pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty taps into Flickr snappers  (Read 10949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 17, 2010, 16:38 »
0


« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2010, 16:50 »
0
Enabled it on my profile but if they want 2 years exclusivity like before I will again got very few images that are not available somewhere else.

« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2010, 17:20 »
0

« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2010, 17:31 »
0
I read FAQ ans it is still exclusive and you cannot also sell similars somewhere else.

« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2010, 17:53 »
0
"When a request is made, Getty Images reviews the photographer's work. If it's suitable for the program they'll contact the Flickr member and help handle details like permissions, releases and pricing."

4 billion images (3.9 billion of which probably wont pass QC at 100%) .. can anybody say ... duh

I'm sure it saves them a hella lot of time because now they only need to invest time into images where an immediate sale is involved. However, it's also just one more notch in the timeline that adds to the total confusion of what is professional photography, value justification, consumer ignorance and overall bull#$% ... can you imagine how many idiots are gonna be running around making claims to be a Getty Photographer.

Here's an idea for a good poll ... how many CEOs and primary decision makers in the stock industry were actually skilled career photographers before becoming the people who determined it's future.

« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2010, 18:36 »
0
Some might have high quality images available on request. I personally only upload 2 mpix or less there but when they asked for larger image I could give them original size image. For some editorial images it probably does not matter anyway. I would guess they will find a lot more. It's not threat to microstock cause they require 2 year exclusivity but they could find few talented people from around the world who can sign in with macro model. Is this a threat to pros? I think introduction of affordable digital cameras did most damage already. Now crowdsourcing will continue to change industry like outsourcing changed many others.

« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2010, 18:36 »
0
I doubt it will affect much at the micro level.  Micro users aren't going to wait 2-7 days to pay Getty prices for content.

« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2010, 18:38 »
0
Now crowdsourcing will continue to change industry like outsourcing changed many others.

It's not like this is ground breaking.  All of these snappers could already be involved with micro or even macro if they wanted to.  So, either they don't want to, aren't up to technical snuff, or can't handle the legal aspect of it.  This shouldn't change that.

« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2010, 18:42 »
0
I doubt it will affect much at the micro level.  Micro users aren't going to wait 2-7 days to pay Getty prices for content.

I wonder if Getty got backup plan? What if image cannot be licensed? Do they offer similar from their collection?

« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2010, 19:02 »
0
One important question is what percentage is Getty offering the Flickr photographers and how much lower is it than what they offer "normal" Getty photographers.

« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2010, 02:47 »
0
i'm not sure if i read correctly , i believe flickr+getty has started working since 1 or 2 years ago ?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2010, 05:29 »
0
I don't think this is a big deal... for now.

If I'm reading this right it sounds like Getty will consider licensing an image if a buyer requests the image. This isn't like Getty just opened the door to let anybody in who wants in. They're now letting buyers pick who get in.

One good thing that may come of this is less Flickr people giving their photos away for free. In the long term this could raise overall industry pricing or even increase sales for micros. The freebie hunters who normally take advantage of Flickr snappers with BS "we'll give you credit and exposure" will now be facing some steep pricing which I doubt they'll pay. Where will they get their images now?

My biggest concern is what Getty will be doing over the next few years. This is only a natural progression toward recruiting a huge pool of ametuers who now have a foot in the door to learn how to improve quality and compete in stock.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2010, 03:07 »
0
I doubt it will affect much at the micro level.  Micro users aren't going to wait 2-7 days to pay Getty prices for content.

I wonder if Getty got backup plan? What if image cannot be licensed? Do they offer similar from their collection?
I'm quite sure. After all, what if the image the buyer wanted to buy wasn't up to Getty inspection standards? (the most requested image from my personal website was rejected 'no resubmit' at iStock because of 'flat light' [nothing new there]). Either they're going to lower their standards or they're going to offer backups. Then you've got the question of what if it's a truly unique photo (some unusual aspect of animal behaviour at night, for example). Would they say to the buyer, "No, too many artefacts, too much noise, not up to standard". Which would lead them to contact the author directly, which would have been better for the author from the outset (100%).

« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2010, 17:15 »
0
according to someone on another forum it looks like Getty is offering 20-30% depending on something (probably RF vs RM, etc). That is a pretty big slice for Getty to take considering someone else did all the work but the licensing (no keywording, no inspection of unwanted images, no running a search engine, etc. etc.).

It will be interesting where that goes in the long run... and how many end runs are done around Getty once people realize that both the buyer can save 50% and the photographers can make 50% more if they can cut out Getty.

« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2010, 19:04 »
0
according to someone on another forum it looks like Getty is offering 20-30% depending on something (probably RF vs RM, etc). That is a pretty big slice for Getty to take considering someone else did all the work but the licensing (no keywording, no inspection of unwanted images, no running a search engine, etc. etc.).

It will be interesting where that goes in the long run... and how many end runs are done around Getty once people realize that both the buyer can save 50% and the photographers can make 50% more if they can cut out Getty.

But you contribute to iStock that takes 80%  just like Flickr/Getty. I'm confused.

« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2010, 21:53 »
0
Istock takes a brutal %age, but theoretically they do a lot of marketing etc. (and even this is unsustainable? don't get me started on that)... For this it seems like all they are is acting as a go-between for someone who found an image on flickr with the person who posted it. Maybe they take 80% of everything they touch, but I thought in the macro world they were more like 50%. I can certainly see why they'd be excited from going from paying a lower percentage and having to host images etc. to a model where others do most of the work and they just get most of the money.

lagereek

« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2010, 00:02 »
0
"When a request is made, Getty Images reviews the photographer's work. If it's suitable for the program they'll contact the Flickr member and help handle details like permissions, releases and pricing."

4 billion images (3.9 billion of which probably wont pass QC at 100%) .. can anybody say ... duh

I'm sure it saves them a hella lot of time because now they only need to invest time into images where an immediate sale is involved. However, it's also just one more notch in the timeline that adds to the total confusion of what is professional photography, value justification, consumer ignorance and overall bull#$% ... can you imagine how many idiots are gonna be running around making claims to be a Getty Photographer.

Here's an idea for a good poll ... how many CEOs and primary decision makers in the stock industry were actually skilled career photographers before becoming the people who determined it's future.


Yeah!  once upon a time, it felt great to be an ImageBank shooter or TSW photographer, yes even a Getty photographer, it was something special. but sadly, youre right Randy, today its become a joke, lack of quality, lack of interest, the whole thing is being destroyed and by penny pinching greed.
This entire business is geared by square-eyed computer people, not creatives and my God!  it shows as well. The business is on a downhill road leading nowhere.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2010, 00:20 »
0
The business is on a downhill road leading nowhere.

I don't think it's leading to nowhere. It's leading toward convergence. Minus the elite pros, typical macro pros and ametuer community contributors will eventually all be under the same roof.

Do a search on Getty and also Istock. Pick any search term. I'm guessing you'll find Istock has a larger available selection. No wonder why Getty is recruiting ametuers.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 00:28 by PaulieWalnuts »

lagereek

« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2010, 00:50 »
0
The business is on a downhill road leading nowhere.

I don't think it's leading to nowhere. It's leading toward convergence. Minus the elite pros, typical macro pros and ametuer community contributors will eventually all be under the same roof.

Do a search on Getty and also Istock. Pick any search term. I'm guessing you'll find Istock has a larger available selection. No wonder why Getty is recruiting ametuers.

We are more or less under the same roof already, Ive been shooting for the Getty-RM since 93, alongside with IS, since 2006,  and there are hundereds of photographers like me done the same.

My point was: theres a general lack of quality thinking nowdays,  everything is geared towards quantity which is exactly what buyers DONT want,  only most agencies havent understood that, yet.

« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2010, 08:12 »
0
My point was: theres a general lack of quality thinking nowdays,  everything is geared towards quantity which is exactly what buyers DONT want,  only most agencies havent understood that, yet.
Quantity is what makes income. If buyers don't want it, they should revert to assignment shoots.

« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2010, 09:02 »
0
My point was: theres a general lack of quality thinking nowdays,  everything is geared towards quantity which is exactly what buyers DONT want,  only most agencies havent understood that, yet.
Quantity is what makes income. If buyers don't want it, they should revert to assignment shoots.

Agreed. The problem is, the buyers want quality without the assignment shoot prices. Hence the microstock model. It's all a catch-22.

« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2010, 09:53 »
0
The business is on a downhill road leading nowhere.

I don't think it's leading to nowhere. It's leading toward convergence. Minus the elite pros, typical macro pros and ametuer community contributors will eventually all be under the same roof.

Do a search on Getty and also Istock. Pick any search term. I'm guessing you'll find Istock has a larger available selection. No wonder why Getty is recruiting ametuers.

I think they refer to this sort of thing as mediocrity.

lagereek

« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2010, 10:31 »
0
My point was: theres a general lack of quality thinking nowdays,  everything is geared towards quantity which is exactly what buyers DONT want,  only most agencies havent understood that, yet.
Quantity is what makes income. If buyers don't want it, they should revert to assignment shoots.

Wrong!  quantity does not make money, unless a food store,  but we are led to believe that. The most sucessful agency ever, The-Image-Bank had some 3 million transparancies in their files and then a small collection of some 100000 very special images, this small collection represented some 75% of their turnover, there are numerous other examples.
We are told to constantly upload, why?  because that among all the rubbish there might just be that one/thousand of shots that might actually become a good seller.
Place yourself just for half an hour and look at whats being accepted:  brings tears to your eyes.

Dayrate or assignment shooting is on a totally differant level, you cant even compare it. However if micro buyers dont mind spending money, well, then they should buy RM or RF. Problem is the average buyer of Micro cant recognize quality either.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 10:35 by lagereek »

« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2010, 11:37 »
0
Wrong!  quantity does not make money, unless a food store,  but we are led to believe that. The most sucessful agency ever, The-Image-Bank had some 3 million transparancies in their files and then a small collection of some 100000 very special images, this small collection represented some 75% of their turnover, there are numerous other examples.
We are told to constantly upload, why?  because that among all the rubbish there might just be that one/thousand of shots that might actually become a good seller.
Place yourself just for half an hour and look at whats being accepted:  brings tears to your eyes.

Dayrate or assignment shooting is on a totally differant level, you cant even compare it. However if micro buyers dont mind spending money, well, then they should buy RM or RF. Problem is the average buyer of Micro cant recognize quality either.

I agree with the above. The only ones to really make any money off quantity are agencies. Could be that this business as a viable career is now dead. It's become a pyramid scheme that appears may soon crumble. It's hard not to lament the progression stock photography has taken. Those entering now don't see the trajectory the evolution of the business has taken.

« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2010, 14:13 »
0
The business is on a downhill road leading nowhere.

I don't think it's leading to nowhere. It's leading toward convergence. Minus the elite pros, typical macro pros and ametuer community contributors will eventually all be under the same roof.

Do a search on Getty and also Istock. Pick any search term. I'm guessing you'll find Istock has a larger available selection. No wonder why Getty is recruiting ametuers.

I agree fully. Its not just that there are more images, but also better images - the Getty searches look seriously dated. Its like comparing an Apple II to an iPad, just that the Apple II is still selling at its 1977 prices.

« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2010, 19:32 »
0
Getty search for "child hearing aid": all relevant, but dated. http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=creative&p=child%20hearing%20aid&assetType=image#

Istock search for the same phrase: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&oldtext=child hearing aid&abstractType=1023&filterContent=false&text=child "hearing aid" Mostly relevant, almost all modern.

Not something a lot of people will look for, but when they do, they need up do date pictures. Even the smallest hearing aids in getty's collection are twice the size of what kids use today.

lagereek

« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2010, 02:46 »
0
Back in the film days there used to be the High-end agencies and the middle of the road agencies. Today there isnt one single agency (among say the top 6) that can offer anything above the other, basically they are all the same, a mixed pot of identical shots.
hence a few promote they got exclusive photographers and what not but in reallity the buyers dont give a hoot.

Quality thinking hardly exist anymore and the only type of buyer that do consider quality are the AD-Agency creatives who are prepared to pay, They are also the ones commisioning photographers.

Fact still is, your average Micro and even RF buyer cant really recongnize quality anymore then the next guy so micro shooters, will create accordingly and the Agencies will ofcourse accept it into their files, as long as its technically correct.

Its pathetic to read the boast and bragging of an agency, proclaiming 10million shots, 100K contributors, etc.  who in . wants all that?


« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2010, 06:53 »
0

Its pathetic to read the boast and bragging of an agency, proclaiming 10million shots, 100K contributors, etc.  who in . wants all that?

I guess it means a lot to people who can't read the subtext, 10 million images = less then million quality images.  100K contributors = less than 1000 producting anything of quality. :-\

lagereek

« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2010, 07:49 »
0

Its pathetic to read the boast and bragging of an agency, proclaiming 10million shots, 100K contributors, etc.  who in . wants all that?

I guess it means a lot to people who can't read the subtext, 10 million images = less then million quality images.  100K contributors = less than 1000 producting anything of quality. :-\

Hi Thomas!

Yep,  I quess you worded it better then me.  Good to hear from you!  well we have to keep it up, dont we?

« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2010, 09:37 »
0
We can keep it up, but sometime it feel like we're just pissing up a rope. 

lagereek

« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2010, 12:00 »
0
We can keep it up, but sometime it feel like we're just pissing up a rope. 

Thats a bloody good saying, like that one!!  well, how do we bend this rope downwards?  we can piss downhill!  ha, ha.

all the best.  Chris

« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2010, 12:23 »
0

One good thing that may come of this is less Flickr people giving their photos away for free. In the long term this could raise overall industry pricing or even increase sales for micros. The freebie hunters who normally take advantage of Flickr snappers with BS "we'll give you credit and exposure" will now be facing some steep pricing which I doubt they'll pay. Where will they get their images now?



Paul Melcher had a similar take - http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/06/21/blowing-a-candle/

"It will only help the widening market to know and understand that usages of images should be compensated for, and for a reasonable price...So, although we might not be huge fans of Getty on this blog, we reasonably give them a big Kudos for advancing the cause of our industry with this move."

He does mention that this will only add to the challenge for individual stock photographers at Getty, but at least it will be from people attempting to license images.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2010, 21:26 »
0
Hey Rahul,

Good catch. Looks like Melcher reads MSG  ;D

I'm not really sure this will affect Getty contributors much... for now. This new deal just seems like more image cherry picking and a way for Getty to quickly get their tentacles around Flickr.

The big shakeup will come in the next phases. Getty will either buy Flickr, really open the floodgate to ametuers at Getty, or, and this is my guess, Getty will take this request feature one step further by jointly developing an agency-style shopping back-end for Flickr.

Yahoo has been bleeding money from Flickr because they never figured out a way to make money from it. Here's way to make some money back. 

« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2010, 22:02 »
0
Why would a flickr user want to lose 80% of the profit when without this, people just contact them by email and work it out?

« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2010, 23:13 »
0
Why would a flickr user want to lose 80% of the profit when without this, people just contact them by email and work it out?

It's possible to get buyers that don't want to deal with amateurs. It's possible to get amateurs that don't want to deal with buyers. From forums I see lots of folks who agree with you and will not opt in.

lagereek

« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2010, 00:53 »
0
Why would a flickr user want to lose 80% of the profit when without this, people just contact them by email and work it out?

Agreeing!  I was about to ask the same thing.

XPTO

« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2010, 02:29 »
0
Why would a flickr user want to lose 80% of the profit when without this, people just contact them by email and work it out?

Agreeing!  I was about to ask the same thing.

Speaking for myself, I prefer to have someone with the experience and means to get the money from the buyer if it plans on not paying than doing it myself. How can I get the money from an Indonesian, Argentinian, Alaskan or even from a European dishonest buyer? It's simply impossible to me. Even in my country I would have difficulties and the royalties probably wouldn't cover the expense.

Despite the 80/70% cut is huge and I dislike it profoundly, especially compared to the 40% from Alamy, Getty offers the insurance to get 20/30% of the sale and not a big 0% and the frustration of being ripped off.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 02:31 by XPTO »



« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2010, 13:28 »
0

« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2010, 13:34 »
0
Enabled Getty option on Flickr, disconnected RSS feed and removed images on ClusterShot. Previously that was my attempt on selling Flickr images. I haven't sold a single one since I started so no difference. Lets see how Getty will do in comparison :-) The only problem I see is that best images from Flickr are available on microstock sites so I cannot license them anyway.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
22574 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 14:03
by tan510jomast
6 Replies
5397 Views
Last post July 25, 2008, 12:48
by anjo J
18 Replies
8682 Views
Last post January 24, 2009, 10:40
by stock shooter
28 Replies
15377 Views
Last post August 12, 2009, 23:17
by twobluedogs
29 Replies
14116 Views
Last post December 17, 2009, 18:12
by PixelBitch

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors