http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2069329/getty-images-contributors-urged-sign-contracts

....I am shocked. 

Cora, with her stock photographer hat on.
 

I don't think so. The photog still has the choice and it's only for images that have not sold in a couple of years.

No. I think there will always be someone willing to pay a higher price for a truly unique image no one else has access to.

I have not read the specifics of what they want the photographers to do, but I for one would be pissed if they didn't give me the option to pull the image and offer it as RM somewhere else. If this move is really about cleaning out the cobwebs, they should have no objection at all...something makes me doubt their motivations are that black and white... 

I am not surprised at all,  been with their main-core RM, privately and with studio-name since 93 and its been one gigantic downhill slope since at least 97. This is one of the reasons I have run my own RM-outlet, offline, since 2001.
Sure buyers will always demand copyrighted and licenced material but today its very, very few and far in between and seriously, I dont hink its worth them investing in RM anymore, much thanks to us here, feeding the Micro ofcourse.

Its going to be very interesting though,  how they are going to enforce this on their top shooters from Image-Bank, etc, I cant really see the likes of Turner, Maisel, Glinn, Satterwhite, Woolf, Lanting, etc, etc, willingly supply to the micro industries.

...

Quote from: Zeus on May 09, 2011, 21:50

I don't think so. The photog still has the choice and it's only for images that have not sold in a couple of years.

This might meet the slimmest and most technical definition of choice, but that's about it.

If they said that the photographer could deactivate the photos that didn't sell after 3 years as an alternative to moving to RF and Thinkstock, that might be an OK choice, but Getty refuses to offer that claiming it's too burdensome administratively. IMO that's bollocks.

If they offered an opt out for images going to Thinkstock, it might be OK, but they won't do that either.

They set limits on the number of photos that can be exempted from the RM to RF transition and the photographer has to document why.

This is a naked, greedy powerplay by a company that treats photographers very badly.  I certainly hope some of Getty's big earners tell them to stuff it, but I doubt that's going to happen.

I believe you have the option of removing the image rather than having it go to RF.  And I don't think it goes to Thinkstock but rather the traditional RF or some yet to be conceived higher end subscription model. The argument is if an image hasn't sold as an RM image in a couple of years should it go to RF in an attempt to sell?

Sorry for the double post.

A retailer will certainly clean it's shelves of unsold goods periodically. In that case it usually has a drastic sale, transfers the items to a discount/outlet location, or dump the items to a separate business that specializes in such things for pennies on the dollar. It's smart business and must be done. In Getty's case however they do not own the items, simply "renting" them rent-free in exchange for future earnings. That Getty is now claiming that they have the right (by new agreements) to dispose of those images as they see fit with no compensation and no consent of the owners seems to be pushing the ethics envelope. Why there's no Yes/No option is beyond me.
The "cross section" consultation they speak about is an age-old way of diffusing responsibility for onerous action. It's obvious that they constructed the marketing plan then found a way to absolve themselves from the stink.

I think that they will carry this off without a lot of loss of contributors. Very wily on their part. They understand the dynamics of the business. The supply is immense, the outlets not so many. And they still have the name pizazz. Too bad.

Hi All,

 Getty does not own the stock industry. Do not let yourselves be lured in by one contract. There are many strong agencies out there that are not following the Getty model and also do not have plans to sell their agency. Check out the collection at Corbis title 'Ocean " these are Getty photographers images being sold on Corbis. This stock bed is small but it is a California king size model

Best,
Jonathan

Hi All,

 Getty does not own the stock industry. Do not let yourselves be lured in by one contract. There are many strong agencies out there that are not following the Getty model and also do not have plans to sell their agency. Check out the collection at Corbis title 'Ocean " these are Getty photographers images being sold on Corbis. This stock bed is small but it is a California king size model

Best,
Jonathan

Ive been with Corbis ( under a pseudo)  NOT impressed at all!  they seam to suffer the Getty complex, IMO.  Know what they did?  dont want to mention any names but I suggested to a photographer to join them, just his name alone would make people stand in a que for his images. These lunatics at Corbis adviced him to join their Micro, Veers marketplace.

Today his images sell via Getty for tens of thousands of dollars!

So much for Corbis.

best.

Quote from: HughStoneIan on May 10, 2011, 09:19

My favorite lines are from the last paragraph, quoting A. Saunders:

"...discussed the proposed changes with a cross-section of creative contributors..." (how did they pick this "cross-section"??)

Did they pick any at all? The "creative contributors" have taken a vow of silence so we can't expect to hear their comments ... meaning there is no evidence Getty spoke to anybody. Except GI said it in a PR statement.

Fortunately, I have absolute faith in GI's truthfulness in everything they have ever said so I am certain they didn't just agree this among themselves an then impose it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That, after all, is NOT the way Getty works. Is it?

I can't speak for this cross section of photogs, but there was a lot of discussion on the Getty Contributor forums (not the istock-getty forum, some new forums that Getty has on their contributor site).  And it did seem that the contract language changed a bit based on feedback from there (or so it seemed).  However, I just don't have much trust in these guys, nice guys they may be (just like the nice guys at istock).  I've been waiting since January to get my small portfolio removed from Getty and still it sits there, despite several attempts to have them remove it and promises from them that it would be.  I laughed out loud when I got the email from them inviting me to sign the new contract.  seriously?  how many times do I have to tell those guys I quit? 

Well said Helix,

 We all have the choice where our work is sold. The seller has the right to set the price. End of story, as much as we don't like it. If you don't like a contract it is up to you not to sign it, that is business. I signed the new Getty contract, don't like it but they make me a lot of money. Once again this world is full of stock agencies to choose from pick the ones you like the most and try to enjoy your life. If the stock industry does not make a strong enough income for you then try something different.

Best,
Jonathan