"While we're a little wary of Getty given some of its past actions, the company should be applauded for actually recognizing reality, and trying to adapt accordingly, recognizing how it might better serve people who otherwise would automatically go somewhere else," noted TechDirt. TechDirt had actually explored the use of Getty Images, but decided it "was insanely expensive."
It is now free for non-commercial use. Initial interest focused on what exactly 'non-commercial' means. The British Journal of Photography, which broke the news last week, talked to Craig Peters, senior vice president of business development at Getty Images. The impression given is that this is simply a reaction to copyright infringement reality. “In essence, everybody today is a publisher thanks to social media and self-publishing platforms. And it’s incredibly easy to find content online and simply right-click to utilize it.” What we're finding, he said, "is that the vast majority of infringement in this space happen with self publishers who typically don’t know anything about copyright and licensing, and who simply don’t have any budget to support their content needs.”
So rather than fight this type of infringement, Getty Images has developed a tool, somewhat like YouTube, that will embed any of its 35 million available photos into the user's website, provided it is not used for commercial purposes. This would make Getty Images available for the majority of contemporary blogs (but not commercial publications). “The fact today that a website is generating revenue," said Peters, "would not limit the use of the embed. What would limit that use is if they used our imagery to promote a service, a product or their business. They would need to get a license.”
But not everybody is completely happy with the service. The Verge points out that since the tool merely points to the image, Getty retains complete control over what is actually displayed. This means that once the code is used in the website, Getty rather than the site owner has control over what appears – and could, of course, simply 'pull' the image. "Embeds from Twitter and YouTube are already a crucial part of the modern web, but they've also enabled a more advanced kind of link rot, as deleted tweets and videos leave holes in old blog posts," it warns.
Now the Dutch website Lawful Content goes further: Stefan Kulk asks, Embedding Getty Images: Free or a Trojan Horse? Kulk has looked at the terms of use for the Getty tool. Like The Verge, he notes that "Getty reserves the right to 'in its sole discretion to remove Getty Images Content from the Embedded Viewer.' Getty may thus remove pictures from your webpage without you even noticing it."
But the terms also state, “Getty Images (or third parties acting on its behalf) may collect data related to use of the Embedded Viewer and embedded Getty Images Content, and reserves the right to place advertisements in the Embedded Viewer or otherwise monetize its use without any compensation to you.” So Getty could, in theory, replace the selected image with its own advertising, or rotate the image with an advert. But what also concerns Kulk is the vague phrasing of 'may collect data' and 'otherwise monetize its use.'
"From Getty’s terms," he suggests, "it also becomes clear that Getty, or others on behalf of Getty, may collect data from your website. That points in the direction of a new business for Getty: with its embedding tool, Getty hopes to jump on the data collection train." Given this possibility, he suggests that users of the Getty embed tool should consider updating their visitors "when allowing in this possible trojan horse."