Did Getty and Google get this purchase right?

I have a few images represented by stock agencies, one of them being Getty. Until now I had no reason to question the way Getty billed clients. Despite only representing 44 of my images, Getty has served me well and provided me with decent secondary income.

Now, when the new Google Maps application was released for Android and iOS this month, I noticed one of my photos was being used in the app. Any time someone located in Edinburgh, UK (by GPS) loads the Local/Services bar, my image appears when it is currently daytime. Screenshot below. This is the primary vehicle by which Google is accessing local data in Maps. I suspect my image may also show up when the app Google Now is updated.

Getty has this listed as a RF image, and Google has purchased this for use in the territory of California, in which it will not actually appear. Google purchased this for $30 and I received a measly $6.

Image in question: http://www.gettyimages​.co.uk …alty-free-image/135856290

Did Google report it's usage correctly? Would Getty agree they billed their client properly for the usage of this image?

TIA

The servers would be in california

I wouldn't think about it too long. If you fight it out, you might get another 10 bucks out of it, but you'll waste a lot of your time.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Doc's right. Some folks I know sell large volume thru Getty, and average less than $3.00 per sale (commission). Getty has become kind of like a microstock agency. Be happy you got $6 - many micros would have sold this image thru a subscription, and you'd get anywhere between 20 cents and 50 cents for it, regardless of where it was used.

Very nice image, by the way!

Your first mistake was to have Getty represent you.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16138320
The servers would be in california

I wouldn't think about it too long. If you fight it out, you might get another 10 bucks out of it, but you'll waste a lot of your time.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16138465
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Doc's right. Some folks I know sell large volume thru Getty, and average less than $3.00 per sale (commission). Getty has become kind of like a microstock agency. Be happy you got $6 - many micros would have sold this image thru a subscription, and you'd get anywhere between 20 cents and 50 cents for it, regardless of where it was used.

Very nice image, by the way!

Thanks gents, I admit I was a bit surprised. Just based on the other sales I've made this month alone, none were as high profile as this and yet it is only a fraction of the income. Do appreciate your advise.

Csae wrote in post #16139040
Your first mistake was to have Getty represent you.

Extremely insightful, thanks.

ken2000ac wrote in post #16139207
Thanks gents, I admit I was a bit surprised. Just based on the other sales I've made this month alone, none were as high profile as this and yet it is only a fraction of the income. Do appreciate your advise.

Extremely insightful, thanks.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=g​etty+screws+photograph​ers

I personally really liked this one: http://www.aphotoedito​r.com …ges-photographers-get-12/

As it kinda relates to your story. What don't you know about Getty screwing photographers? And why are you in business with them without such basic piece of information ?

It's none of your concern, really, especially with all the assuming you are doing.

Perhaps you could make your own thread to express your bitter animosity?

Well how much would your image have been worth had it not been with Getty? Think of all the images on par with your's that are also now worth jack.

Your image will now be a small landmark, and you got what 10$ from it? And from the story i just linked doesn't look like you'd get much more (which answers your original question).

Don't you feel the least bit screwed?

Personally, i didn't get screwed at all, so i'm not really bitter. Its obvious i've pissed you off, and i apologize for that but the bottom line is that based on the quality of work you produce, i believe you got screwed over royally and ultimately its your fault for letting them do that to you willingly : (

Furthermore, by actively co-operating with Getty, you are encouraging the devalue of photography, its not something to be proud of. You're a drop in a bucket, but still part of the bucket.

Nice added last paragraph, and bravo for hijacking a thread with a simple question. Why be like that? Sorry I gain a solid secondary income from a simple hobby I do for my own enjoyment? Photography isn't rocket science. I have a career I enjoy that provides fulfilment.

I think you sound bitter and entitled.

Everything i wrote is directly related to your original topic, i answered your question and provided further details as well as references and background information.

Read my comments when you've shimmered down, if you can, and you might see that you are reading emotions that aren't present.

Now, if you're gonna come on a photography forum and say that photography isn't rocket science and that what Getty doing is right, THATS pretty open ended, i could very well take issue with that statement but like you pointed out thats for a different thread.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16138320
The servers would be in california

I wouldn't think about it too long. If you fight it out, you might get another 10 bucks out of it, but you'll waste a lot of your time.

This is actually the first thing that I thought about when I saw this thread this morning.

Then I remembered an article that someone else sent me showing me some of the Google data centers around the world:
http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …-8-vast-data-centres.html

I bet that image is hosted on more than one server but good luck proving it.

Csae wrote in post #16144358
Everything i wrote is directly related to your original topic,

Most of what you have done is rant about Getty.

drvnbysound wrote in post #16144446
This is actually the first thing that I thought about when I saw this thread this morning.

Then I remembered an article that someone else sent me showing me some of the Google data centers around the world:
http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …-8-vast-data-centres.html

I bet that image is hosted on more than one server but good luck proving it.

Thanks for the link. I'm sure it is hosted elsewhere too, but I don't have any desire to go proving anything. I do wish I too would have thought about it immediately straight away, and then I wouldn't have made this thread.

Are you just throwing negative words at me for the fun of it ?

http://www.thefreedict​ionary.com/rant

Seems like its on topic to me OP. You are asking about a "measly $6" thinking you got screwed over. You did

Csae is agreeing with you and points stuff out

OP gets mad at Csae


OP be mad at getty and yourself not Csae.

Ha, I'm not mad at anyone actually. Sorry to disappoint. Overall satisfied to continue with Getty as well.