Funny thing about Getty images. Or any stock image for that matter...
You would think every image would have the © [photographer name] / Getty Images
right in the info data where it can be seen by programs like InDesign when the image is linked. But no. Only very rarely. On many occasions the info is downright wrong.

Photographers who submit their imagery need to know to put this information in themselves. The stock sites don't do it for you.

I just ordered over 30 images from a subsidiary of Getty. Many of them said "public domain" Many of them didn't even have the image number in the info data. It takes a lot of time for me to register all this stuff properly for any particular project. Part of my job and I'm all for job security, but seriously, the supplier base needs to get educated.

As for whatever this google drive nonsense is, skip all that daisy-chain blog crap.
Here is a better place to start:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_mes...=350491&page=1

Thanks for the link PrintDriver. A quick skim tells me this won't be usable for us at work, because we repurpose all the time, from print to presentation to web to display (all with the appropriate licensing).

This is bound to cause some issues with us, as our clients like to create their own posters & presentations. If they start coming to us to repurpose their materials and we can't find the same image to download from iStockPhoto under OUR seats, we won't be able to use it.

And EC, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I hadn't yet read about this deal.

i fired up Google Drive and opened a document. It works by choosing INSERT > IMAGE… which takes you to a search box with the choices Google, LIFE, and Stock.

Interesting. LIFE. PrintDriver, who owns the LIFE library now, Getty?

As an ex-Getty photographer, I, amongst thousands of other Getty contributors are so angry at this dreadful deal with Google. I should first state that none of my work is part of this give away as I quit Getty last July which was several months before this was signed which in effect, gave away the intellectual property to Google Document users (plus others) for free download - all for between $6.00 and $12.00 per image... not per download. I was very vocal on the Getty/Flickr forum and today I was banned from the forum on instructions to Yahoo from Getty Images. GI does not brook dissent.

One of the biggest concerns of many Getty/Flickr photographers is that images of model released children are amongst those being downloaded as well as their parents, brothers, sisters etc etc. Where the child images will end up is becoming a nightmare for these photographers. It has been over a week since this came to light on various forums but has been in effect since October 2012. Getty did not see fit to advise or notify photographers of this deal and there has still not been a satisfactory answer to the many questions, including the stripping of metadata and the term "Copyright : N/A" in what little data is left.

If anyone is interested, more can be found in my blog entry
http://sheilasmartphotography.blogsp...ogle-deal.html

Welcome Sheila!

We ask all new members to please have a read through these important threads with our rules and FAQs.

It's unfortunate that Getty saw fit to choose from RF stock. You guys aren't likely to be able to mount a defense against this legally.
Unless one of you finds a lawyer and others sign on.
Don't shout about it. Do something about it.

It looks like the photographers are banding together -- perhaps the first time at this level in microstock history. Many have already removed their images from any site owned by Getty, and many more have pledged to do so on February 2 if no satisfactory resolution happens before then. So far, many thousands of images have been pledged to be removed. (More info here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/istoc...-istock-feb-2/ ) There is talk of one or more class action law suits, and questions are being asked about what else other people (buyers, friends, general public, etc.) can also do.

Here's more information on the so-called "D-Day" (Deactivation Day) plans: http://www.warmpicture.com/blog/2013...to-and-google/

This begs a question.
This is only for RF stock right? And what happens if I have purchased an RM license from Getty and the photo is pulled? I'm imagining since the photog received payment that my license through Getty is still good? I would hope?

The license will continue until expiry. I don't know if one can delete particular images from Getty but Getty can renew a license of an ex-Getty photographer (like me!) one time only. Ninety days after contract cancellation, I can license all of my ex-Getty work without reference to Getty.

That's interesting. So if I purchase an image and say, in 10 years (max Getty term), when the license expires and the client wants to continue to use the image for another 5 years, Getty can relicense it once? I'm thinking long term because sometimes images are used in print processes that last 10 or more years. I've only had one occasion to re-up a license after that span of time though.

Well, today is the day. It looks like many contributors at Istock/Getty are indeed deactivating images.