盖蒂 Images announced last night that it is making approximately 40 million images – 在cluding 600+ 从我– 自由 for use 上 social media. If you are a blogger, this is great news for you. If you are a photographer who sells imagery through 盖蒂, maybe not so much.
它是如何工作的？访问 盖蒂Images.com 并找到您喜欢的图像点击看起来像这样的框 < /> 并复制嵌入代码。粘贴到您的博客中，瞧– 自由 stock photos.
盖蒂’的既定目标是通过一种“if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”心理。如果人们无论如何都要使用社交媒体上的图像，并且显然可以使用，则可以适当地将其免费提供给他们，并提供适当的来源并链接回源。从长远来看，他们’希望添加类似于您在YouTube上看到的广告元素，以便摄影师最终也能获得广告收入的（微小）百分比。那里’人们会看到一个图像，喜欢它，点击它并付钱，这是一种荒唐的乐观想法。那里’s massive good will and advertising to be earned 通过 盖蒂. No more 在famous 盖蒂 takedown notices, but 在stead lots of 自由 images for everyone, carefully framed 在 盖蒂’s embedded ad.
我承认’s clever how 盖蒂 has taken control of how the image is used via the embed code. If the image is simply copied illegally and then uploaded somewhere 上 the web, 盖蒂 loses control of the image, and has to pursue illegal use through takedown notices and legal action. If they make the embed code easy to use, they retain control of the imagery from the back end – they can see how and where the image is used but the image is ultimately hosted 通过 盖蒂 so if the image is pulled from the catalogue 盖蒂 can simply pull it from the frame if they need to – or if they want to.
博客ger beware, if you use the embed code you are ceding control of the images 在 your post to the whims and pecadilloes of 盖蒂. Don’看到那些感到惊讶“free”图片稍后会被广告覆盖’t control. If I were a blogger, this alone may scare me out of using these so-called 自由 images – I can’不要让我自己登录任何可以做的网络广告联盟计划’t control the exact content of the ads I am displaying, and this is exactly what would happen (potentially, at least) here. Also, there may be SEO implications with the links back to the 盖蒂 site, and some feed readers don’t perceive the embedded frame as an image if you push content to an aggregator, so you lose your thumbnail photo if you are 上ly using 盖蒂’s framed images.
There is some debate about which sites can and cannot use the 自由 embed tools. 盖蒂 says the images are for “非商业用途，仅限数字使用。” To me, this means any site earning any 在come (blog ads, sponsored posts, etc) would be excluded, but it seems 盖蒂’s的定义要宽容得多。我想，它们如何定义更不用说对商业场所和非商业场所进行警察了。
从个人的角度来看，我担心这会使通过嵌入代码的任何图像贬值以供抓取– why would anyone choose to pay license fees for an image that is available for 自由 all over the web? Would you pay for an image to use 在 your product, book or ad campaign if you knew it was already 在 use 上 every social media platform, blog and website? On the other hand, the sheer scope of the number of photos available may 在 fact mitigate this dilution of value. If they’re all 自由, maybe it won’降低单个图像的价值？我一直看到从Napster到Spotify的音乐行业参考。 *耸肩*我想它还有待观察，在那里’s not much I can do except suck it up and watch it unfold or yank all my photos from 盖蒂 entirely.
I think my biggest peeve 在 this whole development is that the photos are 自由 of watermarks. I don’t post images 上 my OWN blog without watermarks, so having offering them up for ALL THE BLOGGERS 自由 of charge and watermarks is somewhere between discouraging and exasperating. . It is, 上 the other hand, a brilliant business move 通过 盖蒂 and a bonanza for bloggers and other social media content creators.
What do you think? Brilliant business move 上 盖蒂’s part or a shiv 在 the back to the contributors who supply the images? Or both? Will you use the images 上 your site and are you at all worried about embedding a frame that 盖蒂 controls and may later pepper with ads? Anybody more familiar with SEO able to offer 在sight about the implications from that perspective? How should “commercial” sites be defined?