Author Topic: Getty retires RR collection moves it to RM (Read 9695 times)

avava · « **on:** January 09, 2009, 15:27 »

I know it doesn't mean a lot to some of you yet but yesterday Getty announced they would be moving all RR images to RM in a month and will be doing away with RR.

Best,
AVAVA

RT · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2009, 17:00 »

Well that didn't last long!

avava · « **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2009, 17:14 »

I read the post in more detail and they are keeping it for their footage department only.

AVAVA

noam · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2009, 12:13 »

hi Jonathan.

I'm a bit lost here, either I don't understand the RR concept (regarding pricing) or I don't understand Getty's price policy. If I understood right, you once mentioned about your RR collection, that:

Quote from: AVAVA on November 30, 2008, 13:46

...my returns there are my strongest anywhere...

Wasn't that thanks to a lower price structure on RR than for RM (if this is right)? or was it for more salable images on that collection? And if so, why would Getty set a higher price structure in such an economical time?

Hope I made myself clear.
I'm confused

Noam

avava · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2009, 12:50 »

Hi Noam,

It wasn't so much a lower price structure just more flexable usage for the final buyer to make the RM style more appealing and less of a hassle for the buyer. The buyer finally decides if a new business model will work or not. Getty must feel that the Buyer is happy wit the standard RM and RF structure or that RR is a bit redundant in some ways that would be my guess.

Best to you sir.
AVAVA

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2009, 13:59 »

I think it's a good step. Certainly makes sense if RR is too be retired that it would transfer to RM.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #6 on:** January 12, 2009, 14:33 »

I hate being the one to ask ... but .... What is RR?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** January 12, 2009, 14:40 »

Rights Ready - http://www.gettyimages.com/Creative/RightsReady.aspx

Simplified Rights Managed, sort of.

ZymmMan · « **Reply #8 on:** January 12, 2009, 17:20 »

Could you please post the link where you have seen this information? The Getty site makes no mention of it nor do I see any press release.
Thanks !!!

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #9 on:** January 12, 2009, 18:51 »

Quote from: ZymmMan on January 12, 2009, 17:20

Could you please post the link where you have seen this information? The Getty site makes no mention of it nor do I see any press release.
Thanks !!!

http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=1828

avava · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2009, 00:10 »

Hi Zeus,

Don't expect to see all their RR collections move to RM I think some of the third party companies will see their RR collections moved to RF which could be a bit sad for the copyright owners of those images but a part of this always changing game. That is why I say diversify as much as possible people.

Best,
AVAVA

ZymmMan · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:05 »

Blaneyphoto,

The site is password protected. Can you copy and paste it here maybe ?

thanks

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:19 »

Quote from: ZymmMan on January 13, 2009, 09:05

Blaneyphoto,

The site is password protected. Can you copy and paste it here maybe ?

thanks

Sorry, didn't realize that. But, if its meant for contributors only, I don't want to copy it.

ZymmMan · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:26 »

Blaneyphoto,

No problem. I respect that. Quick question for you. Do you also license the celebrity images in your portfolio through Istock ? If so, I would be curious to know how well it works ?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:34 »

You cannot license celebrity or any other people type images without a model release on iStock.

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #15 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:34 »

Quote from: ZymmMan on January 13, 2009, 09:26

Blaneyphoto,

No problem. I respect that. Quick question for you. Do you also license the celebrity images in your portfolio through Istock ? If so, I would be curious to know how well it works ?

It would be nice if I could but those would have to be model released to upload to iStock, which they aren't. All my music and celeb stuff is done on assignment and used editorially, so no release required.

stock shooter · « **Reply #16 on:** January 13, 2009, 10:59 »

Does anyone here have images with Getty as RF and RM (or RR)? If so, can you comment on which model seems to earn more for you? I paid to place images with Getty shortly after they started their pay to play scheme and initially we had to submit images as RR. Now I'm considering sending more images and trying to decide if they should be RM or RF. Thanks.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #17 on:** January 13, 2009, 11:56 »

Quote from: stock shooter on January 13, 2009, 10:59

Does anyone here have images with Getty as RF and RM (or RR)? If so, can you comment on which model seems to earn more for you? I paid to place images with Getty shortly after they started their pay to play scheme and initially we had to submit images as RR. Now I'm considering sending more images and trying to decide if they should be RM or RF. Thanks.

It's impossible to answer this since it is so image dependent. Some will swear RM is the only way, others RF only, or some combination. I suggest you play with it.

stock shooter · « **Reply #18 on:** January 13, 2009, 19:35 »

Quote

It's impossible to answer this since it is so image dependent. Some will swear RM is the only way, others RF only, or some combination. I suggest you play with it.

I disagree. For some people they choose one licensing model over the other for all their images, others for certain types of images however, others still use the licensing models very interchangeably. Regardless of the type of images most people who have at least few hundred images in both licensing models can conclude which one is making them more money. I'm not asking for the particulars, no need to analyze the imagery in one model over the other, just simple answers will suffice. I seem to make more money from my RM than my RF on Getty, for example.

avava · « **Reply #19 on:** January 13, 2009, 23:38 »

Hi Stock Shooter,

Zues is really right on this one it differs from model to model and photographer to photographer through my personal experience. I can offer this much information but it only supports how far across the board it goes.
It is very hard to tell what you will make from RM. Macro RF is at about $150 an image and dropping but I know people making $275 for their Macro RF ad I know people that have an RPI of $50 on Macro RF it all depends on what you shoot and how well it fits the buyers needs. RR is more again very similar to RM because you can have an images sit for 5 years and then suddenly sell for something big like $15,000 return I have seen this many times from several RM shooters.

Hope this helps,
AVAVA

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #20 on:** January 14, 2009, 01:26 »

Quote from: stock shooter on January 13, 2009, 19:35

Quote
It's impossible to answer this since it is so image dependent. Some will swear RM is the only way, others RF only, or some combination. I suggest you play with it.

I disagree. For some people they choose one licensing model over the other for all their images, others for certain types of images however, others still use the licensing models very interchangeably. Regardless of the type of images most people who have at least few hundred images in both licensing models can conclude which one is making them more money. I'm not asking for the particulars, no need to analyze the imagery in one model over the other, just simple answers will suffice. I seem to make more money from my RM than my RF on Getty, for example.

There are still some photographers who are philosophically apposed to any sort of RF license model. Most of us have long since accepted stock photography as being some combination of RF and RM. Some are better suited to shoot RF style images. They can produce many great generic images that fit the RF license model. Then there are others who are perfectionist aficionados who love honing single images or small groups of really unique images and they do better in the RM field. Then there are those who toss images at both licenses and sit back and watch what happens. If there was no money in RM photographers would have themselves, long since, abandoned it.

Your style of images may well do better in one model rather than the other and you will likely argue that that model is the best. But only for you.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #21 on:** January 14, 2009, 13:58 »

Quote from: blaneyphoto on January 13, 2009, 09:19

Quote from: ZymmMan on January 13, 2009, 09:05
Blaneyphoto,

The site is password protected. Can you copy and paste it here maybe ?

thanks

Sorry, didn't realize that. But, if its meant for contributors only, I don't want to copy it.

It's there for anyone who takes the time to open an account, even non-contributors.

Through constant communication with our customers over the past two years, we’ve learned that in addition to the need for simpler, faster licensing, customers also want to maintain their ability to very precisely fine-tune their licensing.

Therefore, we have decided to evolve our rights-managed creative stills pricing to include improved flexible license packs, incorporating our learnings from the rights-ready model. Once the improved license packs are in place for rights-managed, we will phase out the “rights-ready” model for creative stills collections.

Evolution of the licensing, with RR being phased out as a specific set license.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty retires RR collection moves it to RM (Read 9695 times)

avava

RT

avava

noam

avava

PeterChigmaroff

WarrenPrice

Sean Locke Photography

ZymmMan

blackwaterimages

avava

ZymmMan

blackwaterimages

ZymmMan

Sean Locke Photography

blackwaterimages

stock shooter

PeterChigmaroff

stock shooter

avava

PeterChigmaroff

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors