MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Photographer Get Surprising Insights Into Pinterest  (Read 4348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 21, 2014, 14:28 »
+1
Getty photographers are getting some surprising insights into the use of their images on Pinterest as they review their Getty sales reports this month. For many photographers over half the reported sales are for Pinterest/Portal usage. The gross fee paid to Getty for such usages is $0.03 and the photographers royalty share is $0.01.

(http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-photographer-get-surprising-insights-in)


« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2014, 14:31 »
+1
... and that's not even for the image, but the "meta data". 

As part of our agreement, well pay Getty Images a fee for the data they share and will help make sure that their images get proper attribution, Pinterest notes today. Were just getting started with Getty Images but were excited about the possibilities of what their data can help us deliver.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/pinterest-inks-deal-with-getty-images-will-pay-a-fee-for-the-photo-agencys-metadata/

eta: Just checked - I have 19 $.01 sales, plus a bonus of 2 $.01 sales from Connect.  Lol.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 14:34 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2014, 14:36 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:53 by tickstock »

« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2014, 14:39 »
+10
I guess the idea is something is better than nothing.

I think the idea is more "we better pay something before we get sued for not protecting our contributor's interests".

« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2014, 14:41 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:53 by tickstock »

« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2014, 14:43 »
+3
I guess the idea is something is better than nothing.


I think the idea is more "we better pay something before we get sued for not protecting our contributor's interests".

Maybe so but they've already said they weren't going to be going after any 'non-commercial' uses and wouldn't almost everything on pinterest fall into that category?


No, many boards are run by businesses, which I detailed a while back on my blog.  For example, a travel agency providing beautiful images from destinations to promote their agency and entice customers: http://www.pinterest.com/thetravelagent/ (first one on google for travel agent pinterest)

« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2014, 14:45 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:52 by tickstock »

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2014, 14:49 »
+3
How could it not be commercial? 

Besides, you don't just have carte blanche to use an image in a "non-commercial" way.  There's one way.  With the "embedded viewer" which, obviously, Pinterest doesn't use.

« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2014, 14:53 »
-5
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:52 by tickstock »

« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2014, 14:58 »
+9
How could it not be commercial? 

Besides, you don't just have carte blanche to use an image in a "non-commercial" way.  There's one way.  With the "embedded viewer" which, obviously, Pinterest doesn't use.

I thought the definition of commercial was basically in an ad according to what they've said recently not on a blog (even if the blog was for commercial purposes).  BTW I went looking through that site and the first stock image I found was one from Shutterstock  http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-65748307/stock-photo-a-row-of-camels-transport-tourists-in-front-of-all-of-the-giza-pyramids-in-cairo-egypt.html
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/46584177370391713/
I don't know how much they are paying that photographer, do you?


A: You seem to think there is some free reign to use any image "non-commercially", which of course, there isn't.
B: The only permission they give for "non-commerical" use is in the viewer.
C: I was not claiming that specific business used Getty images, or whether they paid anyone for use, but as an illustration of how "pins" are used to promote a business.

What's the difference between a printed brochure of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top, and a pinterest board of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top?

« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2014, 15:02 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:52 by tickstock »

« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2014, 15:09 »
0
Getty photographers are getting some surprising insights into the use of their images on Pinterest as they review their Getty sales reports this month. For many photographers over half the reported sales are for Pinterest/Portal usage. The gross fee paid to Getty for such usages is $0.03 and the photographers royalty share is $0.01.

(http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-photographer-get-surprising-insights-in)


Articles from that site which I have read previously have seemed IMO to be based on very sketchy research and / or rather meaningless extrapolation of what-ifs and maybes. The headlines often seem to be all about trying to get mostly microstockers to pay.

But there is no need to pay to read the article. Pinterest is a form of marketing. It is remarkable that non commercial Pinterest uses are accounted for at all. I doubt that many other agencies are paying their photographers anything for being pinned or, more importantly, providing any sort of accounting. I wonder how many other agencies are even capable of capturing this information.

These are not sales in any sort of conventional sense. It might be pedantically accurate to say that over half the reported sales (of some particular photographer) were  for Pinterest/Portal usage. But there is nothing else to usefully extrapolate from this information - there is no implication.

« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2014, 15:20 »
+1
What's the difference between a printed brochure of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top, and a pinterest board of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top?


Ahem:

http://www.pinterest.com/stocksyunited/what-to-shoot-office-business/

« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2014, 15:24 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:52 by tickstock »

« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2014, 15:30 »
+1
What's the difference between a printed brochure of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top, and a pinterest board of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top?


Ahem:

http://www.pinterest.com/stocksyunited/what-to-shoot-office-business/

Or stocksy pinning photographers work from stocksy:  http://www.pinterest.com/stocksyunited/food-drink/


The board you posted is different IMO. Because that's their own photographers' work which they are putting out there - promoting and sharing if you like. And it's their job to promote their own photographer's. And they are obviously happy with the work they represent being shared.

The one I posted is other photographers' work. So I am addressing the specific point Sean was making about using other people's work to promote a business (or in this case to suggest to other photographers what they should shoot).

Personally I think that Pinterest is great. I think that Getty and Stocksy both get it.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 15:38 by bunhill »

« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2014, 15:31 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:51 by tickstock »

« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2014, 15:36 »
+1
Right, it is different but they are putting work out there to promote Stocksy but not paying the photographer for it.  So it's similar to what Getty, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and all the other sites do but for Getty the photographer gets paid a tiny bit too.

Well either way, selling-stock.com is trying to grab his meta-vig by dressing this up as a story !


« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2014, 15:37 »
+1
Right, it is different but they are putting work out there to promote Stocksy but not paying the photographer for it.  So it's similar to what Getty, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and all the other sites do but for Getty the photographer gets paid a tiny bit too.

No, Getty is "paying" the photographer for work that other people have "pinned" from the internet.  That's not at all the same as Getty putting their own contributor's work forward in a marketing way - if they do, I doubt the contributor gets anything, since the meta would be intact and the ImageScout backend isn't needed.

« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2014, 15:38 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:51 by tickstock »

« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2014, 15:40 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:51 by tickstock »

« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2014, 15:41 »
+1
Right, it is different but they are putting work out there to promote Stocksy but not paying the photographer for it.  So it's similar to what Getty, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and all the other sites do but for Getty the photographer gets paid a tiny bit too.

No, Getty is "paying" the photographer for work that other people have "pinned" from the internet.  That's not at all the same as Getty putting their own contributor's work forward in a marketing way - if they do, I doubt the contributor gets anything, since the meta would be intact and the ImageScout backend isn't needed.

You've ignored the issue of Stocksy pinning work which they do not represent.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6273 Views
Last post October 20, 2009, 22:10
by Sean Locke Photography
13 Replies
3682 Views
Last post March 23, 2011, 17:18
by LSD72
7 Replies
4982 Views
Last post June 07, 2012, 17:13
by Karimala
10 Replies
2355 Views
Last post October 26, 2013, 21:21
by Uncle Pete
99 Replies
11942 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 14:55
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors