Talk:Getty Images

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Image Bank"[edit]

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned. Getty Images bought "The Image Bank" subsidiary of Kodak in 1999, acquiring over 30-million images at the time. I actually think there is whole subset of entries to be created from this around a man called Arthur Brackman. Brackman founded the "Freelance Photographers Guild" (FPG) in 1936; he also "discovered" photographer Pete Turner. The Image Bank was founded by Lawrence Fried and Stanley Kanney(not the Brackmans as previously stated) It was allegedly Kanney's sister Lenore Herson who referred to the Image Bank as "the house that Pete built". Herson was a VP at the Image Bank. Pete Turner was I believe, Contractor 003 of "The Image Bank". "The Image Bank" was bought by Kodak in 1991 and sold to Getty as per https://www.newspapers.com/clip/105724676/kodak-sells-subsidiary-the-image-bank/

I have some detail on this the "Image Bank" but for now it at least deserves mention here as it was a large and substantial acquisition for Getty Images. Cathcam (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What the others said ... but also, that the media have covered it as such.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Photography[edit]

Only photograph MD. Pabel khan (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photography MD. Pabel khan (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

The first paragraph for this page says that Getty Images has "...a library of over 477 million assets." There is no citation provided for this claim, and the closest thing I could find to a source is Getty Images' own website, which claims it has over 400 million assets. 2001:E68:5400:88:19E0:AFD0:9907:3818 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Getty_Images&oldid=1207408044"