February 13, 2008

GumGum Launches New Image Licensing Platform

Michael Arrington

46 comments »

GumGum launches an ambitious new project today - a new platform and business model for licensing content on the Internet, beginning with images.

Image piracy runs rampant on the Internet, of course. Blogger Perez Hilton was sued for stealing images of celebrities, and we’ve had (ridiculous) charges leveled at us as well. And don’t forget the recent Lane Hartwell debacle.

Attributor, a Silicon Valley startup, helps content owners track their intellectual property to find examples of infringement. But until now, no one has really thought about a better way to license content on the Internet, so that both large and tiny publishers have an incentive to avoid simply stealing stuff.

That’s where GumGum comes in. Images today are generally licensed for a flat fee, exclusively or non-exclusively. GumGum founders Ophir Tanz and Ari Mir think a better way is to charge for impressions, or on an advertising-supported basis. But tracking image impressions isn’t trivial, so they first had to build a platform to do that.

GumGum allows any publisher to search for images (there are thousands available now via a number of photography agencies) - here’s an example search for “Britney.” Images can be licensed on a CPM basis (generally $0.20 or so, but determined by content owner), or for free with an advertisement.

GumGum requires images be published via a Flash object so that impressions can be tracked and billed properly. Flash also allows them to serve interactive advertisements, served via VideoEgg (we wrote about their Flash ad product here).

Here are two images, one based on CPM licensing, one based on advertising:

Any photographer can now upload images and sell them. And any publisher can create an account to license images. Down the road, GumGum says, they’ll be adding video, audio and text content for licensing as well.

Will This Work?

It’s certainly a pain for publishers to have to embed a Flash object to publish an image, but it is the only reasonable way that GumGum can track impressions and serve ads. Many small publishers will of course simply continue to steal images, or look for freely usable stuff on Flickr. But if there is a killer image that a lot of people will want to publish, GumGum is a great way to easily license it to an unlimited number of people. At the very least, it’s an interesting experiment.

GumGum raised $125k in a December seed round from friends and family. The founders, who sold a previous startup Mojungle to Shozu in 2007, also put $125k of their own capital into GumGum.

  • Sphere It

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. StockPhotoTalk | Special Interest Blog
  2. KillerStartups.com - GumGum.com - Photo Licensing Platform
  3. rf
  4. Why Picapp and GumGum are useless to us | Tech Bytes at Use Bytes

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. gilltots

    i just see two gray boxes with “0%” in the middle where i’m supposed to see the two images.

    so, “Will this work?”
    answer: apparently not.

  2. kunalu

    I agree with #1. Printing screen isn’t anything too hard.

  3. Insurance Watch Magazine

    When people speak about licensing content on the internet, about selling it etc. I always want to say think about how internet was born and what for was it made: for academic information exchange! Now the information is not quite academic but its still exchange, almost no production cost information share, today that information is software, video, music, ebooks, etc. You cant stop it, learn to live with it.
    Even if this company will succeed at what they have plan to do, and I wish them all success, for them it will be a difficult task to keep up with coping lates pirate techniques. Piracy is an industry evolving very rapidly.

  4. Mike

    I can’t really see why anyone would use this but that is just me. Their licensing engine is pretty cool but maybe they should use it for another use.

  5. shammo

    I still don’t see the difference between “downloading music” and “using a photo”. Music is much more labour intensive than taking a photo, but people seem to think its worth protecting. WTF?

    Set up the pirate bay for images already.

  6. Nate Weiner

    I like where they are headed with this.

    But I have to say that posting image with flash seems unnecessary. You don’t need flash to track/serve a single image. They could simply host the image file on their server, allow the posting site to hot-link off of it and then track impressions via the server logs. Or they could even make the image url a script that serves the image while logging the impression.

  7. Matt Aimonetti

    @nate weiner Good point, however the picture would be available in the browser cache and anyone could get it really easily.

    -Matt

  8. Mark

    Not a bad system I think it could grow very fast.

    Mark

  9. dave

    @7 - see @2

  10. Matt Aimonetti

    @7 dave, sure but it’s a pain to do and not that easy.

    gumgum isn’t perfect yet ;)

  11. Allen

    I like the idea, but not sure if it will pick up. I keep getting a “server error” when I try clicking on “Browse”…anyone else getting this?

  12. Josh

    This is an interesting model; a couple of issues though: 1) a huge number of impressions on any site come from bots. As a publisher, I don’t want to pay for those kinds of impressions. The rendering engine should only show the image to real users (maybe it’s already doing this); 2) gumgum will need server scaling on a level that their current funding won’t allow if they are to work properly. Their server is currently throwing a 500 just from the traffic TC has thrown at them. How on earth would they scale to let someone like Perez Hilton use one of their images successfully?

  13. iguide

    http://www.i-guide.ro

  14. Matt Aimonetti

    @12 Josh:

    1) bots don’t process flash so you are good there.
    2) absolutely, we are planning on moving really soon and we didn’t expect so much traffic right away. Expect that to be fixed soon. You don’t need millions to handle a lot of load.

    Thanks for your support and sorry for the 500s, we are working on that.

    -Matt

  15. NotABug

    I wonder if these guys ever heard of… Flickr and Creative Commons.
    Or Flickr and people that don’t give a damn about Licensing

  16. AlexP

    > Will This Work?

    No — Too. Much. Hassle.

  17. B

    I think this is a great solution for people who make a living off of the media they produce. The fixed price model just doesn’t make sense on the internet.

  18. adurfee

    Isn’t this what PicApp does? Except PicApp has some huge partners like Getty signed up.
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/mar.....41_15.html

  19. Erik Dungan

    Good concept, too bad its in Flash. So, if this catches on, news blogs will be littered with embedded Flash? That’s lame for mobile use.

    Surely there’s a way to track impressions w/o Flash. Ad platforms do it.

    C’mon GumGum, get some more money so you can hire some real people.

  20. Jeff the Great

    @5 brings up the best point…how is this any different than music? TC says that the record labels just need to deal with it and accept the inevitable. Why not the same message for photographers?

  21. Photogolfer

    I don’t agree with some of these comments. There *is* a place for licensing on the Internet if the model works. Online licensing negotiations happen everyday and there’s ample room for improvement. Music DRM doesn’t work because it is invasive for the end-user. A system like this affects a photographer and a web site owner - it is effectively a business-to-business transaction and leaves the end-user experience untouched (assuming things work as specified that is…!). Content creators should have a way to make money on the Internet if they are creating value! And this approach certainly seems more fair.

  22. Mark

    A number of stock photography agencies allow anyone to get a royalty-free web use license (so called standard license) for under $2-$3 per image. At our site http://www.shutterpoint.com this fee is just 99 cents for a practically unrestricted use anywhere on the web.

    Will a publisher want to bother with flash and some convoluted $0.20 cpm licensing, if all the headaches can be avoided by just paying 99 cents instead? Perhaps if the site is looking for uneducated clients, then there is a tiny chance.

    By the way, their search is down right now.

  23. Matt Aimonetti

    There we go, we just fixed the server issues. No more 500s and pictures no loading from this page. You don’t need millions to scale, just a good code base and an awesome hosting company ( http://engineyard.com/ )

    -Matt

  24. User447

    Gawd, it’s almost like, yes… I have this thing called a print screen button, and it can actually get me a screen capture than I can then crop and store on my hard drive or duplicate on the web.

    OMG, I just hack-ed something….

  25. AlexP

    The bottom line is that if someone is inclined to “borrow” other people’s work when it’s clearly marked as licensable, he will do that regardless of whether the image is in raw or in a Flash wrapper.

    Tracking impressions - fine, I can see how this might be useful. But as a licensing tool it is virtually useless. It solves a problem that does not exist. Whoever is going to license through GumGum, would’ve licensed from any standard stock photo site _and_ get the actual image and not the flash.

  26. Larry Larrikin

    At first glance I thought I was going to like this but…

    I agree it’s too expensive at 0.20 CPM. There are stock agencies with celebrity photos or whatever you want that seem to be a better deal if you have any kind of traffic at all on your site.

    And flash… ick. It doesn’t stop people from copying the image so why bother?

  27. Nate Weiner

    @5 & 21

    I would think this is actually very different. You are comparing it to music that people download for personal use. It’s a whole different ballgame when you are using the material for financial gain. If you did take a song or a video that was copyrighted and slapped it onto your revenue-generating blog you would get a take-down request followed by suit and that will likely never change.

    @25 and then #7

    I don’t think preventing a user from lifting an image should be the point. As many have pointed out above, it’s as easy as screen capture. However, you miss Mike’s point. If you use a copyrighted photo without licensing, you set yourself up to get sued. For example, the New York Times can’t just go printing pictures they find on Flickr. They have to get rights to an image before using it. This is what any established company or blog would do, if for nothing else just not to be sued. With that said, in response to comment #7, I think the service shouldn’t worry about preventing people from lifting images. They should just make it as dead simple as possible for the user. You are never going to prevent people from being able to take a photo, so why not make it easier for the people who are trying to pay for it?

  28. Amit Agarwal

    PicApp has a similar advertising based model and they let you embed the latest news photos from Getty or Corbis.

    Here’s a live demo of PicApp with picture from Getty.

  29. Ari Mir

    It has been one crazy day, but we are live again!

    I have been reading TC for over two years. Thank you Michael.

    I have read through the above comments, some are painful, some are complimentary and some are not worth referencing. Regarding:

    1) Performance issues: TC is powerful, we are self-funded and the end result is obvious. However, thanks to (http://engineyard.com) we successfully migrated and went live again within 2 hours!
    2) Piracy: Take a screenshot and crack our code. DRM for B2C is fools gold. We are a B2B platform. Businesses have advertising dollars at stake and cannot afford to conduct in illegal activities.
    4) Flash: The end user will never know the difference. In the near future, Flash will work on all mobile devices. Without Flash you will never consume a YouTube video, Kongregate game or Scribd PDF on your mobile phone.
    3) Pricing: Flickr has free photos and we love them. Stock sites sell photos for $1 and we hope to partner with them. GumGum doesn’t set prices, content owners set prices.

    Final note: We don’t serve a LOT of use cases. We have no interest in the offline world. We have identified one problem we believe is and will continue to become a very big problem. The problem applies to photography, music, video, live casting, games, and any other saleable content. It will be a long and ugly road, but one worth paving.

    -Ari (CPO, gumgum.com)

  30. Heather Lipner

    You guys! hello! I can’t believe you are all talking about how you could still steal the licensed photos. WTF!? It’s like 5th grade when you realize the candy store doesn’t have security cameras pointing at the chocolate covered raisins and you say to yourself, “omg the candy store is so stupid, i can still steal the raisins.

    Everyone give yourself a pat on the back for being so goddamn righteous. And then diss a company for trying make the market better.

  31. mrpink

    Gum Gum has introduced a logical approach to digital licensing whereby people get compensated for their content and people who rely on this content to drive traffic to their websites can browse GumGum’s library for free and license many images for no cost or at a cost proportional to actual usage.

    In the model where you pay, GumGum will have to get people to stop thinking about the cost per impression and more that GumGum provides a far superior experience than doing it the ‘other way.’ It’s doable.. iTunes demonstrated you don’t need to end piracy to succeed in convincing some people to pay for convenience. With regards to photos I think people would keep returning to a source of high quality photos even more so than music files. So technology is part of it.. and behind the scene deals with content providers is huge.

    In the ad supported model it seems like a much simpler proposition. Give me access to your large database of images and I’ll gladly serve a small ad.. that is if i find the perfect photo for my post under 30 seconds.

    I’m impressed with their execution so far.

  32. Janusz

    “It’s certainly a pain for publishers to have to embed a Flash object to publish an image, but it is the only reasonable way that GumGum can track impressions and serve ads.”

    Michael,

    The above is not true. You can easily track impressions and serve ads if you just use a link to the image that is stored on the central server. The image link would be generated through the panel and linked to the publisher ID. Server then can easily count how many impressions the image got and embed ads as well if needed.

    I just can’t understand why GumGum went with Flash route when just a simple image link would be much more usable.

  33. Lin

    One day after than the original write-up and if I try to see anything bigger than a thumbnail, I get a gray box saying 0%. Just like commenter #1.

    Looks like one hell of a product, eh?

    I give them an A for the idea and an F for execution.

  34. mrpink

    @32 et al
    Some people commenting fail to see why flash was used in this case. The answer is quite obvious: Make it more difficult for someone to try and use that image without licensing it, and allow for dynamic ad/watermark insertion without affecting the actual image. Some really dumb comments on display.

  35. john

    hey ari,

    i have a stock image and footage site called Cutcaster and would love to chat with you about your ideas and how we could work together.

    we allow users to set their own prices or use our algorithm to find the correct market price and i believe your model is another way of calculating the correct market price. id love to see more of how it works and what type of customers you are looking for. check out http://www.cutcaster.com and shoot me an email ;-) nice work.

  36. Mark

    Yesterday the boxes where two images were meant to show were gray, now there is nothing there at all? And that’s after two posts from gumgum saying they fixed everything. I know if I licensed something this way, and my pages started showing blanks, I’d be outraged.

    Can we have some news about startups that actually make some sense.

  37. Kristi

    wow… @36.

    Their site went live yesterday. How did your site (shutterpoint.com, a competing photo licensing platform) do in it’s first 24 hours during a TechCrunch post? Ah.. maybe you haven’t had that ‘great’ problem yet. Look, we’d all like to get a mention on here.. but it’s no reason to pretend like an objective and interested reader just so you can throw a cheap jab at a competing biz model. Hate the game not the player.

    Can we have some comments about news about startups that actually make some sense?

  38. jackmayhofferr

    1) Dumb Name — GumGum that’s the best you can do? It sounds like a washed up transvestite lunge singer

    2) would never want to rely on your servers to serve photos, unless you add significant band with you will slow down many sites — Would I have to pay for impression when you are slowing down my site.

    3) CPM is way expensive for a site that uses photos in every post, way to hard to manage and leave the possibility that the content “owner” will revoke the license and I’ll have a big broken image or no image on the post. This happens multiple times and shit — what a headache

    I’ll stick with the flat licensing fee that way I can host everything and not worry

  39. mrodriguez

    This is definitely a good concept, but like others have mentioned, there is already a similar product out there that seems to have a leg up in terms of content and implementation.

    If I’m going to use this in my blog, I would definitely go with whoever can provide the best, broader professional content. Given the current relationships with the major players like Corbis, the picapp product is going to be really hard to beat.

    http://www.stockphototalk.com/.....scout.html

  40. Steve

    Most of the stock sites I contribute to require large jpegs that are high quality. I presume gumgum just requires images that look good at blog sizes. This might be a market for my photos that don’t reach the high standards of the stock sites but look great at smaller sizes. I am interested and will upload some photos to see how it works.

    Those wanting to steal photos should realize that the photographers look at websites all the time and using gumgum, it should be obvious that the image is being used illegally. I know photographers who make more money from those that steal their work than they do from selling their images.

  41. Janusz

    @34

    I don’t get it how flash can prevent from stealing the image? do you think people don’t know how to make a screenshot? If someone wants to steal the image then flash won’t help. still think that without flash this service could be more successfull.

  42. Ophir Tanz

    Hey guys,

    This is Ophir from GumGum. Thank you for the comments and interest. I’d like to speak to a few issues:

    1) Re: Piracy - We do not claim, nor is it our intention, to stop content piracy on the Internet. We know, as well as anyone, that this is an impossibility. We have implemented several anti-piracy measures such as replacing a right-click ‘Save-As’ with a ‘License Me’ option, keeping content out of the cache, preventing hotlinking etc., but obviously a screen capture will work (though screen capturing and cropping is hardly easy to automate and is a headache in any case).

    Our focus is as a distribution and monetization platform for *legitimate* content licensing. We believe our model simply makes the most sense for the Internet. We believe that GumGum will curb piracy by making it so easy, frictionless and affordable (ie: eliminating capital intensive barriers to entry) to license media that publishers no longer have much incentive to pirate media (ie: what iTunes did for music). In the end, piracy will continue as will legitimate licensing practices. We intend to be the platform to deliver and monetize legitimate licenses.

    2) Re: Flash - Flash lends itself to a lot of flexibility. Most importantly, it gives us the ability to display interactive advertisements overlaid on top of media. This licensing option enables publishers to license content for free while compensating content-owners handsomely. Beyond this, we are able to do dynamic watermarking and seamlessly add other useful features moving forward. Lastly, the platform is in the process of being extended to video and audio (which would be in a flash embed regardless).

    Sorry about the performance issues when the post first went up. That has been tended to.

    I invite you to visit our blog at http://blog.gumgum.com for more information and to remain up to date.

    Check out this post specifically to get a better sense of how we think about the problem and our solution: http://blog.gumgum.com/2008/02/chew-on-this.html

    Thanks!

    Ophir