MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy and "exclusive" for how long?  (Read 4326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 23, 2012, 23:59 »
0
Just a bit of wild speculation... how long do people think iStock will continue to tolerate exclusives supplying RM to Alamy and other agencies?

Long ago, when we were all new to this game, iStockers vaguely imagined that RM meant the same as editorial. Now we've all grown up, we know that anything can be licensed as RM (subject to the rules).

What's more, iS now has editorial and with the price of Agency and Vetta content - and even standard "exclusive" prices - is now in direct competition with Alamy. On top of which, exclusives now have the Getty channel opwn.

So, how long until Getty wakes up and orders its "exclusives" to get properly "Getty family" exclusive and pull the plug on their Alamy portfolios?


CarlssonInc

« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2012, 01:41 »
0
Getty is image exclusive, not artist exclusive - not seen any indication of that changing. As long as they keep doing a good job selling images they get first dibs by most contributors I would imagine, so really no need. They get the images they want and they get them on an exclusive basis.

lagereek

« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2012, 01:57 »
0
Getty is image exclusive, not artist exclusive - not seen any indication of that changing. As long as they keep doing a good job selling images they get first dibs by most contributors I would imagine, so really no need. They get the images they want and they get them on an exclusive basis.

Hi martin!  are you sure about this? because in the RM house-collection, its person exclusivity, Im sure of it and with both Stones and Image-bank, the RM stuff was person exclusivity.

« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2012, 02:06 »
0
Getty is image exclusive, not artist exclusive - not seen any indication of that changing. As long as they keep doing a good job selling images they get first dibs by most contributors I would imagine, so really no need. They get the images they want and they get them on an exclusive basis.

If you look at my first sentence you will see that I said "iStock". Bear in mind that it is no longer iStock running iStock which is why I referred to Getty waking up.

Of course, they could just scrap iStock-type exclusivity and make it image (and any similars) exclusivity the way the Flickr Collection is.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2012, 02:52 »
0
Getty is image exclusive, not artist exclusive - not seen any indication of that changing. As long as they keep doing a good job selling images they get first dibs by most contributors I would imagine, so really no need. They get the images they want and they get them on an exclusive basis.

Hi martin!  are you sure about this? because in the RM house-collection, its person exclusivity, Im sure of it and with both Stones and Image-bank, the RM stuff was person exclusivity.

Hi Christian. Perhaps there are different contracts, but my Getty house contract(s) which gives me access to the full spectrum of collections, both RM and RF, is image exclusive (naturally also covering sisters and similars). Did you not sign the new contract? I presume it is the same for everybody, bar Photographer's Choice and Flickr only contracts.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2012, 03:01 »
0
how long do people think iStock will continue to tolerate exclusives supplying RM to Alamy and other agencies?

So, how long until Getty wakes up and orders its "exclusives" to get properly "Getty family" exclusive and pull the plug on their Alamy portfolios?

Note that Baldrick's quote has been shortened.

If I understood you correctly, you meant by Getty basically taking over more and more, wouldn't Getty rules start to apply for iStock? Getty's rule regarding exclusivity is on an image basis (incl. sisters and similars). At least for the majority of contracts that exist as far as I know. I.e Getty doesn't "mind" your Alamy portfolio as long as you don't put up any sisters or similars. The only contributor exclusivity is if you are on assignment/representing Getty.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 03:03 by CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production »

« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2012, 03:13 »
0
I should have been clearer, I was talking purely about the rules for iStock. I know hardly anything about Getty's various other arrangements. If you recall, it was ruled some time ago that being "exclusive to iStock" meant being "exclusive to the Getty family", hence the reason stuff could appear on TS or in the Getty collections.

Of course, they could change things in any way they like, though I think the "no similars anywhere else" rule would be very difficult for "image exclusive" iStockers to apply to themselves.

It just struck me that it makes no sense for "artist exclusivity" to apply only to RF licensing, when exactly the same subjects can be sold as RM on agencies that have now become direct competitors.

They might as well scrap exclusivity altogether (or go the "image exclusive" route). I had a couple of $6 sales on Alamy last week and $40 or $50 is quite normal, isn't that similar - or below - a lot of price points on iS?

« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2012, 03:25 »
0
I think there's a 6 month lock in with alamy.  I don't think istock exclusives are going to be forced in to exclusivity for RM.  They only have to give 30 days notice to drop the crown.  I think it would be more likely that istock will become like Getty and only ask for image exclusivity.  That could make the site more attractive to non-exclusives.  They could do a deal with the top exclusives to stop them putting their images on rival sites.  Having said that, they've been making bad decisions for a long time now, so another one that loses them contributors wouldn't be a big shock.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Good New For You
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2012, 05:41 »
0
Getty is image exclusive, not artist exclusive - not seen any indication of that changing. As long as they keep doing a good job selling images they get first dibs by most contributors I would imagine, so really no need. They get the images they want and they get them on an exclusive basis.

Isn't Getty only image-exclusive for agencies? I'm pretty sure individual artists are artist-exclusive.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2012, 06:19 »
0
Getty is image exclusive, not artist exclusive - not seen any indication of that changing. As long as they keep doing a good job selling images they get first dibs by most contributors I would imagine, so really no need. They get the images they want and they get them on an exclusive basis.

Isn't Getty only image-exclusive for agencies? I'm pretty sure individual artists are artist-exclusive.

Contract says image exclusive (sisters & similars) unless under assignment for Getty (editorial, celeb etc.)

« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2012, 18:37 »
0
ecause in the RM house-collection, its person exclusivity, Im sure of it and with both Stones and Image-bank, the RM stuff was person exclusivity.

Hi Lagereek,
Are you sure about this? At which point in their contract does it say so? I'm in a housecollection and I could only find this:

"All Content submitted to Getty Images is on a Content exclusive basis. This means that Content submitted to Getty Images and any other content that is substantially the same (a Similar) may not be licensed to any third party unless Getty Images has notified you that it has been rejected."

That's unless Getty does any art direction or pay for production costs.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4980 Views
Last post July 06, 2010, 22:16
by vonkara
21 Replies
6507 Views
Last post May 11, 2011, 06:43
by sharpshot
24 Replies
5666 Views
Last post September 26, 2011, 04:14
by michealo
66 Replies
6070 Views
Last post April 10, 2019, 08:16
by Uncle Pete
9 Replies
1193 Views
Last post May 23, 2019, 13:19
by Trippy

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle