Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 06, 2018, 08:26

Shutterstock sent out one of their custom shoots.  $200 for five very specific recipes for Nestle.  Each with 4-5 very specific shots.  For $200.

Putting that in perspective (because I am not quite familiar with that) - how much would that go for if it was custom/fixed price work to hire a professional photographer to do that?

The problem, in my opinion, is with the contributors who ...

Getty's Custom Content Briefs that they put out to their contributors is one of the ways Getty Images is exploiting the high quality work of photographers around the world.

Using this method they are trying to lure in photographers to shoot traditional commercial assignment work on spec while hoping there are photographers out there that are either really bad at math or generally naive.

Their Custom Content Brief in each case first provides the photographer details about the exact kind of imagery they want one to create for their client. They say in all cases they want candid and authentic content (images or video). Specific to a client's need, shot in set locations, and with a distinct theme or subject matter. The content needs to also be cleared for commercial use (so model and property released). And the photographer must license the imagery/content to the client exclusively and in perpetuity if selected and purchased by the client.

This is what is traditionally known as a paid commercial assignment. The aim though is to get any or all of their contributors to shoot stuff for clients as if it is a commissioned assignment, but without any guarantee of any payment in return whatsoever.

The photographer must also use models (in most or all cases) to create the imagery they are wanting, thus incur out of pocket expenses by hiring models who are willing to sign model releases for commercial usage of the imagery, but again, with no guarantee of any payment for the work of any sort to the photographer.

Then, if Getty does choose an image that was shot specifically for their brief, the pay for the image to the photographer from Getty could be less than US$100 per image. Not only that, the photographer will automatically surrender full copyrights to that image for eternity if the client chooses to license it.

Traditionally, assignment photographers have been hired and guaranteed a specified amount upfront to be paid when shooting a commercial assignment for a client. And when there is a transfer of full copyrights involved like this (known as All Rights), then the fee paid to the photographer may often be a lot higher, perhaps even double the original assignment fee in some cases.

But Getty is trying to change the game by getting thousands of photographers to all shoot the very same assignment at the same time, with no guarantee of anything, and by only offering the photographer hopes of selling an image or two from all the cost and work invested into the shoot for the client.

There are perhaps photographers out there either unknowing or desperate enough to fall for Getty's scheme, but, if a photographer does agree to shoot one of their assignments for free, the photographer is still unlikely to recoup merely the cost paid out to models, even when Getty does license an image or two to a client from the shoot.

Using this method, the client gets the benefit of being able to, in essence, hire an unlimited amount of photographers for an assignment, and for free, and then choose from a large selection of fresh and exclusive purpose-shot imagery from photographers all over the world who are all shooting the same unpaid assignment for the client and at the same time. Unheard of anywhere else on this planet.

Where else would a client ever have the opportunity to get a large group of experienced photographers to invest and shoot an assignment for them without any promise of anything upfront or in return to the photographer for their work? It doesn't exist.

In the first sentence of the article introducing Custom Content Briefs on the Getty site they say "but which is very different from a traditional commissioned shoot." Yes, this concept is "very different" in the sense that this is just like a commissioned shoot, except that photographers potentially don't get paid anything for their work and, if they do, it is at a much much lower rate than it should be.

Basically, this is a completely insane offer for any self respecting photographer to accept. In the process, Getty is further devaluing the overall work of commercial assignment photographers throughout the industry, and the world, to an unethical extreme and they should be shamed for this.

Getty is further devaluing the overall work of commercial assignment photographers throughout the industry, and the world, to an unethical extreme and they should be shamed for this.

The problem, in my opinion, is not with the agencies. They will do whatever they can to line their pockets with cash. There is no "moral" guidelines in the stock business. Most agencies will, if their contributors allow them, to take as much as they can. Period.

The problem, in my opinion, is with the contributors who - for whatever reasons - allow immoral, self-serving, unscrupulous, deceitful behavior by providing and supporting these agencies with material.

The key, if you want to change this kind of behavior, is simply not to contribute material to these agencies. Whether or not you're making some coin - if you don't like the way an agency is treating you, don't supply them with material.