Last week, the world’s largest photo service, Getty Images, announced a new policy allowing their images to be embedded on websites for no charge. The images are embedded through an iframe which pulls from Getty’s CDN, and are watermark free, though there is a 75-pixel-high footer included.
Let’s start with the good: everyone who publishes content on the web just got free access to the largest repository of images in the world—the majority of their millions of photos are embeddable.
The bad news is that Getty isn’t doing this just to be nice. That’s not to say it’s a bad decision—I think it’s a fantastic decision on their part. Craig Peters, an executive at Getty, said, “Our content was everywhere already.” Getty’s images are obviously big piracy targets, and this is a way for them to turn that around and benefit from it—it’s not a matter of if they will monetize embedded photos, it’s a matter of when.
In regards to monetization, Peters had the following to say:
Advertising around the photo, over the photo, detailed tracking of image usage—they’re all options at Getty’s disposal. The most likely scenario is a combination: tracking and using data to sell ads to put around photos in a more targeted way.
In addition to the content implications of embedded photos, Benjamin Mayo brought up a few other interesting points to think about. Regarding usage of Getty’s CDN, Benjamin said:
In a footnote, Benjamin brings up the fact that, though somewhat extreme, “if Getty is hacked, you could be distributing malware to your visitors in mere minutes.”
Again, all this is not to say you shouldn’t use Getty’s embedded images, but it’s important to be aware of these things when considering usage.
Aside from the content and policy implications, I was curious about how we could best implement image embeds. I did a bit of experimentation over on CodePen, and I can’t say the results were encouraging.
By default, the iframe has
height attributes that match up to the actual image size (which is fairly small, most are 600 pixels or less). Removing those attributes to rely on CSS rules for sizing causes the image to collapse all the way down to a tiny thumbnail. The image will scale up to the maximum size it can without breaking the bounds of the iframe—but scaling images up will produce extremely pixelated results.
Performance-wise, there are a few things to keep in mind. The iframe content is entirely controlled by Getty. They could put something in there that could greatly affect your site’s performance—be it a huge, unoptimized image, slow scripts, or irresponsible requests. In that same vein, since you have no control over the images, you won’t be able to implement a responsive image strategy, once those solutions are released into the wild.
Ultimately, when considering Getty embed usage, keep in mind the advantages and disadvantages, but make the decision that’s right for you. I feel like I often end on this note, but it’s necessary: always choose what’s right for you, your team, your clients, and your use case, regardless of prevailing opinions.
Editor’s note: Updated 3/16/14 to reflect code changes made by Getty after the post’s original publication.
12 Reader Comments
The non-commercial usage will be a barrier for many potential sites to use. Loved you pointed out about being dependent on their CDN – great point. The lack of responsive image sizing is certainly a large drawback as well.
Anthony, with iframe injections not only can you distribute malware, but you can redirect visitors to a whole new website, infected website most likely. Which brings up another SEO issue of getting blacklisted.
I’m with Anthony here, I see security issues all over this.
I could see the use of this, not for the core images that make up part of the design of a website, but for images that form part of a story or article, and go in between body paragraphs. The images would probably be chosen by authors and editors rather than designers.
Is there a reason why we should be concerned specifically about Getty’s CDN and use of iframes? Were they ever hacked and actually did damage that I’m not aware of? I understand the general concern that is always present when they are used, but unless they have a history of poor security I feel like this article seems like it’s trying to scare people over things that are fairly common.
YouTube videos and Google Maps are commonly embedded using an iframe. Should we stop posting videos and maps on our sites out of security concerns?
I think it’s a great move by getty in terms of monetizing their images but I just think that it looks so ugly and really unprofessional, there’s no way that I would feel comfortable using the embedded images on a website linked to a commercial product or service.
Thank you for this article. I think this is a great option for bloggers who are occasionally looking for images to enhance their posts. I wrote a post this week on how to add the images into WordPress: http://www.eileenlonergan.com/whats-new-free-with-images-for-your-website. If someone is looking for a great place for images that don’t require an attribute check out Unsplash by Ooomf.
Its so nice work like it..
web design services
As a blogger and web designer, I wouldn’t want to have iframes embedded in my posts and designs. Personally, I prefer Creative Commons CC0 images, which don’t require attribution. My first choice for such is usually Pixabay.com …
I agree with Simon about the the iFrame. Also the fact that they’ve left a footer there, to me, indicates pretty clearly that they intend to ad advertisements once their api has garnered a wide enough adoption by content producers.
I love the way you take about Getty images. that’s why I have coupons of getty images
Got something to say?
We have turned off comments, but you can see what folks had to say before we did so.
More from ALA
Personalization Pyramid: A Framework for Designing with User Data
Mobile-First CSS: Is It Time for a Rethink?
Designers, (Re)define Success First
Breaking Out of the Box
How to Sell UX Research with Two Simple Questions