MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Getty Flickr deal part two.  (Read 6582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

e-person

« on: January 22, 2009, 13:48 »
0


RacePhoto

« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2009, 14:26 »
0
They will accept images starting from 3MP.

More on:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2009/01/21/getty-images/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/gettyimagesonflickr/



Not anything of mine. Let me say, no, not, never.  :D

« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2009, 14:44 »
0
I can't think of another scenario as ridiculous as this for any decent photographer. It was truly bizarre the first time I heard of this and I can't see there's been any changes made.
"No thanks" a thousand times to this scam.

« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2009, 15:42 »
0
Sounds like the PhotoShelter Collection, these are some comments from Getty members over at Flickr

No images that require a Model release!

Content: Actually, what we really love (and believe our customers will love) about the Flickr Collection is that it is NOT created with a stock mindset, it's photographers who are creating images based on their own unique visions. So right now we really want to see everyone pretty much continuing to do what you do so well, without us pushing you to follow too many "guidelines" or lists...

Filesize: FYI our minimum filesize requirement for the Flickr Collection is 3 megapixels -- though if a photographer has a larger file it's in their best interest to upload the largest available (to Getty, not to Flickr).

Exclusivity: For images selected for the Collection, that you have agreed to include, (you can choose to include or not include any images we've invited) Getty Images needs exclusive rights to sell those images and images substantially similar to them in a commercial context.
Any and all of your other non-similar photographs not in the Flickr collection can be sold freely by you.
Also, even the images (and similars) that are in the Collection you can still use for self-promotion (on your website, in portfolios, etc.) and in limited-edition fine-art prints (as a lot of Flickrites do).

Licencing: A few people have asked or commented wondering what the royalty rates are that we will be paying to photographers from Flickr.

To us the images we selected for the Flickr Collection are every bit as valuable as our other creative stills! The Flickr collection will be licensed at the same prices as our other RM and RF collections. You can get a sense of the prices by going to the gettyimages.com site -- prices for RF are posted with the RF images, and there is a price calculator with the RM images.

For RM, the royalty rate in our standard agreement is split between in- and out-of-territory sales: 40% in (home)-territory and 30% out-of-territory. Home territory is usually based on the contributor's country/location. The rate for some of our image partner contributors is less than 30%.

For the Flickr Collection we cant support the in- and out-of-territory rate structure for such a global initiative so we've set the rate for the Flickr Collection at 30% worldwide for RM. This ends up being a slightly higher than average worldwide rate, taking into consideration all of our contributors, including our image partner contributors.

For RF, our rate across the board, including for the Flickr Collection, is 20%.

David  ;D
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 15:49 by Adeptris »

tan510jomast

« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2009, 19:13 »
0
We have to realise that majority of Flickr people are just fun shooters who find it interesting just showing off their pictures. Some have outstanding photographs, but not consistently outstanding. Still, unless we see them in larger size, we won't know anything about noise and artifacts. 3MP is small enough to hide this. Moreover, most of them , as I said, are not interested in becoming stock photographers,so seeing their photos published is a hoot to them. And of course, this serves Getty's purpose.
Is it good or bad? Well, I am not sure. Is it good or bad that we sell our photos for 30 cents? It's relative , isn't it?
Just my quarter's worth of personal opinion ! (so  don't  get angry to throw those leftover tamales at me... !! running for cover ) ;D
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 19:18 by tan510jomast »

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2009, 19:42 »
0
I may be missing something, but I don't see a down side to this.  Flikr photogs may (or may not) see some sales from this, but as already pointed out, any sales will probably be fun for them. 

Unless Getty decides to dump Flikr images in the micro market, causing an avalanche of additional imagery, this should actually remove them as potential competition to the micros, won't it? 

Like I said, I may be missing something...

tan510jomast

« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2009, 20:43 »
0
I may be missing something, but I don't see a down side to this.  Flikr photogs may (or may not) see some sales from this, but as already pointed out, any sales will probably be fun for them. 

Unless Getty decides to dump Flikr images in the micro market, causing an avalanche of additional imagery, this should actually remove them as potential competition to the micros, won't it? 

Like I said, I may be missing something...

Ya Lisa, that's the way I see it too. I have many friends in Flickr and none of them wants to be in micro. I wanted them so I could get the affliation, but they all say no way.  And you are right, them staying with Flickr means they are not coming in to be "potential competition". I see it like that other site with free photos ( can't remember the name).
Also, they (the flickr  photographers) will not be setting out to shoot stock photos, so it's not like a whole new breed of stock photographers. They shoot for fun.

« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2009, 23:27 »
0

No images that require a Model release!

David  ;D

Do you mean that Getty won't be accepting Flickr shots that require a model release???  If so, that's really going to cut down their (Getty's) potential pool of available photos.  What about images that require Property release??


« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2009, 03:07 »
0
At the moment Getty/Flickr have send out invitations for special pictures, that means, they decide which picture they would like to have. It is not possible to send other pictures to them.

I've got an invitation for 11 pictures, but i'm using my Flickr account to publish pictures with heavy colour treatment etc. and I don't think they will made it through the final inspection, unless they ignore artifacts and noise.


e-person

« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2009, 04:44 »
0
At the moment Getty/Flickr have send out invitations for special pictures, that means, they decide which picture they would like to have. It is not possible to send other pictures to them.

I've got an invitation for 11 pictures, but i'm using my Flickr account to publish pictures with heavy colour treatment etc. and I don't think they will made it through the final inspection, unless they ignore artifacts and noise.



Can I ask you what type of images they selected?

My understanding is that they are looking for lifestyle photos.

Thanks

Giuseppe

« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2009, 05:16 »
0
Quote
Can I ask you what type of images they selected?

My understanding is that they are looking for lifestyle photos.

7 pics are landscapes/trees and 4 animal pictures - no lifestyle at all.

e-person

« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2009, 05:47 »
0
Quote
Can I ask you what type of images they selected?

My understanding is that they are looking for lifestyle photos.

7 pics are landscapes/trees and 4 animal pictures - no lifestyle at all.

Thank you very much indeed.

I am actually glad to hear that, as most of the photos I do enjoy taking are exactly of that type. Microstock is getting sillier by the minute.

Tuilay

« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2009, 09:23 »
0
At the moment Getty/Flickr have send out invitations for special pictures, that means, they decide which picture they would like to have. It is not possible to send other pictures to them.

I've got an invitation for 11 pictures, but i'm using my Flickr account to publish pictures with heavy colour treatment etc. and I don't think they will made it through the final inspection, unless they ignore artifacts and noise.

excuse me ulmu, i am confused here, ESPECIALLY your last statement "unless they ignore artifacts and noise".
Never mind what standards Getty /Flickr expects, but how could you as a photographer even dare to publish a photograph IGNORING NOISE AND ARTIFACTS ?
i've thrown away prints with even the slightest noise or fringes. i would do them again and process it to get rid of the noise and artifacts even on a print that i frame to hang in my studio, or give to my friends. i would not even think of letting NOISE AND ARTIFACT be on one of my shots for publication.

It's a standard you keep for yourself as a photographer, not just to avoid rejection from SS,IS,DT,etc.

« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2009, 10:04 »
0
At the moment Getty/Flickr have send out invitations for special pictures, that means, they decide which picture they would like to have. It is not possible to send other pictures to them.

I've got an invitation for 11 pictures, but i'm using my Flickr account to publish pictures with heavy colour treatment etc. and I don't think they will made it through the final inspection, unless they ignore artifacts and noise.

excuse me ulmu, i am confused here, ESPECIALLY your last statement "unless they ignore artifacts and noise".
Never mind what standards Getty /Flickr expects, but how could you as a photographer even dare to publish a photograph IGNORING NOISE AND ARTIFACTS ?
i've thrown away prints with even the slightest noise or fringes. i would do them again and process it to get rid of the noise and artifacts even on a print that i frame to hang in my studio, or give to my friends. i would not even think of letting NOISE AND ARTIFACT be on one of my shots for publication.

It's a standard you keep for yourself as a photographer, not just to avoid rejection from SS,IS,DT,etc.


I used to like film grain and sometimes noise can look like film grain.  I don't see why we should be eliminating it just because the microstock sites are paranoid about it.  Some of the best photos ever taken would be rejected by stock sites.  Eliminating noise can also decrease detail and for prints, I prefer a bit of noise than a plastic look.  Quite often artifacts are not noticeable on a print at a proper viewing distance so why waste time eliminating them?

Tuilay

« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2009, 11:44 »
0
-------------Quite often artifacts are not noticeable on a print at a proper viewing distance so why waste time eliminating them?--------------------
ah, good point Sharpshot.

« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2009, 14:24 »
0
Tuilay, to get recognized at Flickr with a tiny thumbnail pic, it is always good to oversaturate the picture - and as i'm offering them only in small size it makes no big sense to invest further work. Generally I agree with you - but Flickr is only fun ( or should be ) and no business!

Tuilay

« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2009, 15:10 »
0
Tuilay, to get recognized at Flickr with a tiny thumbnail pic, it is always good to oversaturate the picture - and as i'm offering them only in small size it makes no big sense to invest further work. Generally I agree with you - but Flickr is only fun ( or should be ) and no business!

gotcha, thx ulmu !


RacePhoto

« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2009, 22:05 »
0
I may be missing something, but I don't see a down side to this.  Flikr photogs may (or may not) see some sales from this, but as already pointed out, any sales will probably be fun for them. 

Unless Getty decides to dump Flikr images in the micro market, causing an avalanche of additional imagery, this should actually remove them as potential competition to the micros, won't it? 

Like I said, I may be missing something...

In my case I don't have a Flickr account and won't, unless I start some sort of photo blog just for fun. There are far too many people who think, and have said to me, "why should I pay for a photo, everything on the web is free?" So I won't be discovered by Getty.  ;D

The Flickr "Getty" program will be placing the photos into collections, similar to the Istock photographers being put on "Getty". It's not Getty Images, it's one of their partners or one of their Premium agencies like Photodisc. That's not putting it down, because Photodisc appears to pay better than Micro, but it's not really the big Getty Image agency, it's Getty Corporation. So hopefully that answers the question if Getty will be putting these on microstock. Not at this time, according to them.

« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2009, 10:40 »
0
This was stated in another forum but I feel the same way so I'll mention it here, it's darn frustrating that Getty has the time and resources to be trolling the million or so photos on Flickr for images from non stock wannabes and the time to discuss on an image by image basis, while they're charging me (photographer's choice collection) $50 per image with no editing and no direction, and taking two months per submission to get the images online.



Envato ElementsMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
13006 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 14:03
by tan510jomast
6 Replies
4321 Views
Last post July 25, 2008, 12:48
by anjo J
13 Replies
4314 Views
Last post January 29, 2009, 22:36
by jeffclow
28 Replies
10150 Views
Last post August 12, 2009, 23:17
by twobluedogs
23 Replies
5896 Views
Last post January 31, 2013, 21:37
by gostwyck

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements