pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty taps into Flickr snappers  (Read 8585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« 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
13767 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 14:03
by tan510jomast
6 Replies
4375 Views
Last post July 25, 2008, 12:48
by anjo J
18 Replies
6726 Views
Last post January 24, 2009, 10:40
by stock shooter
28 Replies
10483 Views
Last post August 12, 2009, 23:17
by twobluedogs
29 Replies
10288 Views
Last post December 17, 2009, 18:12
by PixelBitch

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results