Stock Photo Site Owner Claims Infringement Costs The Industry 5X The Entire Industry's Size
from the uh,-yeah dept
We've seen all sorts of ridiculous claims about the supposed "costs" of copyright infringement. In almost every case, these claims break down under even the slightest scrutiny. Yet, throwing around big numbers tends to get press coverage, and apparently the photography industry has finally jumped onto the trend. Rose M. Welch points out that the CEO of a stock photo site is claiming that infringement costs the industry $10 billion per year. Now, that's quite impressive, considering the entire current stock photo industry is only $2 billion. And, while the reporter expresses some skepticism towards the number, the overall article is still deferential to the idea that $10 billion might not be that far off, and thus, obviously, there's a huge problem. Wouldn't it be nice if reporters actually explored where such numbers come from and why they're totally ridiculous? Does anyone actually think that most of the people who use such photos without authorization would pay for them otherwise? Does anyone actually think the vast majority of those uses are "losses?" Then why report them as such? Why not focus on the real issue: that the market has changed and photographers (and stock photo sites) need to learn to adapt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, losses, stock photo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a moment...
Ha ha, REALLY? Then it seems to me, Mr. CEO numbskull, that you should be up for a new accolade I am introducing today:
The First Annual Worst Businessman In The World Award! (Hold for applause)
Yes, you my friend are in an industry where there is apparently five times the use and demand for your product than what you are serving. Stated differently, your MARKET has only 20% of the MARKETSHARE of your ....market? Jesus you guys are clearly in trouble if you can't figure out how to monetize FIVE EFFING TIMES the number of customers you're currently serving.
Seriously, what was the difference between this interview and Captain CEO Assclown just slapping the reporter across the face and insanely shouting, "I don't know what the fuck I'm doing!" in her face?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a moment...
I can't wait to see that interview I would use it in every class presentation that I could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, first of all, I guarantee that number is incredibly inflated. This article acts as though their is absolutely no benefit to the pictures being shared. If you really have a picture worth $90,000 dollars then why are you selling digital versions of it. Why not restrict usage to print only? But really, who would be willing to pay $90k for a single picture anyways if they weren't going to own the picture and all its rights? So unless he foolishly posted the pictures online then I don't see how he could say he lost that income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not quite sure what they were trying to say in this part of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ridiculous
Barriers of entry are lower, commissioned photography work is cheaper, misappropriating stuff is easier, and being exposed and made to look like an asshat is easier. Welcome to the 21st century, guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ridiculous
It would be nice though to see how they did come up with these numbers, but then again we all know they are just made up figures anyways so what's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You had been reading about the leader of Scientology haven't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curiosity.
Could that be used by criminals as a defense in a court of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google images generally not a problem since the search results icon and actual image as it appears on the website are generally quite small in size and, thus, quite limited in use. Where a problem does arise is in situations where the user secures from a stock site a full size image, and then turns around and starts re-selling the image. It is not at all unusual to download a large image file, resample it to a much larger size, and then start selling framed prints to the public at large.
What I find interesting is that the "photographers" who complain the loudest are amatuers who upload to free stock sites, and then take umbrage at any use of their upload with which they happen to disagree. Uses such as print-on-demand seem to catch a lot of flack.
Personally, I upload on occasion to free stock sites and tell downloaders to "have at it", no matter what the site license may say concerning authorized uses. Two reasons for this. First, once uploaded there is no way to police use. Second, the only way to keep photos from being misused is to never upload them. The second seems kinda silly to me since it means that my photos will do nothing more than sit on a shelf gathering dust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's true!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's true!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's true!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's true!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's true!!
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
yet the people that seem to be complaining the most about not having enough seem to be the rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost of infringement
iStock Photo for example offers the following;
The free insurance, which is provided on all content purchased through the site automatically, offers to pay up to $10,000 to cover legal fees and damages should a dispute arise. An extension of that guarantee, which expands the coverage to $250,000, costs 100 credits, or about $140.
Now, if the site is negligent in vetting their submitted works, and a contributor submits photos that they are not legally entitled to distribute (ie - joe shmo downloads photos off of someone elses flikr page, submits them to X-stock photography site claiming that the files are his original work in order to make a quick buck)
So now, this is not about the theft of a handful of $2 images, but about the high legal costs incurred for each $2 image that is illegally uploaded and not properly checked for accurate ownership prior to resale.
Still the stock sites fault though. No sympathy from me if they can't validate that the photographers who submit work aren't pulling a fast one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why upload at full resolution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adaptation breeds failures and successes.
I'm a photographer and the losses I've experienced, or at least felt I had experienced, were pretty significant. I was dwelling on the time, effort, and cash I had spent taking photos and that people were taking them at will via my flickr page or worse still, my own website. A small portion of my income comes from stock photos and I've learned that stressing about the stability of those sites and their business model is hardly worth the gray hairs and potential ulcers.
Instead I've been working on ways of making potential clients feel special, or at least that my work is, ultimately garnering interest and new sources of cash flow. New package concepts including specialty prints (canvas art prints, board prints, etc), meals, entertainment (I had a package wherein the client could have a musician or comedian on site), makeup artists, and so on were put to the test. I've even taken to expanding my own skills by exercising those years of design and business classes to provide creative expertise for company image, branding and marketing when needed.
I've stopped bitching about the photos people were taking from me. Instead, I've been encouraging folks to download watermarked copies of my work. The copies they are getting aren't always high res and if they're really looking for something better, be it a higher resolution, a specific crop from the image, whatever, they now know how to find me and when talking to me they learn that I have more to offer, or even better still they provide feedback on what they'd like to see in my offerings.
Now, my new stress is redeveloping the website and getting a new hosting service because I never expected to get the volume I've seen in the last year or so. Gee, how will I ever cope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adaptation breeds failures and successes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adaptation breeds failures and successes.
How ever, once the initial purchase is made, I really don't care where my work ends up after that. I have seen a few backgrounds made with some of my work. Even though I'm not making any money off of it, or getting much credit for the original photograph, I have decided it's best not to really care. In fact, since I am still what I would consider a student photographer, anytime my work is taken to make something else it gives me a bit of a boost to know I must be headed in the right direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adaptation breeds failures and successes.
While all the market and technology changes have been rough, the overall effect for me has been very positive. Yep, I lose a little (potential) income sometimes, but thoughtful use of watermarked and Creative Commons licensed images has paid off in name recognition and new projects.
I don't even think the public-facing side of the business has changed all that much -- just the techniques we use to market and deliver are different.
I'd feel that a bigger "threat" to our business is the fact that every Joe Sixpack with a half-decent camera is suddenly a "photographer." But hey, some of those Joes can turn out a good image. That just means we have to ratchet up our game -- tough sometimes, but also a lot of fun when you enjoy your work. And often the tidal wave of mediocre photography only serves to make the good stuff stand out even more.
Photographers are getting squeezed, no doubt about it. There's a consumer invasion of the low end and relentless time and money pressure on the high end. Our challenge as an industry isn't to stay ahead of the curve, that's always been the case in one form or another; the challenge is to be sure people recognize and value what our skills can provide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay then, we hold the world ransom for...One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!
WHOAAAA HA HA HA HA!!!
Had to throw that in there!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Am So Pissed...
I took a picture of a huge dump that I took in Bangkok after a big night of drinking. I put it on iStockPhoto with a price tag of ONE MILLION DOLLARS, because I'm sure it is the biggest dump ever recorded. I mean it was really big. And not to mention the expense I went through to get to Bangkok, where I RISKED MY LIFE FOR THAT PERFECT SHOT!
THEN, some little shit-tard punk from Minneapolis who skulks in his mother's basement, STOLE my work-of-art, and posted it on RateMyPoo.com!!
FUCK! - I LOST $1,000,000!!!
I'll NEVER get to buy that gold-plated toilet and matching spitoon now. THIS SUCKS.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality bites!
I agree that the loss calculation is grossly overstated and remind all who care that the digital camera and related technologies (e.g. Photoshop, etc.) were unprecedented game changers. Economics 101 taught us about supply vs. demand. As eluded to above, the digital camera is now ubiquitous with tons and tons of superior quality work now flooding the markets and computer monitors worldwide. Supply goes up, obviously price goes down. For those of us claiming to be professionals, the "flood" only motivates me to keep improving upon my craft. Lot of folks out there looking to eat another's lunch.
As for pirating/infringement, watermark your work if you're paranoid about unauthorized usage. Policing, or the impossible task of accomplishing it, was also mentioned before. Excellent point! Remember, if it's on the Internet, people assume it to be free. Do I condone this form of digital thievery? Of course not! However, until photo sharing/commerce sites/camera manufacturers improve upon their protection software/coding, the bloodletting shall continue. At this point in time---- reality bites!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More usage of the big number in other stories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect amount
[ link to this | view in chronology ]