The Carlyle Group owned Getty Images may be operating in a deceptive manner as it relates to the reporting of income, sales, and licensing of content under their lately announced offer with Pinterest. Under the private ownership from the Carlysle Group now, very little about the business dealings of Getty Images is available, but from time to time, interesting news can slip out. Let’s first look at Getty’s post announcing the offer. Now, Getty makes it clear that the metadata is what’s being sold/licensed, which the photo then gets “photo credit” and a web link.

Here, Getty makes it clear that the payment is for metadata. The below declaration is as definitive as President Obama’s declaration regarding health care that if you want your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. 1.00, what do the metadata are supposed by you’ll permit for? Certainly, the figure is a fraction of what the image would license for, and then, that fraction of the picture licensing income is shared at Getty’s disproportionate percentage split in their favor.

Nowhere will Getty declare that Pinterest is spending money on an image permit. Why is it important then, that Getty make it crystal clear that the payment is perfect for Metadata? Let’s look closely at a few parts of Getty’s contract with contributors. It’s clear there, above, that this content is “photographs” – not metadata.

  • A new version of the Salesforce1 system, Lightning, for developing mobile apps
  • How do you want to produce the product and/or deliver the service
  • Director, Global Intelligence
  • 41 Best Google Chrome Extensions Of 2018

So, apart from the “photograph” part of “Accepted Content”, Getty has the rest – metadata, “and/or other Content”. Again, contributors are being paid out for a small percentage of a metadata fee rather than a fraction of the photo-licensing fee, because Getty has made it perfectly clear that they’re only being covered metadata. I watched the webcast, and taking part in the meeting was John Lapham, Senior Vice General, and President Counsel for Getty Images.

Within the record, the bank discloses against these topics which consists of own Balanced Scorecard approach and performance indicators. There is absolutely no positioning with G4 material Aspects here. Barclays Africa provides a G4 content index, but this is not presented in a way which allows correlation between indicators reported and material issues.

The material Aspects aren’t correlated to issues, they may be just outlined (as with a G3 report). There is no easy way to correlate these disclosures to the materials issues stated nor understand if the pressing issues have been reported completely. The GRI content index makes reference to the Citizenship Report but no GRI-based performance indicators are one of them report. After spending a while going back and forth quite, I conclude that the Barclays Africa statement does not meet the requirements of the G4 core report.

That’s not to say it’s not a transparent record, and there is a certain logic to Barclays Africa showing its performance using the business’s own Balanced Scorecard system. Performance procedures are mentioned in each section and data is disclosed. However, this Integrated Report declares itself to maintain accordance with G4 core, and I really do not believe that it is.