MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Flickr Collection on Getty Images  (Read 13759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 08, 2008, 21:09 »
0
We've long been waiting to see if flickr are going to all users to sell their photos... its still not going to happen directly on flickr but a post on flickrs blog makes for interesting reading,

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/07/08/the-flickr-collection-on-getty-images/

i wrote my two cents worth on my blog
http://microstockinsider.com/news/getty-make-a-flickr-collection

it seems that now more than ever flickr is somewhere where you should be posting your best photos even if you can't sell them on there its a good place to let people see your work.



« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2008, 00:50 »
0
wow, sounds interesting

« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2008, 00:54 »
0
I wonder how many images on flickr will meet the getty QC standards?  Will they use istock as well?

jsnover

« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2008, 00:55 »
0
Potentially interesting, potentially a source of more images - i.e. more competition for existing contributors.

I'll be watching the IS forum thread on this topic to see what they have to say.

« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2008, 01:36 »
0
from what I understand it's a very clever move from Getty. but it surely will result in more competition to  both micro and macro stockers imo.

RT


« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2008, 06:08 »
0
I'm not sure this is going to result in lots of sales for people with their photo's on Flickr.

I see it more as a shrewd move by Getty to get in there before another agency does, I'm sure the Flickr owners will get a nice little earner from the deal, but the content of the site has too many non-commercially viable factors to make it a suitable source for buyers.

What may happen is that Getty might use it as a source to search for images that they can't fulfill through their own sites in response to image requests from buyers.

« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2008, 07:50 »
0
I just posted these comments on another site:

Looks like a great idea for Getty to pick and choose from over 2 billion images, and get them exclusively with very little investment. A good deal also for Flickr users in that they'll see it as a painless way to make a few bucks. A good deal for image users that already use Getty adding lots more variety. Maybe not such a good idea for micro contributors in that the pool of images goes way up and dilutes sales potential away from micro sites. Probably also a bad deal for micro sites for all the above reasons including the smaller, newer micro sites that are having to fight for contributors.

I wonder also if Flickr will become a new micro site -- inviting us micro contributors aboard. It would be a nice new revenue stream for them. Plus a great new time-waster for micro contributors to upload to a new site (Flickr) with the promise that maybe sometime on the off-chance that an image of theirs will be chosen from the 2 billion by a Getty reviewer.

A great way for Getty to develop a "farm team" of contributors. Thousands of new shooters with a desire to be seen. Fertile fields for them. Pretty * smart.

Love to hear other opinions on this development.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2008, 08:07 »
0
It was only a matter of time before Flickr starting selling images or someone tapped them to sell images. Smart move on Getty's part but this is another move blurring the lines of stock photography toward convergence.

vonkara

« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2008, 08:26 »
0
Nah, most of Flickr pics are crap. Sorry but I don't understand the concept here ???

There's maybe 70% of landscapes in the Flickr collection. And 20% are wildlife pics. In that 20% there's 60% of these that are pictures of herons LOL

« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2008, 10:15 »
0
Looking at the daily Explore images at Flickr

http://flickrleech.net/

I would say some of them aren't that bad!

« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2008, 10:20 »
0
This and other moves dispell the myth that there are thousands of "Good Photographers" to fill any gaps.

Reading this means don't panic, Getty will not be selling Flickr images, they are just looking to cream off a few photographers to refresh thier own collection, and using Flickr to find the right photographers.

As with PhotoShelters up and coming "School of Stock" and "Shoot the Day", they are looking as well to getting existing Photographers to take another look at what they are shooting, and PhotoShelter would be hoping to pick up some exciting new Photographers of thier own, introduce them to stock and licencing to expand the collection as well.

But Getty will not be selling Flickr images, they likely would not accept anything that has been on Flickr for a while, but they will be inviting some Photographers from flickr to take "New Exclusive Images just for the Getty Collection and display them on Flickr", apart from the exclusive bit that's the same as what PhotoShelter is doing with it's own promotions.

So both are looking for new photographers and fresh content, that should be a wakeup call to all existing photographers to look at what they are shooting and uploading.

But as the Images will be on Flickr with a link to Getty, it will also be interesting to see what they do about the flickr feed Blogs and the RSS feeds wich ignore the licence preferences of users via the flickr API.

Another Link: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003825626

I do love this quote: Srivastava (Flickr): "We range all the way from that kind of professional photographer with years of experience to my mom, who is just getting started with professional photography."

Seems that every mom with a camera is a professional.

Oh yeah all the Flickr images may look great on flickr but getty have a list of cameras they will accept images from and that does not include Mom's P&S

Have a look at the number of Images from Canon Cameras on Flickr, then there are only a few "DSLR" camera models that Getty will accept, so this will reduce the number of good images and photographers that will be of interest, but it is good PR for Getty and Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/?s=type#models

Then there are the property and model releases, exclusivity clauses etc:

David  :D
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 11:08 by Adeptris »

tan510jomast

« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2008, 10:33 »
0

it seems that now more than ever flickr is somewhere where you should be posting your best photos even if you can't sell them on there its a good place to let people see your work.



one word of caution:
just don't insert your affliate links or links to your micro sites' portfolio, a friend of mine got her links disengaged with a stern warning from flickr
the next time she tried to reinsert them   :o ::)

« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2008, 15:33 »
0


Have a look at the number of Images from Canon Cameras on Flickr, then there are only a few "DSLR" camera models that Getty will accept, so this will reduce the number of good images and photographers that will be of interest, but it is good PR for Getty and Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/?s=type#models



just checked the list but you can see on the list over 10million item(photos) taken with canon 5d,6,5 million with 40d,nearly 14million with 30d roughly 1million items for each 1D series,so all the cameras on Getty's list I don't think equipment should be big problem and imagine a rebel  xt owner receives a request from Getty it shouldn't be too hard for them to upgrade to a 30d or 40d if not 5d  so I think it will eventually bring more competition in stockphoto world and it'll be the agencies and buyers benefiting from it.

vonkara

« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2008, 16:11 »
0
And start a world photographer war. In 2020 you will not be able to walk on the streets whitout a stock photographer yelling at you... "Oh ya common show me your profil, that way yes could you sign me a model release, oh ya sign it it will be a contract conceptual image"

The night, the astronauts in space will look at the camera flashs everywhere on earth. Then the stock agencies will rule the world and photographer will be the lowest part of their problems...LOL
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 16:13 by Vonkara »

vonkara

« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2008, 16:53 »
0
Look what Getty have to say about Istock contributors

"Getty also runs a site called iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates. The photos on Flickr are of sufficent quality to demand higher prices, Mr. Klein said."

Also we make non-authentic photographs

We believe that Flickr will be an important addition to the mix that we have, said Jonathan Klein, co-founder and chief executive of Getty Images. Mr. Klein said Flickr photographers will increase the depth of Gettys catalog on certain subjects and certain regions of the world. And they will be bringing an element that professional photography often lacks, he said. Because the imagery is not shot for commercial services, there is more authenticity, Mr. Klein said. Advertisers are looking for authenticity

Ok then can I start sending all my snapshots again!?!

These two taken from the Istock forum here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=72812&page=3
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 16:57 by Vonkara »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2008, 17:31 »
0
While he didn't word it in the most diplomatic of ways what's he supposed to say? Imagine if he said "The photographers and images at Getty and Istockphoto are pretty similar but we just charge 10x more at Getty."

What actually are the big differences between images at Getty and Istock? What advantages does a buyer get using Getty. Just curious.

« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2008, 18:33 »
0
I am not surprised at what he said. The pasture is only greener on the other side. It certainly does not encourage me to go exclusive with IS.

Look what Getty have to say about Istock contributors

"Getty also runs a site called iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates. The photos on Flickr are of sufficent quality to demand higher prices, Mr. Klein said."

Also we make non-authentic photographs

We believe that Flickr will be an important addition to the mix that we have, said Jonathan Klein, co-founder and chief executive of Getty Images. Mr. Klein said Flickr photographers will increase the depth of Gettys catalog on certain subjects and certain regions of the world. And they will be bringing an element that professional photography often lacks, he said. Because the imagery is not shot for commercial services, there is more authenticity, Mr. Klein said. Advertisers are looking for authenticity

Ok then can I start sending all my snapshots again!?!

These two taken from the Istock forum here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=72812&page=3

« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2008, 20:24 »
0
What actually are the big differences between images at Getty and Istock? What advantages does a buyer get using Getty. Just curious.

Perceived exclusivity because of price.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2008, 21:08 »
0
So it's purely perception? Kind of like the buyer that will snub their nose at a $30 designer shirt at Costco and pay $80 for the same shirt at Nordstroms just because it's Nordstroms?

grp_photo

« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2008, 23:06 »
0
What actually are the big differences between images at Getty and Istock? What advantages does a buyer get using Getty. Just curious.

Perceived exclusivity because of price.
Yes and the HighEnd-Collections are still in a very different league! The RF-Collections at Getty surely aren't any better than istock!

grp_photo

« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2008, 23:10 »
0
Look what Getty have to say about Istock contributors

"Getty also runs a site called iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates. The photos on Flickr are of sufficent quality to demand higher prices, Mr. Klein said."

Also we make non-authentic photographs

We believe that Flickr will be an important addition to the mix that we have, said Jonathan Klein, co-founder and chief executive of Getty Images. Mr. Klein said Flickr photographers will increase the depth of Gettys catalog on certain subjects and certain regions of the world. And they will be bringing an element that professional photography often lacks, he said. Because the imagery is not shot for commercial services, there is more authenticity, Mr. Klein said. Advertisers are looking for authenticity

Ok then can I start sending all my snapshots again!?!

These two taken from the Istock forum here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=72812&page=3

I agree with Mr. Klein here it's not that black-and-white but in general yes. Therefore i don't think the flickr-deal will hurt Microstock at all.If it will hurt something it's the HighEnd-Stock.

DanP68

« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2008, 00:13 »
0
"Getty also runs a site called iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates. The photos on Flickr are of sufficent quality to demand higher prices, Mr. Klein said."

This statement devalues the iStock brand.

I love the damage control on the iStock boards over this quote.  Clearly it is being stated that many free images on Flickr are worth far more than the "amateur" images at iStock.  I'm not surprised though. 


vonkara

« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2008, 07:56 »
0
The best of Flickr equal in most cases: Too much saturated, too much sharpenned, full of noise or artifacts when viewed at full size.

It's sure that on a 1000 pixels image it's look great, but don't think that these files were photoshoped a complete hour with care.

People on Flickr upload like crazy and photoshop maximum 12 minutes by adjusting the curves and don't even know when to stop adding saturation or sharpness to an image.

I don't want to be compared to the guys I see at the photography store, looking for somebody to look at his "best shot" to receive approbation from others. Flickr is based on this.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 11:04 by Vonkara »

« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2008, 08:57 »
0
I don't see the point to badmouth Flickr users. Some are great photographers, better than us; some are not. But they didn't upload the photos to be in competition with us.  They upload to share with the community and have fun. They didn't ask to join Getty or iStock.

What strikes me the most is how iStock's boss looks at iStock. Ok he was not very fair. But when you calm down, and think about it. What was he trying to say? As some people have already pointed out in iStock forum, when the inspection process focuses so much on the technical perfection,  Getty is more interested in contents. While some of us can isolate a Christmas gift box with prefect pen tool and revel on it, the big ad drive had rather used (or stolen) a giggling little girl's image from a point-and-shoot. Why? Because it told the story of the moment - authenticity.

Is it something to think about?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 09:03 by Freedom »

« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2008, 09:22 »
0
There might be 2 billion images on Flickr but I bet that all but a few hundred thousand (at most) are useless for stock, either because of technical problems or because of the lack of consumer driven concepts.

On a side not regarding Getty, for a long time I desperately wanted to be a Getty photographer. I knew a few Getty photographers and they made huge amounts of money, one guy $250,000 a year from around 500 images. Initially, a few years ago they rejected me, recently I paid for placement in their Lifesize collection. Of the 10 images I initially submitted, I made six sales in the first three months. These were mediocre images, lifestyle but no real production quality to speak of. So I thought that was a pretty good indication of Gettys potential, two sales a month from ten images out of all of Gettys two million or so images. So I paid to place nine more. Just around the same time I sent the new images Getty did away with their Lifesize collection and those images were assimilated into their photographers choice collection. No new sales since then, and that was three months ago. Coincidence? So Im currently out $400.00 bucks just to have images with Getty. But to make matters worse, all the similar images from those shoots are useless now. Getty wont accept them because of their sistering policy; you have to submit all similars at the same time. Now initially this policy was only for RM images, however, at some later time (after I uploaded my initial 10 images) they changed the policy of sistering to include RR images. But with Lifesize you initially had to license RR. This really screwed me up because that initial 10 was a test go for Getty, I had dozens more from the same shoot that would have been great on Getty as RR or RF. So my images that are with Getty, and all the similars, are tied up for two years, and they pay a measly 20%. Man I was duped and dumb.

So screw Getty, really, dont worry about them, dont scramble to get images on Flickr just hoping to get into Getty. Dont tie your images up for two years for only 20%, not worth it anymore, Getty is (hopefully) on the way out and most old time pros will tell you that they are the worst thing that ever happened to photographers in spite of the money they make. I make most of my stock income from the micros, Alamy is OK but Im really excited about Photoshelter. I like their pay structure, their web site is great. I hope these guys take over the stock world.


tan510jomast

« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2008, 10:42 »
0
"Getty also runs a site called iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates. The photos on Flickr are of sufficent quality to demand higher prices, Mr. Klein said."

This statement devalues the iStock brand.

I love the damage control on the iStock boards over this quote.  Clearly it is being stated that many free images on Flickr are worth far more than the "amateur" images at iStock.  I'm not surprised though. 



yes, I was one to notice that " iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates"

I was quite apprehensive to read that he would make such a sweeping statement, as it includes exclusive IS contributors too. :o

vonkara

« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2008, 11:00 »
0

 What was he trying to say? As some people have already pointed out in iStock forum, when the inspection process focuses so much on the technical perfection,  Getty is more interested in contents. While some of us can isolate a Christmas gift box with prefect pen tool and revel on it, the big ad drive had rather used (or stolen) a giggling little girl's image from a point-and-shoot. Why? Because it told the story of the moment - authenticity.

Then why they reject the stock photographer noisy but well composed outdoor pics and then choose the noisy outdoor Flickr users pictures?

tan510jomast

« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2008, 13:47 »
0
I'm not even sure whether this is an indication that Getty is getting into recruiting Flickr users, more than perharps keeping them with Flickr, as
we know many have left Flickr for microstock.
Now, with this promise of glory in Getty, Flickr "professionals" will buy into
their premium class , or whatever you call it, so they qualify to have images selected by Flickr for free and uncompensated uses in yahoo promotions
and whatnot. I see Flickr photos in yahoo weather sites, and I am sure
many other places that I don't know about.

To the amateurs, sorry I mean professionals with Flickr, just seeing their images published would be enough of a celebration.
Imagine if many Flickr users become affliated with micro
and decide to leave, what would happen then?
that site would be a flicker (bad pun ) of what it is today.

So I think it's more of a promo to keep Flickr "pros" happy. 8)

« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2008, 13:52 »
0
Then why they reject the stock photographer noisy but well composed outdoor pics and then choose the noisy outdoor Flickr users pictures?

Because they have Inspectors that Inspect the images, now they are looking at quality and content and ticking the boxes, one bad mark means a rejection, this takes away any subjective and artistic licence and you end up with a lot of the same, look at the critique forums and read the "you have a bit of fringing or noise in the top left hand corner about 10 pixels down", and not comments like "well there is a tiny bit of noise but it is a fantastic image, I would use it", we have all likely had perfect usable images subjectivly rejected.

Alamy on the other hand do not look at content but quality only, and we see comments like 70% dross, Photoshelter look at quality and subjectivly at the content and claim to be in touch with the buyers needs, time will tell on that one.

What is needed are inspectors that can look at an image tick the boxes, if some boxes are not ticked then be able to make a call on if the image should be allowed.

PhotoShelter had a poll of buyers that said stock was dated and dull and sites did not have what they really wanted, now with Getty they are looking for fresh conceptual images and photographers, but if the images hit the same inspectors will they get through, what is required is a new set of checkboxes for the inspectors and a good mix of conceptal and standard stock as they both have a place, one conceptual for grabbing attention and making you think for new markets, the other standard stock for the comfort of established businesses and markets.

For all the "Conceptual Hype" the only thing that counts is servicing the buyers requirements, they alone will drive the market in the direction they want it to move and not Getty or Istock, and they will talk with thier feet if they do not get what they want.

David    
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 14:02 by Adeptris »

tan510jomast

« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2008, 14:03 »
0
Then why they reject the stock photographer noisy but well composed outdoor pics and then choose the noisy outdoor Flickr users pictures?

(extract)
What is needed are inspectors that can look at an image tick the boxes, if some boxes are not ticked then be able to make a call on if the image should be allowed.

PhotoShelter had a poll of buyers that said stock was dated and dull and sites did not have what they really wanted, now with Getty they are looking for fresh conceptual images and photographers, but if the images hit the same inspectors ...

Good point David,
then maybe it's time to replace the inspectors who have been cruising on basing judgement solely on technical data, and get new ones who use their eyes to peruse the composition as well. perharps?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 14:06 by tan510jomast »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2566 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 13:39
by melastmohican
36 Replies
14662 Views
Last post May 27, 2010, 06:33
by mtkang
2 Replies
5204 Views
Last post October 04, 2011, 10:54
by jeffclow
25 Replies
9471 Views
Last post December 14, 2011, 12:21
by davetee
9 Replies
3682 Views
Last post November 21, 2012, 18:09
by madelaide

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results