Talk:Getty Images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

filmmagic.com[edit]

I would like to download some images from the filmmagic.com website. How do I go about this? The site does not respond to email communications. Drutt (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

pixellating images?[edit]

Is it just me or is pixellating the photos that appear in the images of the Getty websites cautious to the point of pathological paranoia? The photos are the entire point of the website, they are an integral part of the website, and including them in a screenshot seems to be unabiguous fair use. Pixellating them renders the screenshots inaccurate. Even useless. It's like including a picture of an album cover in a wikipedia article, but pixellating everything except the band name and title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.116.132 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What's even funnier is they ignore robots.txt and deliberately gain unauthorized access to sites even after you try and block them. Oh, and trying to download an entire website at least once a day (PicScout does, anyway). Consuming 80% of a smaller site's bandwidth doesn't exactly make them popular. Then they wonder why people block them and PicScout... Some even block entire ISPs/countries and have front-page legal notices explicitly forbidding them from accessing the site. If you want to know more about them, you can use Google or something. It's better not to be too negative in a post here and I've kind of gotten close.71.196.246.113 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright enforcement[edit]

This section seems to contain contradictory statements, i.e.

  1. "Getty has yet to take any individual to court."
  2. "In 2008, Getty Images lost a lawsuit in Germany[16]. Getty claimed unauthorized usage, but the defendant could prove authorized usage as he had bought a retroactive license directly from the photographer."

Which is correct? Was the defendant perhaps not "an individual"? --TraceyR (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The source claims it was a grad student involved in the lawsuit. I have removed the reference. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy ?[edit]

What is controversial about a stock photo agency suing if it believes that images have been used without permission ? --Racklever (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In principle, nothing at all. It is the aggressive way in which Getty seeks to enforce its copyright - specifically the so-called "Getty Extortion Letter" - that gives rise to the controversy. - Asteuartw (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Correct. It's their very rude strong arm tactics with exorbitant demands which are ruining their goodwill and reputation. It's simple greed and smallmindedness. They likely make more money from such "extortion letters" than from actual sales of images. Other image corporations, and others with copyrighted material, will send a polite cease and desist letter, and if the material is removed, that's the end of the matter. Such corporations preserve their goodwill and get more business. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
What the others said ... but also, that the media have covered it as such.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Payments to photographers[edit]

I'd like to see explanations about the reimbursements to photographers. Now don't be obnoxious and refer me to the Getty site. Like the percentages and amounts paid for what kinds of usage, are they fair and worthwhile etc. George Slivinsky (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Getty Images. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thinkstock[edit]

Thinkstock redirects to Getty Images but isn't mentioned in the article. Maybe there should be a section on brands? John a s (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)