MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hang on, I thought Getty were giving away web use images for free anyway?  (Read 1771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 18, 2014, 03:42 »
+4
Getty may have made small images really expensive, but on the other hand, they are also giving them away for free!

Isn't this new model designed to push web use images towards their embedded image platform - for free.

In turn, these are then used as advertising for print resolution sales at a higher price?

That's what it looks like to me anyway.


« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2014, 03:48 »
+2
Getty just made a huge portion of their collection very cheap via istock. Instead of paying 400 dollars on the getty website for an XL, for instance from Yuri, you can now just go to istock and get it for 36-45 dollars in full resolution.

Does anyone know how many files from the regular getty collection have been mirrored to istock?

Customers will soon find out that istock is the cheapest way to buy getty content, so I expect quite a migration from getty customers "downstream" to istock.

Maybe this is part of the grand plan - to attract as many macro buyers to istock as possible to remove them from corbis and offset.

So right now you can look for free embed images on getty and then go to istock to buy them in XXXl if you need a print version.

How that combination is supposed to grow their revenue is beyond me, but we keep reading that "brilliant" minds were at work behind this new plan. And anyway, they will change it all again next September, so I guess it doesnt really matter.


« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2014, 10:27 »
+2
Only certain uses are allowed with the Getty freebies - non commercial sites. So for anyone using images on their business's web site, the Getty freebies wouldn't apply.

And none of the images in the iStock Essentials collection are available for free via the Getty deal, so even if the OP's notion of the freebies trying to generate print size sales were true, it would only apply to the portion of the Signature collection on iStock that is mirrored on Getty (and that's not all of Signature because that transfer process works only intermittently).

I don't see how a web size use would generate a future print-size sale more than once in a blue moon. If the OP's guess as to the strategy is correct, I think iStock's barking up the wrong tree.

« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2014, 10:50 »
0
If the OP's guess as to the strategy is correct, I think iStock's barking up the wrong tree.

It clearly isn't. The free images thing is very obviously about experimenting with different models and exploring different platforms within a licensing context in which rights are effectively sandboxed.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2014, 11:32 »
0
And none of the images in the iStock Essentials collection are available for free via the Getty deal,
Wasn't it only those pics in the former Sig+ and Vetta collections which actually got mirrored over which are available for free? So a lot of current Signature images aren't there either.
AFAIK editorial-only images on iS weren't mirrored to Getty at all, even if S+.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4679 Views
Last post March 12, 2008, 01:45
by Peter
4 Replies
3850 Views
Last post February 05, 2012, 17:39
by cybernesco
14 Replies
6783 Views
Last post October 05, 2012, 15:53
by lisafx
9 Replies
4223 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
11 Replies
7159 Views
Last post January 27, 2016, 10:02
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results