both of which was sold, but kept the 'brand name' and my little logo.......... Part of the 'division' had used an artist to design the original logo, but that got dropped. Being a typical art student at the time, I did a term project of this artist/designer. I got my foot into the company because I had dealt with the MD,prior to me going to art school....... and he 'introduced me to the MD of that division' as by that stage the company had taken off. Perhaps it is a remarkable similarity, frankly at the time I was overjoyed to work for the organisation, which at least I had an interest in......
Thought I'd give an update on where I'm at with this.
I got a personal phonecall from one of the Getty legal team in the US on Friday who told me they had spent the previous three days looking into this in great detail.
Apparently the person who did the original deal with Microsoft is currently unavailable due to getting married this weekend and so they have so far been unable to verify the exact conditions of the licence however their initial instinct says they do not know how Microsoft would be able to give any image away in this manner regardless of exactly what contact they negiotiated. There should be no contract negiotiable that would allow this unless for example they had purchased the exclusive rights to this image which would cost them upwards of $50,000. They paid for their original licence about $350.
The person I spoke to asked me (though I dont know why I should do their job for them) to find all instances of further illegal uses of the image, to get the links, and screengrabs of the image on websites.
I found 42 further misuses of this image as a direct result of Microsoft allowing this image to be freely downloaded from their website and from Bing's website.
Once I get any more information from Getty I'll pass it on but I dont forsee this being something that is concluded anytime in the next few days, or weeks, perhaps even longer.
Thanks to everyone for their kind words and support, it's appreciated.
Thought I'd give an update on where I'm at with this.
I got a personal phonecall from one of the Getty legal team in the US on Friday who told me they had spent the previous three days looking into this in great detail.
Apparently the person who did the original deal with Microsoft is currently unavailable due to getting married this weekend and so they have so far been unable to verify the exact conditions of the licence however their initial instinct says they do not know how Microsoft would be able to give any image away in this manner regardless of exactly what contact they negiotiated. There should be no contract negiotiable that would allow this unless for example they had purchased the exclusive rights to this image which would cost them upwards of $50,000. They paid for their original licence about $350.
The person I spoke to asked me (though I dont know why I should do their job for them) to find all instances of further illegal uses of the image, to get the links, and screengrabs of the image on websites.
I found 42 further misuses of this image as a direct result of Microsoft allowing this image to be freely downloaded from their website and from Bing's website.
Once I get any more information from Getty I'll pass it on but I dont forsee this being something that is concluded anytime in the next few days, or weeks, perhaps even longer.
Thanks to everyone for their kind words and support, it's appreciated.
Getty is a company worth US$ billions. Are they really trying to say that they don't know the terms of a contract because one person is on holiday? I just don't believe that. Where's the hard copy of the contract? If it is actually true, you need someone new representing you because these guys are just inept.
Cheers for asking. Still "Ongoing" apparently. There was a meeting last week (I dont know how high on the agenda I was) and I've had no feedback since. So really, no news for now. Thanks again for asking.
Unfortunately the only update I got was, Getty had allowed Microsoft do this within the terms of their contract. Whatever that means, and so far I have not been paid a penny from any of the other uses.
Comments
Still join the Union!
All I can suggest is milk the publicity of "pic used world-wide"
BenHenry......................Jimtango but it's ok. It's plastered all over my website, so I've kind of given it away.Dont get me wrong. My experience with Getty so far has been great. They take a very large cut but it's all profit to me. It's just this situation that I'm angry about. But they havent come back yet so I cant start slagging them off yet. That can wait for when they offer me 20p and a mars bar.
As mentioned on wicki......When Picture Post folded, Sir Edward Hulton sold the archive collection to the BBC in 1957. It was incorporated into the Radio Times photo archive, and the BBC expanded the collection further with the purchase of the photo archives of the Daily Express and Evening Standard newspapers. Eventually, the BBC disposed of its photo archive and the BBC Hulton Library was sold on once more, this time to Brian Deutsch, in 1988.
In 1996, the Hulton Deutsch Collection was bought for £8.6m by Getty Images. Getty now owns the rights to some 15 million photographs from the British press archives dating back to the 19th century.
They also bought the Telegraph......Redferns, and a host of others.
There still is the Press association, Camera press, Science photo library, and the good old Mary Evans photo library in Blackheath for archive material, Robert Harding but they tend to be specialist.........
Quite a few photographs I have taken have been 'bought' by libraries, and as an art director even more that I have art directed, trouble is I was largely employed by IPC, emap, and there like .
I have had to adopt a philosophical approach about the whole issue of IPR. As a designer you have to, because you are part of a team.
There is a world renowned brand that uses my logo (no it is not the bbc chirpy!) the individual has gone on to make more than a few shillings from.....
I did the work for the 'brand' when I was at art school, years later the same person employed me to work on his magazine.......
At the time they had a couple of things going, both of which was sold, but kept the 'brand name' and my little logo..........
Part of the 'division' had used an artist to design the original logo, but that got dropped.
Being a typical art student at the time, I did a term project of this artist/designer. I got my foot into the company because I had dealt with the MD,prior to me going to art school....... and he 'introduced me to the MD of that division' as by that stage the company had taken off.
Perhaps it is a remarkable similarity, frankly at the time I was overjoyed to work for the organisation, which at least I had an interest in......
I got a personal phonecall from one of the Getty legal team in the US on Friday who told me they had spent the previous three days looking into this in great detail.
Apparently the person who did the original deal with Microsoft is currently unavailable due to getting married this weekend and so they have so far been unable to verify the exact conditions of the licence however their initial instinct says they do not know how Microsoft would be able to give any image away in this manner regardless of exactly what contact they negiotiated. There should be no contract negiotiable that would allow this unless for example they had purchased the exclusive rights to this image which would cost them upwards of $50,000. They paid for their original licence about $350.
The person I spoke to asked me (though I dont know why I should do their job for them) to find all instances of further illegal uses of the image, to get the links, and screengrabs of the image on websites.
I found 42 further misuses of this image as a direct result of Microsoft allowing this image to be freely downloaded from their website and from Bing's website.
Once I get any more information from Getty I'll pass it on but I dont forsee this being something that is concluded anytime in the next few days, or weeks, perhaps even longer.
Thanks to everyone for their kind words and support, it's appreciated.
Want to start photography myself, when I can spare a good amount of cash for a good enough camera.
Unfortunately the only update I got was, Getty had allowed Microsoft do this within the terms of their contract. Whatever that means, and so far I have not been paid a penny from any of the other uses.
Incidentally I have a new website now.
www.thisabandonedplanet.com
and my wedding stuff is on
www.talkinginwhispers.com