Monday, May 23, 2011

PicScout Acquired by Getty Images

Getty Images has made an interesting acquisition in buying the PicScout image recognition service a few weeks ago, and frankly, it's a smart move. Getty Images, with millions of images, and a dwindling per image revenue stream, must find alternative revenue streams, and focusing on infringements is wise.

In 2007, when Getty was publicly traded, and had to do things like conference calls with investors, Getty CEO Jonathan Klein said "the way we see the world today quite simply, is that our core stock photography business has stopped growing, in fact, it's declining. Our number 1 priority is to stabilize that business...we're trying to stablize the core stock business, at the same time, trying continuing to grow the other businesses." (PBN - GYI's JDK: "our core stock photography business has stopped growing, in fact, it's declining.", 9/20/07). So, the new business seems to be pursuing infringements?

Also back in September of 2007, the Stock Artists Alliance released a white paper - “Infringements of Stock Images and Lost Revenues.”, that they did with....wait for it....Pic Scout, revealed some interesting figures. We wrote (God Save the Alliance, 9/07), "SAA’s study found that 9 out of 10 images they found were infringements upon RM images. That’s a lot of infringements! What’s worse, because of the low-dollar-per-image issue, it seems that tracking infringements of RF isn’t cost effective, giving infringers essentially a “license” to infringe." We also cited from the report back in 2007 "According to Selling Stock’s recent count, there are just over 1 million RM images on gettyimages.com. If we apply the 1:15 annual infringement rate observed in our study, we arrive at an estimate of approximately 67,000 infringements in a one –year period."

PicScout certainly is the industry leader when it comes to image recognition. They also are the provider of image recognition services to the PLUS Coalition's PLUS Registry, which positions not just PicScout, but also Getty Images, to lead the industry in the long term.

Frankly, all photographers would benefit from Getty being on top of their rights management, and the pursuit of infringers. The more infringers are pursued, the more they will think twice infringing, whether it's a Getty image, or that of a freelancer.
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)


Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
at

2 comments:

  1. Harrisburg PhotographerJune 10, 2011 at 11:55 AM

    I love Picscout, so I've been torn about this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LesMJanuary 13, 2013 at 7:35 AM

    When I discovered that Picscout, a subsidiary of Getty Images, had established a direct link to my personal photographic website and was directing users to it, I wondered what was their purpose.

    After a long exchange of emails, during which I recorded a number of visits to my website from Getty Images, the closest I could get to an explanation came from the "Product Manager for the Getty Images/Picscout ImageExchange" software.

    He said that "It is possible that our ImageExchange tool created a referral to your site, but this is difficult to definitively determine."

    First and foremost, their software DID establish a link to my site - I can vouch for that - they've left their footprints behind!

    And then think about this - he's the product manager for the software that makes photos from other websites available to Getty Images to market! And he doesn't know what the software does, nor what it did, nor what the effect of that might be on a "victim" of their software"? They might think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid!

    I responded ".... My question remains, how and why? The
    images on my site were all clearly marked as copyrighted, and had never been
    made available to PicScout. Then why establish a link to my site and refer
    what I can only imagine to be potential PicScout customers to my site?"

    I never received a response to this question.

    Would you buy a used car from these people?


    ReplyDelete

COMMENT GUIDELINES

Every month, tens of thousands of visitors come to Photo Business News, and approximately 2,000 readers get PBN via RSS feeds. As we approach three years of blogging (in one form or another) PBN has matured, and has, as one might expect, attracted some less-than-mature readers, which, in turn, turns to commenters with their own agendas.

Following are our Terms of Service (TOS) for commenting on the blog posts:
-------------------
1. Comment Spam - we have had a ton of spam from countries like Russia, Japan, China, and so on. It interferes with the discourse, and is one of the prime reasons we are moving to moderation. All one need to is look back a few months to see the blog posts I haven't had time to clean up from this type of spam to see that moderation is needed for this reason alone. In addition, if your comment is not germane to the point being discussed, it too becomes spam. It will be deleted.

2. Over time, some pretty irrational challenges and attacks have been levied against me, and that's ok if you disagree with me, just don't make it personal on me, or anyone else. Doing so means your comment won't make it out of moderation, so don't waste your time. In addition, it would be a shame for you to make a really great point that everyone would benefit from reading, and include personal attacks on me, or other commenters, because we don't edit comments, they're either in, or they're out.

3. Over at the Photo Business News Flickr forum, (here) there are almost 2,000 members and a good opportunity to get your questions answered there. If you have a suggestion for a blog topic, there's a link to make that suggestion on every page of the blog.

4. It is the policy of Photo Business News that if there is a YouTube, Vimeo, Viddler, Hulu or any other video service online, we can post it here using the embedding players for those services (which often insert ads into the playback). We can't know if what might normally be considered a copyrighted work that you would think might not be allowed on, say, YouTube, in fact has been agreed to between the copyright holder and YouTube. So, if you have a question or concern, visit those sites, and flag the content you believe is problematic. In addition, we adhere to standards for quoting and citing other content, with attribution and where possible, a link to that content.

5. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS - For several years now, we've given free reign to anonymous commenters, and a small fraction of those were beneficial to the readership. It is our opinion that anonymous commenters would best be from someone who, for example, should their identity be revealed, could pose job security or economic problems for them. So to that end, unless your comment is significantly beneficial, anonymous comments won't get moderated in. If you wish to make an anonymous comment and you want to send me an e-mail identifying yourself (which I will not reveal), that would be helpful, and will increase your chances of getting your comments posted. Oh, and don't go creating a fake Blogger ID just to get in - blank Blogger ID's are just one step removed from plain anonymous postings. The more discourse where people know who each other are, the better. David Hobby, of Strobist fame summed it up best in his TOS: "Nothing looks more weenie and pathetic than sniping, critical, anonymous comments."