Yeah, implementation fail, Getty.ĥ Awful Problems With Getty Images’ New Embed Codeġ) Resizable images: The inability to resize images is a big goof on Getty’s part. PS: I still had to screenshot that iframe (probably not allowed) just so when you lovely readers share this post on Twitter and Facebook, there’s an image associated. That idea came to me based on about five minutes of thought, and could have tons of holes or problems, but surely - surely! - there is something better than what Getty rolled out today. We can call it the Spotification of photos. But in the case of Getty, the images are preset, with higher usage rates to pay for the photographer’s work. In other words, Getty’s website could allow registered members to hotlink their images, and then police the domains the images are allowed on by comparing their server logs to their customer database.Ĭustomers could be charged based on usage, just like AWS or other CDN providers do. One method that comes to mind would be an Amazon Web Services (AWS) style asset delivery system. Surely there is a way to let people use their images where both parties benefit, without these gross iframes. I think Getty’s idea is good, but their implementation just makes the web worse.
That data and the potential for ad placement is way better than endlessly struggling with stolen images. They can insert ads they can meter payments to photographers based on embed stats they can do a lot of things.įrom a business perspective, Getty wins with this move.
With the iframe setup, they can keep track of all sorts of user data. Unfortunately the price to use Getty images would take up most of this site’s, and I’m assuming many other small publications’, budgets just using a handful per month. Most people (myself included) would probably be willing to pay reasonable fees or give credit if it’s easy to do so. I want photographers to be valued for their work, just as I like to be valued for mine.
#Getty search by image free#
You can get them royalty free with no watermark off any basic Google image search. Pay to play, or steal for freeĪs The Verge author notes, people have been stealing Getty images for years.
#Getty search by image pdf#
These are about as perfect a fit for WordPress as reading an embedded PDF on a website as far as I can tell (hint: I don’t particularly enjoy that experience). And forget using these as featured images.
#Getty search by image code#
It doesn’t have oEmbed support, so you actually have to drop the iframe code where you want to use it. Somebody needs to get fit-images on this, quick.Īll of these things on top of the part where we’re assuming these would actually be easy to implement in WordPress. And the image itself s to Getty’s website, of course.Īnd yeah, it’s not responsive. They call it striking “directly at social sharing.” I call it supremely ugly.įrom the overly pronounced Getty logo, to the confusing embed icon, to the iframes for Twitter and Tumblr within the Getty iframe (yo dawg, we got iframes for your iframes), the whole thing just stinks. The implementation stinksįor one, the implementation is hideous. Īnyway, I can’t help but feel underwhelmed by this move from Getty. I guess like the one Time just launched to run their entire website. Nice shout-out to “small-scale WordPress” blogs. For a small-scale WordPress blog with no photo budget, this looks an awful lot like free stock imagery. Getty Images is dropping the watermark for the bulk of its collection, in exchange for an open-embed program that will let 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. The photo above of Matt Mullenweg is an example. I read an article on The Verge this evening about how Getty Images have made their images freely embeddable.
0 kommentar(er)
