pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #700 on: March 10, 2014, 10:19 »
+4
Ah yes, the thread where people complained that their HD video files are getting downloads for 3 - 5 dollars over on getty, with one guy reporting 7 out 9 last month, has been moved.

That is a lot less for videos than on istock and just a fraction of what you get on SS or Pond5.

Yeah, I'm involved in that thread there. Got moved to Exclusive forum. Some of my videos have sold low at GI...but I have no way of telling what resolution sold...but even at the lowest resolution I should net a nice amount...however the GI prices seemed to just be a suggestion...seems like most don't pay those prices, but they will not disclose the prices...so again we have no idea what resolution is selling and can only guess the prices...and most seem to actually sell for less than iStock sells them for. And 5 cents commission for and HD video is beyond a disgrace and for them not to provide an explanation is insanity. They could provide details without giving away a specific buyer...it is all so sneaky...I can only be lead to believe that this is intentional and something dishonest is going on behind the scenes.


Ron

« Reply #701 on: March 10, 2014, 10:40 »
+3
Its the same on Alamy for that matter. I sold a Medium RF image, list price 180.00 for 1546 x 1058. My cut, $13.69

When I asked them about it they said:

Quote
Our price calculator lists the shop front pricing. Customers we actively go after, contact us about specific needs or key customers with large spends and image requirements may negotiate on price; which always starts with our shop front pricing.

The license details of the images sold are available in your summary of items sold page. We cannot provide you with any further information.

So they decided to discount the image from $250 to $27 but cant tell me anything about it.

« Reply #702 on: March 10, 2014, 10:49 »
+3
Its the same on Alamy for that matter. I sold a Medium RF image, list price 180.00 for 1546 x 1058. My cut, $13.69

When I asked them about it they said:

Quote
Our price calculator lists the shop front pricing. Customers we actively go after, contact us about specific needs or key customers with large spends and image requirements may negotiate on price; which always starts with our shop front pricing.

The license details of the images sold are available in your summary of items sold page. We cannot provide you with any further information.

So they decided to discount the image from $250 to $27 but cant tell me anything about it.

At least Alamy does tell you how much the image sold for and how much you get.

« Reply #703 on: March 10, 2014, 10:53 »
0
@gbalex

I have no idea how the best match on SS works, but I wouldt be surprised if contributors who come in with large portfolios and are uploading thousands of files in a few weeks will move up quickly in the search positions. But once they have uploaded their catalogue their ranking it will drop again, unless they really are a very high volume producer.

If that had been the case our files would have dropped gradually and not in the matter of one day. And those of us who upload large numbers would have been able to compete via numbers. 

One day content that had earned it's way to the top of the searches was on the first pages and the next day those images were buried so far back, we quit looking for them after 50 pages.   Shutterstock purposely killed our best earning files. 

New comers seem to be fine with this, however at some point in the game your images will also become expensive collateral damage and you may also see the drops we have experienced. You may not be thrilled with shutterstock's business ethics at that point in the game. 


« Reply #704 on: March 10, 2014, 10:54 »
+3
Its the same on Alamy for that matter. I sold a Medium RF image, list price 180.00 for 1546 x 1058. My cut, $13.69

When I asked them about it they said:

Quote
Our price calculator lists the shop front pricing. Customers we actively go after, contact us about specific needs or key customers with large spends and image requirements may negotiate on price; which always starts with our shop front pricing.

The license details of the images sold are available in your summary of items sold page. We cannot provide you with any further information.

So they decided to discount the image from $250 to $27 but cant tell me anything about it.

At least Alamy does tell you how much the image sold for and how much you get.

Yes and they own up to special pricing...we get nada from Getty...can't even get a resolutions or size that sold.

« Reply #705 on: March 10, 2014, 11:05 »
+1

If that had been the case our files would have dropped gradually and not in the matter of one day. And those of us who upload large numbers would have been able to compete via numbers. 

One day content that had earned it's way to the top of the searches was on the first pages and the next day those images were buried so far back, we quit looking for them after 50 pages.   Shutterstock purposely killed our best earning files. 

Believe me, I am NOT fine with best match games. We had tons of those on istock.

But it is one more reason to go independent. Imagine you were exclusive to SS and something like this happened to you. This is exactly what many exclusives are experiencing.

So being indie is much safer, at least it is unlikely that all agencies will change their best match in one day.

It is also the reason why I am uploading my files slowly instead of dumping everything everywhere in 3 months. Id rather have them spread out than give them all the same time stamp upon uploading.

« Reply #706 on: March 10, 2014, 11:08 »
+3
If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question  - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?


This is where I completely agree with you, if Bruce can accomplish this in one years time, Shutterstock could certainly do the same. The fact is that they choose to pay their contributors 28% while keeping pricing stagnantly low to gain markets share.

I think the low ball pricing  has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.

You hit the nail!
And in his recent interview Jon Oringer confirmed that all use is commercial you can ask yourself why companies that make a lot of money with our work can only spend a few Dollars for it. The truth is they could easily spend a lot more but it's all sacrificed for the greed of market-share.
The link to the interview is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/


I am genuinely surprised that most people are completing missing or discounting this important contributing factor. When you mentioned it in threads they dismiss it with comments to get back on topic.  The downward business pressures shutterstock is exerting via this long term move to grab market, share seems to have gone by virtually unnoticed.

Quote from:  link=topic=22111.msg369757#msg369757 date=1394433888
But again: what does this all have to do with Getty deciding to give out files for free? Including RM content? And will their decisions encourage more exclusives to leave? Or will it attract new people who want to work only with them?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #707 on: March 10, 2014, 11:14 »
+4
If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question  - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?


This is where I completely agree with you, if Bruce can accomplish this in one years time, Shutterstock could certainly do the same. The fact is that they choose to pay their contributors 28% while keeping pricing stagnantly low to gain markets share.

I think the low ball pricing  has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.

You hit the nail!
And in his recent interview Jon Oringer confirmed that all use is commercial you can ask yourself why companies that make a lot of money with our work can only spend a few Dollars for it. The truth is they could easily spend a lot more but it's all sacrificed for the greed of market-share.
The link to the interview is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/


I am genuinely surprised that most people are completing missing or discounting this important contributing factor. When you mentioned it in threads they dismiss it with comments to get back on topic.  The downward business pressures shutterstock is exerting via this long term move to grab market, share seems to have gone by virtually unnoticed.

Quote from:  link=topic=22111.msg369757#msg369757 date=1394433888
But again: what does this all have to do with Getty deciding to give out files for free? Including RM content? And will their decisions encourage more exclusives to leave? Or will it attract new people who want to work only with them?



iStock applied the original downward pressure by introducing microstock. Now they've really increased pressure by making millions of files "free." I think that's the more egregious approach of the two.

« Reply #708 on: March 10, 2014, 11:15 »
+3

If that had been the case our files would have dropped gradually and not in the matter of one day. And those of us who upload large numbers would have been able to compete via numbers. 

One day content that had earned it's way to the top of the searches was on the first pages and the next day those images were buried so far back, we quit looking for them after 50 pages.   Shutterstock purposely killed our best earning files. 

Believe me, I am NOT fine with best match games. We had tons of those on istock.

But it is one more reason to go independent. Imagine you were exclusive to SS and something like this happened to you. This is exactly what many exclusives are experiencing.

So being indie is much safer, at least it is unlikely that all agencies will change their best match in one day.

It is also the reason why I am uploading my files slowly instead of dumping everything everywhere in 3 months. Id rather have them spread out than give them all the same time stamp upon uploading.

I think that is a wise move, however I think shutterstock is also hitting us by port date and our new images are not selling.

I agree about being indie, as of last month I am now making more at DT, FT & 123 than I am on SS.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #709 on: March 10, 2014, 11:20 »
+8
Quote
I think the low ball pricing  has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.

You hit the nail!
And in his recent interview Jon Oringer confirmed that all use is commercial you can ask yourself why companies that make a lot of money with our work can only spend a few Dollars for it. The truth is they could easily spend a lot more but it's all sacrificed for the greed of market-share.
The link to the interview is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/


I am genuinely surprised that most people are completing missing or discounting this important contributing factor. When you mentioned it in threads they dismiss it with comments to get back on topic.  The downward business pressures shutterstock is exerting via this long term move to grab market, share seems to have gone by virtually unnoticed.


I've mentioned it several times, but it always gets voted down by the SS lovers.

I've been round the block enough times to see (outwith stock) that businesses (usually funded by a billionaire or two) who employ mass predatory tactics and force down prices to gain market share, making rivals bankrupt in the process trying to compete, shaft both suppliers and consumers once they have a virtual monopoly.
Example: a bus company decided to use predatory tactics hereabouts. They somehow acquired a huge fleet, cheap drivers and had busses every 5-10 minutes charging half the price on virtually every bus route in the area. When the other companies gave up, of course they hiked the fares up to higher than they'd been before - but even worse, cherry-picked routes and just cut the services which yielded little profit (meaning people in smaller communities in this largely rural area couldn't get to shops, hospitals etc.). And as they were the only game in town (for a while, things have changed since) the drivers could only work for them, and got lower wages.

I have plenty other examples, which I'm sure most people have in their own localities.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 15:26 by ShadySue »

« Reply #710 on: March 10, 2014, 11:23 »
+2
If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question  - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?


This is where I completely agree with you, if Bruce can accomplish this in one years time, Shutterstock could certainly do the same. The fact is that they choose to pay their contributors 28% while keeping pricing stagnantly low to gain markets share.

I think the low ball pricing  has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.

You hit the nail!
And in his recent interview Jon Oringer confirmed that all use is commercial you can ask yourself why companies that make a lot of money with our work can only spend a few Dollars for it. The truth is they could easily spend a lot more but it's all sacrificed for the greed of market-share.
The link to the interview is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/


I am genuinely surprised that most people are completing missing or discounting this important contributing factor. When you mentioned it in threads they dismiss it with comments to get back on topic.  The downward business pressures shutterstock is exerting via this long term move to grab market, share seems to have gone by virtually unnoticed.

Quote from:  link=topic=22111.msg369757#msg369757 date=1394433888
But again: what does this all have to do with Getty deciding to give out files for free? Including RM content? And will their decisions encourage more exclusives to leave? Or will it attract new people who want to work only with them?



iStock applied the original downward pressure by introducing microstock. Now they've really increased pressure by making millions of files "free." I think that's the more egregious approach of the two.


I agree however according to Jon Oringer it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. Per Jon SS undercuts its main competition 2, 3 to 4 times in order of magnitude. If analyst can see this why do we dismiss it. After all we pay to produce the content they sell and we have the most to lose.

Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares.

Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?

And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.

Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 11:29 by gbalex »

Ron

« Reply #711 on: March 10, 2014, 11:24 »
+1
So Shutterstock killed old files and new files. What are they selling then? Medium old-new files?


« Reply #712 on: March 10, 2014, 11:26 »
+3
In my case they haven't been selling much of anything since Wednesday last week!!

farbled

« Reply #713 on: March 10, 2014, 11:50 »
0
I agree however according to Jon Oringer it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. Per Jon SS undercuts its main competition 2, 3 to 4 times in order of magnitude. If analyst can see this why do we dismiss it. After all we pay to produce the content they sell and we have the most to lose.

I dismiss it because except for a few rare instances I make more per download at SS than at any other agency I'm with (or was with). Best of the worst maybe? I still need to sell. There is a glaring lack of better alternatives that can make up my income right now. I can't get into mid-stock yet since I have to up my game a bit more, so it's Shutterstock or quits for me right now.

« Reply #714 on: March 10, 2014, 11:53 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:17 by tickstock »

farbled

« Reply #715 on: March 10, 2014, 11:55 »
0
I agree however according to Jon Oringer it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. Per Jon SS undercuts its main competition 2, 3 to 4 times in order of magnitude. If analyst can see this why do we dismiss it. After all we pay to produce the content they sell and we have the most to lose.

I dismiss it because except for a few rare instances I make more per download at SS than at any other agency I'm with (or was with). Best of the worst maybe? I still need to sell. There is a glaring lack of better alternatives that can make up my income right now. I can't get into mid-stock yet since I have to up my game a bit more, so it's Shutterstock or quits for me right now.
Are you sure there are no alternatives for you?  Your subject matter looks specialized and it seems like you have access a lot of other people don't, that seems like a good fit for Macro work?
I got into Alamy and never saw a single cent after a year, Mid-stock and RM don't seem interested either. Its tough because there are relatively few purely industrial RM sites (there are some but the best one is mid-merger and going away). So I stick with what pays. Now that it's been up a while, I can't see RM going after my images since they've been RF for quite some time. I'd have to do a huge revamp and re-shoot with new content.

« Reply #716 on: March 10, 2014, 13:28 »
+7
Here is a great analysis of the situation by Michael.

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/why-getty-decided-to-offer-images-for-free/

Short version:

Getty has debts of about two Billion dollars due in November 2015. More than double their revenue. Under traditional valuation as a media company, they can command a P/E of about 15-18 times profit. Rebrand as a technology company, they can get double the money, with a P/E around 30.

I guess that would be worth throwing out 35 million files to the internet. Especially if they dont use their own content but that from crowd sourced contributors.

What do you think? Is the rebranding before Getty is sold the main motivation for this bizarre decision?





Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #717 on: March 10, 2014, 13:53 »
+3
Here is a great analysis of the situation by Michael.

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/why-getty-decided-to-offer-images-for-free/

Short version:

Getty has debts of about two Billion dollars due in November 2015. More than double their revenue. Under traditional valuation as a media company, they can command a P/E of about 15-18 times profit. Rebrand as a technology company, they can get double the money, with a P/E around 30.

I guess that would be worth throwing out 35 million files to the internet. Especially if they dont use their own content but that from crowd sourced contributors.

What do you think? Is the rebranding before Getty is sold the main motivation for this bizarre decision?


Makes perfect sense.

« Reply #718 on: March 10, 2014, 17:22 »
+3
Here is a great analysis of the situation by Michael.

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/why-getty-decided-to-offer-images-for-free/

Short version:

Getty has debts of about two Billion dollars due in November 2015. More than double their revenue. Under traditional valuation as a media company, they can command a P/E of about 15-18 times profit. Rebrand as a technology company, they can get double the money, with a P/E around 30.

I guess that would be worth throwing out 35 million files to the internet. Especially if they dont use their own content but that from crowd sourced contributors.

What do you think? Is the rebranding before Getty is sold the main motivation for this bizarre decision?


Great article - thanks for sharing.  And yes, I think it lays out the case very well.

In a nutshell, it is a simple change.  Getty doesn't really want to be in the photo business - they want to be an internet "play" like Yahoo or Google or Facebook.  Sure - they'll lose some (or a lot) of photographers over their decision to let online use of 35 million images become "free".  But if the Carlyle Group can sell them for a billion or two more than they bought them - especially before their big loan payments are due - then they'll do so happily.

If you cannot compete in a game - one of the best ways to enable yourself to win is to change the rules - or change the game.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 17:28 by jeffclow »

« Reply #719 on: March 10, 2014, 19:28 »
0
Getty and Flickr are officially split now. Getty Flickr collection will now named as Moment.

shudderstok

« Reply #720 on: March 10, 2014, 21:19 »
+5
Getty and Flickr are officially split now. Getty Flickr collection will now named as Moment.

yes i heard rumors the contract expired and the photographers actually wanted to be paid for all usage of their images.

seems GI could not agree to the heavy demands of paying photographers for their work and also had issues accepting that the images were not theirs to give away freely for their own greedy motives.

this is all speculation of course and hypothetical :)

« Reply #721 on: March 10, 2014, 21:34 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 20:19 by onepointfour »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #722 on: March 10, 2014, 21:56 »
+4
Well, they have to make up for the exodus that must be happening now.

« Reply #723 on: March 11, 2014, 01:51 »
+3
In the end the market forces will handle it. High quality producers who need to make a living of their work will flock to stocksy and others that sell direct and cater to customers who prefer images that are not avialable for free to the whole internet.

Shutterstock and other micros will keep adding business clients who prefer to pay 30 cents for a XXXL file, plus SS and the micros are good at handling large volumes of smaller clients, as well as the entrepreneurial contributors who work for the high volume market.

Those who love "exposure" more than money will supply getty with wide eyes and happily add the "getty awards" icon to their website that tells the world they are a "gettyimages artist".

Getty can then happily rebrand as a technology business selling links,eyeballs and ad data and maybe one day get ad revenue, while they make one nice hefty payout during their IPO.

They will also have a much younger crowd of users. At least until someone else is "cool" has the better idea to attract user generated content and they become the next myspace.

But maybe they can keep buying them, always adding more eyeballs to their network.

It will also mean they can avoid a direct comparison with SS when they do reach the stockmarket.

SS sells image licenses, Getty sells eyeballs and links. A growth story that doesn't need to make a profit for years while they build their network.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 02:08 by cobalt »

« Reply #724 on: March 11, 2014, 02:19 »
+16
In the end the market forces will handle it.

No they won't.

That's the kind of woolly thinking that's got Western society into this mess where the rich are hundreds of times better off than everyone else.

This is one of the cases where governments need to produce legislation to enable producers to live off their work in the 21st Century and beyond.

It'll be howlingly unpopular with industry lobbyists and dumb consumers who think they want everything free, but it will be necessary in the end to prevent massive greedy players destroying everyone else and themselves in the long run.

Capitalism is the best system we've come up with so far, but business needs to be run for the benefit of society, rather than society run for the benefit of business - which is what the rich and foolish currently espouse.

Anyway, rant over. Back to the subject in hand...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13164 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5330 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
3808 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
107 Replies
49327 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
1799 Views
Last post May 19, 2022, 21:25
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors