Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 200546 times)

cobalt · « **Reply #775 on:** March 11, 2014, 20:43 »

Maybe we should really open a new thread. Best strategies to diversify on the micros and macros? How not to be dependent on just one agency? Best mix of photos/video and illustration?

Would anyone like to start that?

gbalex · « **Reply #776 on:** March 11, 2014, 20:52 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2014, 18:15

Quote from: EmberMike on March 11, 2014, 15:49
Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 10:40
Well, he didn't post his Getty earnings, it might help balance his overall income, but obviously if you are producing 5000 great images in a year and see falling sales, you are heading towards a problem.

I agree that it is necessary to position yourself for what you believe will be the place in the future.

But if someone with this kind of port is struggling, I think it is logical that many single artists, who simply cannot produce the volume, even if they have the same quality are looking into what they can do to stop falling sales...

I'm not a photographer, but in looking at that portfolio I'm not entirely surprised there is no growth. The new images look just like the old ones. Same subjects, same shots. Smiling families in brightly colored shirts, generic business people, guy holding blank business card, etc. With that kind of stuff, does anyone really expect to make more money?

Sure they're beautifully shot images. Better done than a lot of folks could do. But it's just more generic stock.

I feel like I'm seeing a trend lately, with people complaining about dropping earnings while they're only producing work that competes with their old work.

We talk about quality and quantity and which is better to focus on. Or what sort of balance between the two is best. But we often forget that both are worthless if you ignore the need for diversity.

I haven't seen the portfolio in question, but in general, how much more diversity can be brought to the market? Nearly every subject on the planet has been covered to death. The only remaining option seems to be small niche areas, which may get some sales but won't likely provide a living wage, or keep treading the same over covered ground of popular subjects. Even balancing between the two is not enough to keep earnings up forever.

For the past two years my annual stats have reflected gains in overall downloads and 20% drops in earnings.

With all the royalty decreases, migrations of sales from od to subs, free image giveaway schemes, search order shenanigans, etc that have been thrown at contributors, it is mind blowing that anyone would seriously suggest that falling incomes are the result of contributors failing to update their concepts.

It is called DENIAL Lisa, if you can throw blame on the animal, then you can bury your head in the sand to convince yourself it will not happen to your own sweat and tears. Hard work and careful planing will save the day! We watched it for years on IS and now on shutterstock.

cascoly · « **Reply #777 on:** March 11, 2014, 21:00 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 18:20

......
Imagine ebay or amazon sending customers to a second auction house or webshops they own, while at the same time they keep raising their fees in an unpredictable manner. Having site outages unannounced and the communication with business partners is very unsatisfactory. Also their accounting is full of errors and every month you get unpredictable refunds for sales that happened months earlier. And sometimes they claw back money totally out of the blue, like it happened to many exclusives today.

actually ebay did just that -- they bought half.com which underpriced BOTH ebay & amazon, but the stronger brands won out and half.com sales are abysmal

neither of these sites is very seller oriented - bending over not to offend buyers, resulting in chargebacks for trivial or even non-existent excuses

yet both prosper

in eBay's case they've recently been running special promotions such that a careful seller can eliminate most of the ebay listing costs -- my fees have dropped by 50% or more over the last 6 mo while sales have held steady. (I have 2 niche markets in which I can actually BUY product on ebay to resell on ebay & amazon). but, like stock, you have to plan for the long term

if we could be half as successful with microagencies as one can be w ebay & amazon, we'd all be a lot better off

cobalt · « **Reply #778 on:** March 11, 2014, 21:07 »

The Getty Google deal made many people leave istock or getty. others stopped uploading there.

What do you think will happen this time round? I´ve heard of two people who cancelled their Getty contracts, good portfolios.

Anybody here supplying Photographer´s Choice? If you need to pay to play, will people still submit images if they can be shared for free?

tickstock · « **Reply #779 on:** March 11, 2014, 21:08 »

cobalt · « **Reply #780 on:** March 11, 2014, 21:11 »

Well, that must be a relief. But many people payed thousands of dollars to have images placed there.

In general, what do you think will happen? Will it be the Getty artist that now stop uploading, like many micro artists did after the getty Google deal?

tickstock · « **Reply #781 on:** March 11, 2014, 21:13 »

cobalt · « **Reply #782 on:** March 11, 2014, 21:23 »

How do they feel about the sharing? Will they continue to supply that collection? or will they prefer to put their content where there is no free sharing?

getty producers are just image/series exclusive, they can do what they want.

Basically I am wondering if there will be a migration within the macros. people sending more content to other macros instead of getty.

Similar to what happened on the micros last year.

lisafx · « **Reply #783 on:** March 11, 2014, 22:37 »

Quote from: EmberMike on March 11, 2014, 19:45

Quote from: fotoVoyager on March 11, 2014, 16:47
Quote from: EmberMike on March 11, 2014, 15:49
I'm not a photographer, but in looking at that portfolio I'm not entirely surprised there is no growth. The new images look just like the old ones. Same subjects, same shots. Smiling families in brightly colored shirts, generic business people, guy holding blank business card, etc. With that kind of stuff, does anyone really expect to make more money?

Sure they're beautifully shot images. Better done than a lot of folks could do. But it's just more generic stock.

That is the stuff that sells the best.

I'm sure it sells, but from portfolios that already have the image, have the search placement, have the popularity. A new image among the 2,500 existing similar images will have a really hard time selling, no matter how good the image is.

I really don't see how doing that kind of stuff can be expected to generate sales.

I take your point, but it would have a lot more legs if the sales falloff was only happening to portfolios filled with nothing but cliches. FWIW, I have experienced the same and don't believe I have ever uploaded a business guy holding out a business card. If I did, it would have been 2007 or so and never repeated. I revisit concepts, however, and I think most of us do.

The phenomenon of falling revenues for successful portfolios cuts across all subject matters. The many other factors I mentioned are real, they are having a profound affect, and really can't be ignored, at least not to those whose livelihoods are affected.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #784 on:** March 11, 2014, 22:56 »

I've read every post in this thread (I know, I have no life) and must say that I don't think I've ever seen this much negativity thrown around about the current and future state of stock. Unfortunately, I tend to agree.
If I'm going to go down in flames I'm going to do it on my own terms, though. Time to get back to self marketing, perhaps Symbiostock, and the few agencies that pay well enough to justify my time.
It's been interesting reading the Getty forums as it relates to MSG and the microstockers. Some real disdain for those of us who participate including comments from at least one who is also involved in micro. And yet, they fail to recognize the impact their own agency is having on this freefalling industry....hypocrisy at its finest.

cobalt · « **Reply #785 on:** March 12, 2014, 02:31 »

I always had the impression that the disdain for people from micro over at getty was rooted in the pain that they didn't take advantage of the opportunities the internet brought. They could have made an incredible amount of money.

They always come with this argument that we somehow do not deserve the money we made because we didn't strive to get accepted by the macros first, As if we somehow needed their blessing to create sellable content. They never talk about the customers and what they need.

That they now don't recognize what is happening, is not surprising. Getty has for years always tried to blame the internet, SS or whoever they can pin it on for their own demise.

But the artists can choose what to do and who to supply. With the internet you can sell direct and if you look at symbiostock and stocksy you would again think the Getty producers with good content would recognize the advantages of selling direct and cutting out the middle man.

Both have only been around for a few months or a year but those that put the work into it see good results.

In the end the difference might be that the microartist often have strong entrepreneurial backgrounds which gives them an advantage.

Once you learn how to fish, you don't go hungry. Even if you rely on someone doing the fishing for you for a while, you can always get back in your boat and sail out to sea.

Personally i believe that the agencies that can harvest the entepreneurial spirit in the stock community will grow best and survive longest. They will need to invest in the technology and the tools we need for our webshops, but then the community is self organizing and will take responsibility for their own shops. The agency can then focus on overall marketing of their plattform.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #786 on:** March 12, 2014, 02:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 11, 2014, 18:22

iStock has knocked even that on its head with the subs scheme.
Subs only work if your images have potential to sell many times at sub prices, so unless you can find an unmined niche that the buyers have been secretly clamouring for, don't think of micro for niche work.
It worked to some extent on iS for a while, especially when people could 'promote' their own images, but the first blow was demoting low-selling files to Main prices (no more sales but for much less) and now subs makes it as pointless to submit low-supply, low-demand images there as to any other sub site.
Less choice for the buyer, but of course they care for the buyers only marginally more than than they care about the suppliers.

agree, but we should know a bit more about subs, for instance i've no idea how many buyers are really into subs, it could be a tiny minority for all we know.

obscure niches never did well on micros for obvious reasons but as far as i can see they're not doing great even on Alamy.

the problem is, stock is first and foremost about mainstream subjects, anything else is more suited to assignments or specialized agencies.

the publishing industry has not recovered at all in the last years, it's still a dead man walking and i can't see any reason for it to recover anytime soon, now everyone and their dog has a smartphone and access to free news and ebooks and this is the new normal, there's no going back.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #787 on:** March 12, 2014, 03:14 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 20:43

Maybe we should really open a new thread. Best strategies to diversify on the micros and macros? How not to be dependent on just one agency? Best mix of photos/video and illustration?

Would anyone like to start that?

that's right, but it would mean we're accepting that we can no longer survive with our core business alone (photos).

it's unreasonable to expect any stocker can quickly recycle himself into a good illustrator or a good videomaker or both.

and then again, what's next ? doing short movies ? doing documentaries ? writing e-books ? teaching phoography classes ? workshops ? renting gear ? selling used lens on ebay ? selling merchandising on street markets ? t-shirts ? stickers ? business cards ?

when will it ever stop ?

if this is the future they're right about switching to iphones and instagram, that's the only sort of quality they could expect if they pay a pittance and if it will become impossible to survive on photos alone.

and yet it still doesn't look profitable to me, who's going to pay the gas to go on location and all ?
sure, billions of people now have iphones and FB/Twitter but all they're doing is posting selfies, dogs, cats, and holiday snaps.

cobalt · « **Reply #788 on:** March 12, 2014, 03:42 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 12, 2014, 03:14

Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 20:43
Maybe we should really open a new thread. Best strategies to diversify on the micros and macros? How not to be dependent on just one agency? Best mix of photos/video and illustration?

Would anyone like to start that?

that's right, but it would mean we're accepting that we can no longer survive with our core business (photos)

and yet it still doesn't look profitable to me, who's going to pay the gas to go on location and all ?

The people here on the micros having been doing a mix of media and a mix of different stores for years.

Where have you been all this time?

Some people also write apps, work for game developpers, write articles etccc.

msg is the domain of the digital media artist and internet entrepreneur.

How many people here also run ebay shops amd amazon stores?

Online business is our core business, photos is just one of the products we sell.

And of course when you have a portfolio you always look for additional ways to make money with it, many people have developped excellent combinations of photo stock and print products.

But opening a thread specifically dedicated to collect the current opportunities beyond stock agencies might be a good idea.

Eta: for instance the obvious trend for 2014 is smartphone photography. So what would be the best way to benefit? Which agency has the best offer, the best opportunity to make money.

But it really deserves a new thread.

stocked · « **Reply #789 on:** March 12, 2014, 05:00 »

Quote from: EmberMike on March 11, 2014, 15:49

Quote from: cobalt on March 11, 2014, 10:40
Well, he didn't post his Getty earnings, it might help balance his overall income, but obviously if you are producing 5000 great images in a year and see falling sales, you are heading towards a problem.

I agree that it is necessary to position yourself for what you believe will be the place in the future.

But if someone with this kind of port is struggling, I think it is logical that many single artists, who simply cannot produce the volume, even if they have the same quality are looking into what they can do to stop falling sales...

I'm not a photographer, but in looking at that portfolio I'm not entirely surprised there is no growth. The new images look just like the old ones. Same subjects, same shots. Smiling families in brightly colored shirts, generic business people, guy holding blank business card, etc. With that kind of stuff, does anyone really expect to make more money?

Sure they're beautifully shot images. Better done than a lot of folks could do. But it's just more generic stock.

I feel like I'm seeing a trend lately, with people complaining about dropping earnings while they're only producing work that competes with their old work.

We talk about quality and quantity and which is better to focus on. Or what sort of balance between the two is best. But we often forget that both are worthless if you ignore the need for diversity.

I'm sure he is still doing very well it is a perfect stockportfolio, but as Fotovoyager said this is still the stuff that sells best! If you want produce different stuff successfully you need higher prices as sales for non-generic stuff will always be a lot lower. So I would say he is doing everything right but the agencies with their stupid moves to drive prices lower and lower (with subscriptions, Dollarphotoclub etc) are the ones to blame.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #790 on:** March 12, 2014, 05:37 »

Quote from: stocked on March 12, 2014, 05:00

he is doing everything right but the agencies with their stupid moves to drive prices lower and lower (with subscriptions, Dollarphotoclub etc) are the ones to blame.

actually many agencies started slashing prices even before microstock, it's simply supply and demand, and it all started with the * RF and RF Photodiscs.

but the root of all evils is that buyers lowered a lot their expectations so that now they're more than happy with iphone quality, this would have been unacceptable just a few years ago and there's a worrying trend also in assignments and prints.

my impression is everybody is going cheap nowadays, not just for photos but for everything, food, clothes, cars, nightlife, and lots of shops have closed and lots of friends of mine are struggling to pay the bills, we're definitely in dire straits since 2008 and even before it wasn't going well.

i mean nobody complain about the assignment rates but they're no more shy about telling you they can't afford it and this is a very bad sign of the times.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #791 on:** March 12, 2014, 05:53 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 12, 2014, 03:42

The people here on the micros having been doing a mix of media and a mix of different stores for years.
Where have you been all this time?
Some people also write apps, work for game developpers, write articles etccc.
msg is the domain of the digital media artist and internet entrepreneur.
How many people here also run ebay shops amd amazon stores?
Online business is our core business, photos is just one of the products we sell.
And of course when you have a portfolio you always look for additional ways to make money with it, many people have developped excellent combinations of photo stock and print products.
But opening a thread specifically dedicated to collect the current opportunities beyond stock agencies might be a good idea.
Eta: for instance the obvious trend for 2014 is smartphone photography. So what would be the best way to benefit? Which agency has the best offer, the best opportunity to make money.
But it really deserves a new thread.

i've nothing against diversification but i've always been keen on specialization, i don't want to go the "jack of all trades" route and i know many guys who did exactly that just to find themselves flipping burgers at the end of the story which they also see proudly as a proof of their "versatility", well who am i to judge but to each his own.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #792 on:** March 12, 2014, 06:25 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 12, 2014, 05:37

Quote from: stocked on March 12, 2014, 05:00
he is doing everything right but the agencies with their stupid moves to drive prices lower and lower (with subscriptions, Dollarphotoclub etc) are the ones to blame.

actually many agencies started slashing prices even before microstock, it's simply supply and demand, and it all started with the * RF and RF Photodiscs.

but the root of all evils is that buyers lowered a lot their expectations so that now they're more than happy with iphone quality, this would have been unacceptable just a few years ago and there's a worrying trend also in assignments and prints.

my impression is everybody is going cheap nowadays, not just for photos but for everything, food, clothes, cars, nightlife, and lots of shops have closed and lots of friends of mine are struggling to pay the bills, we're definitely in dire straits since 2008 and even before it wasn't going well.

i mean nobody complain about the assignment rates but they're no more shy about telling you they can't afford it and this is a very bad sign of the times.

I'm guessing you don't have an Iphone?. The quality of my previous mobile phone sucked. Bad. Horrible. The Iphone5 is surprisingly good. Almost as good as a DSLR from a few years ago maybe like my old D50. I also have the 41MP Nokia 1020 that shoots DNG. Of course the quality isn't as good as my D800. But it's also not that far behind either. It's only a short matter of time before phones catch up to modern DSLRs. Especially when the DSLR manufacturers are only doing their standard incremental improvements while phones are improving massively every year.

Pretty soon most people will be carrying DSLR quality phones in their pockets. I've seen some pretty impressive photos from ordinary people using phones. Buyers have openly said they want fresh unstaged photos. Contributors that produce nice clean smiling happy lifestyle images are saying their sales are tanking. Have buyers dried up? Or have their buying habits changed?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #793 on:** March 12, 2014, 07:57 »

The market reflects what the public feels comfortable with. Not long ago we were cutting and pasting little line drawings into adverts (1980s) and the customers were very pleased. Then computers and scanners made it possible to create cheap colour separations and decent photography became the order of the day (late 90s) because suddenly advertisers could afford stuff they hadn't been able to afford before. Then microstock came along, and the sort of quality that had only been available to the top corporations became available to everyone, so everyone wanted top-notch images in their ads. Now that is old hat, but advertisers can connect with "yoof" by using the same sort of images that they swap with each other.
It's not about "image quality", it's about what's "in".
A mobile phone will probably never have the capabilities and quality of a DSLR, but it may create the sort of image that is fashionable and good for promoting someone's business.
Unfortunately, that strikes at the very heart of a photographer's self-belief, which is built primarily on a foundation of gear-envy.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #794 on:** March 12, 2014, 08:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 12, 2014, 07:57

The market reflects what the public feels comfortable with. Not long ago we were cutting and pasting little line drawings into adverts (1980s) and the customers were very pleased. Then computers and scanners made it possible to create cheap colour separations and decent photography became the order of the day (late 90s) because suddenly advertisers could afford stuff they hadn't been able to afford before. Then microstock came along, and the sort of quality that had only been available to the top corporations became available to everyone, so everyone wanted top-notch images in their ads. Now that is old hat, but advertisers can connect with "yoof" by using the same sort of images that they swap with each other.
It's not about "image quality", it's about what's "in".
A mobile phone will probably never have the capabilities and quality of a DSLR, but it may create the sort of image that is fashionable and good for promoting someone's business.
Unfortunately, that strikes at the very heart of a photographer's self-belief, which is built primarily on a foundation of gear-envy.

I'd agree with all of that especially the gear envy. I love all of my gear but may no longer need most of it. I shoot mostly landscape and cityscape stuff and would take my 5DMII and lenses everywhere. Bulky and heavy. Then I picked up an NEX-7 and have barely touched the 5DMII. With the NEX-7 I can carry a small light bag with a couple of lenses. Then I recently took the phones and did some cityscape shots. Turned out great. So prices may be headed down but maybe at some point I'll only need a $99 phone instead $10,000 in camera equipment.

And, who really uses high resolution for commercial work anymore? Print magazines? Will there be any magazines in five years? Everything is web. Does web advertising need anything bigger or better than a phone can produce?

Scary, but can we ignore this is where things are headed?

LesPalenik · « **Reply #795 on:** March 12, 2014, 14:00 »

Quote

the publishing industry has not recovered at all in the last years, it's still a dead man walking and i can't see any reason for it to recover anytime soon, now everyone and their dog has a smartphone and access to free news and ebooks and this is the new normal, there's no going back.

Publishing industry (and I mean books, not magazines) had been killed by Amazon and Indigo-Chapters (in Canada). First they drove all independent bookstores out of business and then hundreds of publishers followed. They employed the same predatory tactics as Getty.

tickstock · « **Reply #796 on:** March 12, 2014, 14:49 »

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #797 on:** March 12, 2014, 15:21 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 12, 2014, 14:49

Quote from: LesPalenik on March 12, 2014, 14:00
They employed the same predatory tactics as Getty.
Could you elaborate on the predatory tactics of Getty? I know a lot of people believe that microstock has been the real driver of predatory pricing.

Not sure if he and I see the same thing , but Getty planned to lock up distribution as a way to control the market. So they bought up agency after agency, then cut royalties and changed contracts. People fled to other agencies to avoid them but ended up with Getty in the end after a buyout. Now they use their dominance to squeeze suppliers and charge buyers high prices

tickstock · « **Reply #798 on:** March 12, 2014, 15:23 »

LesPalenik · « **Reply #799 on:** March 12, 2014, 15:39 »

Thank you Jo Ann,

you summed it better than I could have.
Predatory pricing or behaving in other predatory ways - it always hurts the suppliers and the customers.

The book distribution and publishing analogy is not that farfetched. I don't know if you still know of any independent bookstores in your area, but in Canada pretty much all privately owned bookstores disappeared over the last ten years, the only private stores here are now small shabby shops selling used books. Before, I was selling consistently books through the independent stores (always more copies than through Indigo), but now with only one player remaining they keep new books on their shelves only for a year or two and basically cut you off from any potential buyers.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 200546 times)

cobalt

gbalex

cascoly

cobalt

tickstock

cobalt

tickstock

cobalt

lisafx

mlwinphoto

cobalt

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

cobalt

stocked

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

PaulieWalnuts

BaldricksTrousers

PaulieWalnuts

LesPalenik

tickstock

Jo Ann Snover

tickstock

LesPalenik

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors