From the Beeb;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8744817.stm

Here is the Flickr blog post about it:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2010/06/17/request-to-license-via-getty-images-is-here/

"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.

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 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 not sure if i read correctly , i believe flickr+getty has started working since 1 or 2 years ago ?

Quote from: sjlocke on June 17, 2010, 18:36

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%).

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.

"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.

Quote from: lagereek on June 20, 2010, 00:02

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.

Quote from: lagereek on June 20, 2010, 00:50

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.

Quote from: lagereek on June 20, 2010, 00:50

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.

Quote from: lagereek on June 20, 2010, 00:02

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.