5 ms·

Less sexy, more accurate title: "Getty to allow free embedding of low-res versions for some of its images. Embeds will contain advertising and other monetizatio

by r0h1n 13y ago

Less sexy, more accurate title: "Getty to allow free embedding of low-res versions for some of its images. Embeds will contain advertising and other monetization options soon."

anigbrowl 13y ago
No, that's not more accurate - it just reflects your personal assumptions. There is nothing in the article to suggest advertising. Rather, it says users drop in any image they want, as long as the service gets to append a footer at the bottom of the picture with a credit and link to the licensing page. Attribution is not the same thing as advertising.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  Here's a Getty Images executive expressing what you feel was my "personal assumption" > The new embeds are built on the same iframe code that lets you embed a tweet or a YouTube video, which means the company can use embeds to plant ads or collect user information. "We've certainly thought about it, whether it's data or it's advertising," Peters says, even if those features aren’t part of the initial rollout. Still believe "there is nothing in the article to suggest advertising"?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    My bad, I missed that paragraph. However, I still question your assumption that it will inevitably occur.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      This is clearly a trojan horse strategy. They are reserving the rights to use these assets offensively in the future. It seems better to be aware of this than not. Getty is offering "conetent" for pixel "real estate" and distribution. This is quite a huge shift from "pay and forget" relationship with image files. These things are basically sleeper cells.
      - mkr-hn 13y ago
        While this is technically possible, it's much more likely they intend to use the credit line as lead generation for license sales on stock photography. If I sold stock, I would prefer that to the current situation of rampant unlicensed use.
drewblay 13y ago
I a agree the title is very misleading.

by r0h1n 13y ago

Less sexy, more accurate title: "Getty to allow free embedding of low-res versions for some of its images. Embeds will contain advertising and other monetization options soon."

anigbrowl 13y ago

No, that's not more accurate - it just reflects your personal assumptions. There is nothing in the article to suggest advertising. Rather, it says users drop in any image they want, as long as the service gets to append a footer at the bottom of the picture with a credit and link to the licensing page. Attribution is not the same thing as advertising.

r0h1n 13y ago
Here's a Getty Images executive expressing what you feel was my "personal assumption" > The new embeds are built on the same iframe code that lets you embed a tweet or a YouTube video, which means the company can use embeds to plant ads or collect user information. "We've certainly thought about it, whether it's data or it's advertising," Peters says, even if those features aren’t part of the initial rollout. Still believe "there is nothing in the article to suggest advertising"?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  My bad, I missed that paragraph. However, I still question your assumption that it will inevitably occur.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    This is clearly a trojan horse strategy. They are reserving the rights to use these assets offensively in the future. It seems better to be aware of this than not. Getty is offering "conetent" for pixel "real estate" and distribution. This is quite a huge shift from "pay and forget" relationship with image files. These things are basically sleeper cells.
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      While this is technically possible, it's much more likely they intend to use the credit line as lead generation for license sales on stock photography. If I sold stock, I would prefer that to the current situation of rampant unlicensed use.

drewblay 13y ago

I a agree the title is very misleading.