But what if the image you want is not available under Creative Commons and, instead is something that has to be licensed? How do you use the image without paying high licensing fees or dealing with uncertainty about the license?

GumGum may have the answer.

Its new photo licensing service makes it easy to find images that may be relevant to your content and license them, either for a token rate or free using an advertising model.

This system could be a boon for stock photographers and anyone who wants to use images on their blog as it makes it easy for photographers and licensers to get together and make exchanges, all the while going to great lengths to protect the original work.

For photographers, it may be the most fair system available, even if Webmasters might not like how some elements of the service work.

How it Works

The GumGum process starts with a photographer uploading a group of images to the site and providing information about them, including what the image is and the CPM that they wish to charge for it.

Once the image is processed, the user comes to the site later, performs a related search and gets a collection of potential candidates.

The list is often quite long, even for fairly obscure terms, but seems to focus heavily on celebrity-related images. This is likely due to issues with selling pictures of non-celebrity individuals.

Once you find the image you want, you click the image and then are taken to a page that offers you the chance to license the work. You are given two options, the first is to license it with a CPM method, which means you pay a small amount per 1000 times the image is displayed, or a advertising-based model that lets you use it for free, but with an ad overlay.

Once you have made your selection, you then provide the URL of the site it will be appearing on and select the size that you need, choosing from small, medium, large or a custom size.

Once you click the “Purchase” button, you are given access, not to the image itself, but to HTML code that enables you to embed it into your site. It not only prevents you from being able to put the image on other sites without purchasing, but prevents your visitors from simply right clicking the image and taking it for themselves.

Though this DRM is questionable at best, it undoubtedly will make many photographers very happy.

The end result is that the image will appear on your site exactly as shown at the end of this article. Obviously, I am not profiting from the advertising in this work nor do I have any control over the content, it is for demonstration purposes only.

Why It is Different

GumGum is certainly not the only microstock service on the Web. However, it combines several elements to make it an interesting, and at least somewhat unique, service.

1. CPM Licensing: Though many will protect using CPM versus flat-rate licensing, it is actually more fair to the photographer and to many sites. Smaller sites, those needing only a few thousand impressions, will spend far less money and larger ones, which can usually afford to spend more, will pay the photographer more. It also creates a stream of revenue for the photographer over time rather than just a one-time fee.
2. Advertising Model: Sites that can not afford the CPM fee can select the free advertising model where small ads are run at the bottom of the image. This gives “free” bloggers access to images that previously would have been closed off to them.
3. Flash/JavaScript Embedding: The use of Flash and/or JavaScript to embed the image not only prevents the actual image from changing hands and offers GumGum a means to track the images, but it makes it very easy for novice Webmasters to drop the image in, without worrying about resizing the image or formatting it.

For Photographers, GumGum likely seems like a very appealing option. In addition to the above elements, GumGum also does not take a percentage of the licensing revenues. Rather, it charges a very small “shipping and handling” fee above your CPM rate (Ex: Making a .20 CPM image cost .207846425 to the end user) and earns their money from that. For advertising model licenses, GumGum does not make any revenue promises, but says it pays the full revenue for the advertisement less a flat fee.

GumGum also provides all of the image hosting, something that benefits Webmasters who are looking to offload their images, and handles all of the transactions the same as any other microstock site.

Potential Issues

The GumGum system, however, does raise some concerns and has some limitations that have to be weighed.

1. Unpredictable Pricing: A .20 CPM sounds good when you’re only pulling in 2000 page views per post. However, if the article gets Dugg or otherwise goes viral, it could easily generate hundreds of thousands of pageviews. There is almost no way to predict this and your only defense is to quickly convert your license to Ad-supported in the event of a spike.
2. Limited Selection: Though GumGum has a large number of images, almost all of them are celebrity related. Though this makes sense for legal reasons, there are almost no shots of objects or landscapes, something you would expect in a robust stock photo catalogue.
3. Free Alternatives Exist: As I mentioned in my previous article, there is a wealth of CC-licensed works that are available for use by bloggers for free and without advertising. That collection is both more robust and is expanding rapidly. Though there does not seem to be much overlap between GumGum and the traditional CC fair, many bloggers will find all that they need for free.
4. Awkward Insertion: Though the embedding is far easier than downloading the image, resizing it and reuploading it, it doesn’t allow much flexibility. I struggled to get the word wrap right on the image and that is why I had to paste the sample below under its own heading.
5. Ad Block Vulnerability: I did a quick test and AdBlockPlus is able to block the ads, at least in the JavaScript version. While this is true of most ads, it does mean that the CPM for the photographer will be lower than expected when dealing with those who license the ad-based version.

Beyond those issues, many bloggers will be uncomfortable with either displaying ads on the site, especially those they do not profit from, and it remains to be seen how many will pay to “rent” an image based upon the number of views. Considering that sites such as iStockPhoto offer images for sale at such low rates.

Considering that GumGum does not even transfer the image itself, just access to it, it seems likely that many bloggers will want to stay away.

Conclusions

GumGum is a very interesting idea but the target market, bloggers and Webmasters needing very low-priced images for their site, is already very well served.

Photographers will likely take a great interest in the site as it enables them to reach that market while both protecting their work and obtaining a steady stream of income. Bloggers, however, aren’t likely to find that much interesting.

Though there are obvious exceptions to that rule, such as gossip bloggers and those that deal heavily with celebrity news, most are likely going to be served adequately by the Creative Commons community and can find what they need on sites such as Flickr or by using the PhotoDropper plugin.

In the end, the success of GumGum is going to hinge solely on the quality of the photographs it offers. If it can better serve bloggers than the existing system, it has a bright future ahead of it. However, that is going to be an uphill battle.

Sample Image

The best result when you search for “Pirate”.

Video Introduction to GumGum

However, advertising networks are not covered by the DMCA. Since they are not hosts and are not information location tools, such as search engines, they don’t fit neatly within the paradigm of the law. Their liability for infringement is, at best, untested.

Despite that, many advertising networks do accept DMCA notices and rely on the notice and takedown provision for handling complaints of copyright infringement. However, since the legal status of these networks is different, we are bending the rules a bit and judging the sites on their general abuse reporting procedure if one specifically for copyright does not exist.

Show how do they fare? Let’s find out.

Format: Fax
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Google’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Yet another industry lead by a Google product and thus backed by their shoddy and questionable DMCA system. However, things get even worse when looking at Adsense. Where Google’s other services are clearly registered with the USCO, Adsense is not. Though not a legal requirement, it seems odd considering that Adsense actually has a separate DMCA policy from the rest of Google’s products. Though you might be able to use Google’s regular DMCA agent, I have not tested that since all of the other contact information has also changed including both the fax number and the department. Google makes it a habit of rejecting copyright complaints that don’t meet its standards, even if the site is obviously a spam blog or violates another element of the Adsense TOS. It seems likely that their policy in this area is one of the reasons that Adsense remains so popular with spammers, even after several crackdowns.
Grade: D-

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at yahoo-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Yahoo’s Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: If you’ve read my previous reviews of Yahoo!, you know that I’m very fond of their policies in this area and their sense of responsibility. As with their other products, the copyright policy is linked at the footer of each page, is very complete and offers a very pain-free means of getting in touch with Yahoo. All in all, they are a leader in this area and, for once, the recycling of a copyright policy is actually a very good thing.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: jkweston at microsoft dot com
Location of Policy: Microsoft’s Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: We’ve covered the shell game that MSN plays with its DMCA contact information before. The non-clickable link, the unsearchable policy and the buried information. Unfortunately, Microsoft simply rehashes the same policy for their advertising network, currently in beta. In fact, clicking the “legal” link at the footer of the adCenter site will simply take you to the same terms of use that all of live.com uses. Though the policy seems to be robust and well-written, the efforts taken to hide it worry me and frustrate many who have legitimate need to file a complaint.
Grade: C-

Format: None
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Terms and COnditions
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: This line from their T&C really bothers me: “In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not show Paid Listings in areas such as MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.” Of course, the other thing they do to avoid any association is not have any abuse information anywhere on their site. Even their “Contact Us” page simply leads to their support trouble ticket system, not really appropriate for this. The only email addresses I found are the ones in th left-hand column of the site that go to the support team and sales. There is no obvious way to send in an abuse complaint, copyright or otherwise, and it seems that is very much on purpose. Of course, their above limitations don’t stop spammers and won’t stop most content theft. It just keeps the Viacom’s of the world at bay and shows exactly what role Chitika is willing to play.
Grade: F

Format: Fax
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: Copyright Dispute Policy
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: If finding Easter eggs or completing scavenger hunts is too easy for your kids, have them track down AdBrite’s Copyright Dispute Policy. To find it, you first have to act as if you’re registering for an account on the site, then select all of the text in their terms and conditions, because you can’t read it in their tiny textbox, and then paste it into another program. From there, you’ll find the URL buried deep within. Needless to say, the process could be a lot easier and, worse yet, the policy itself doesn’t even include an email address to contact, just a fax number. As bad as the Microsoft shell game with this information is, AdBrite is much worse and the lack of an email address is downright obstructionist. Though the policy seems to be otherwise complete, I simply can not support such an sneaky effort to hide this critical information.
Grade: D-

Format: Email?
Email Address: service at burstdirect dot com
Location of Policy: Terms of Agreement
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Burst Media is yet another Web site without any abuse reporting procedures on their site. Though they seem to have a pretty extensive registration process, there’s no way for a visitor to report a site that might have gotten through their inspection process. Though their terms forbid the posting of copyrighted material, there is no clear means of reporting an infringer and the above information is purely guesswork. However, it is the account they filter all other contact through so it seems likely that it would work for this purpose. As discouraging as lack of a policy and general distance from the issue is, it seems to be pretty typical for sites in this field.
Grade: F

Format: Form
Email Address: None
Location of Policy: None
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: Finally, though TLA may be controversial among SEO gurus for its link purchasing system, it is also worrisome for me due to its lack of an abuse system. Though their user agreement does forbid the posting of infringing material, it is merely one word in a list of general things that a member can not do. It is not backed up with any meaningful abuse reporting method and the best approach I could find is to contact “Other” using the form. That is hardly ideal for a network that has the potential to attract seedy elements from time to time. All in all, TLA’s policy, or lack thereof, borders on irresponsible and reckless.
Grade: F

Conclusions

If you’ve ever wondered what good the DMCA does, consider these sites. Looking over the results you see that there are three Fs and two D minuses. Five of the seven sites either have no policies or have extremely flawed ones.

Only two, Microsoft and Yahoo, have have decent reporting procedures and when Microsoft is nearly at the top of the pile in this area, there is something very wrong.

What is also clear is that large advertising networks with other hosting products typically just recycle their old policies, for better or worse, and and those without such preexisting policies didn’t bother to create a new one.

It appears as if most of these networks want to distance themselves as far as they can go from these complaints, both by indemnifying themselves from all such infringements and by not easily accepting complaints. This will, without a doubt, only feed the plague of scraping and content theft by making it easy for spammers to stay in business.

All in all, once you get an account with one of these services, unless you commit click fraud or some other crime against the network itself, it would seem to be very difficult to get your account cut.

I’m sure that many spammers will be happy to hear that.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.