|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - jeffclow
1
« on: March 13, 2014, 13:27 »
Looks like PRIME is off and running - and at least one photographer has already sold several images. More on the 500px blog here: http://500px.com/blogHope it is a sign of good things to come for many photographers down the line.
2
« on: March 13, 2014, 09:16 »
Getty loves to "donate" other people's assets! Example those .15 image sales that should of been 400.00
For me, that is the major sticking point. I should have the option to say yes or no to some materially new type of distribution. My copyright, my choice
Getty treats contributors badly by refusing to give an opt out. They absolutely could - technically - but they refuse
Well said. I personally get the feeling that Getty/Carlyle would rather not have to deal with the photographic community. Even though we are their suppliers, they treat us like they are doing us a favor by giving us 20%. Their narrative - voiced over and over by their spokespeople - is that this "is going to be good for the photographers". And the implied message is "trust us on this one". Trust is earned - and as for me, when you burn me repeatedly with these free giveaways of my images as "promotional/marketing efforts by Getty", you've violated my trust. The only thing I trust about Getty is that they'll do whatever they think is best for themselves - with no regard for their suppliers/contributors/photographers.
3
« on: March 12, 2014, 11:37 »
Every company can pay 70%. It's just that few choose to do so.
But you would make less money if they paid you more.
...
Jon Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman
Yes, as far as our contributors go, we've had 30% of them and we've seen competitors come in and try to play with that number. What happens is if they payout more to contributors, they leave less room for marketing spend and that causes less sales in the long run and less payout to their contributors. So with this we really found the sweet spot over the past 10 years with the subscription plan, with the 30% payout, and competitors have come and gone and tried different things but we haven't seen much change...
Competitors have come and gone for a variety of reasons. Some have come and gone while trying to pay less than 30%, so the percentage often is not the problem.
I also don't understand Jon's comment that 30% is the "sweet spot". As far as I know, Shutterstock never experimented with other percentages.
This is possibly one of the only businesses in the world where you'll hear companies say that they need to keep 70% of every sale on a digital product that costs them very little to acquire and sell. And yet other businesses dealing in physical goods that need to be warehoused and shipped do well on smaller percentages. Or even on other digital goods. How can Apple survive by only keeping 30% of each iTunes sale? They probably have more marketing spend than Shutterstock or any other stock agency. They put physical gift cards in stores around the world, they run tv ads, magazine ads, etc.
The only problem with contributor percentages is that we've been conditioned to believe that no one can pay us more than 30% and have enough left over to promote the business and pay employees.
I concur with your assessment. 30% is a very "sweet spot" for agencies - at least stock photo agencies. My guess - because it allows them to throw off large profits. Amazon and Apple - two pretty darn well run companies - pay out the content providers (the authors, the music artists, etc.) 70% and seem to still be able to survive handsomely. Car dealers make 5 to 20% - and they have to have a large lot and stock hundreds of cars. And then they spend tons on ads. Grocery stores make 5 to 50% and they have to have tons of employees and large stores stocked with goods that are shelved, priced and marketed aggressively. Clothing stores make 20 to 70% - but again they have to often have large retail outlets staffed with personnel. And they have to advertise and have sales all the time. A stock agency? Sure they host the photo and collect and disburse the money - but the truth is that they can "keep" 70% because that's what Getty and others have conditioned us - the photographers - to believe. One of the reasons I'm so pumped about 500px and their PRIME offering is because they have a big name (and presence) on the web for top notch photography - and perhaps they can prove that Getty and all the other 70% agencies are simply taking advantage of the photographers who provide them EVERYTHING they sell. The photo buyers? They don't care whether the photographers get a nickel or a dime or 70% of the sale. They just want good images that suit their purposes. And if 500px PRIME can do that with fresh, new imagery - then I believe they'll buy from them just like they have from the other guys. I'm personally tired of being taken advantage of by the 70% "sweet spot" agencies. That's why 500px and their PRIME offering is getting exclusivity on all my new stuff. I'm voting with my images because I've had enough grief from agencies who care VERY little about the photographers. And make no mistake - we are their suppliers - they aren't doing us a "favor" by hosting our images.
4
« on: March 10, 2014, 17:35 »
My guess is that this PROBABLY signals that Flickr/Yahoo is going to get into the photo selling business sooner than later.
With 500px.com launching their PRIME commercial selling initiative, its likely that Flickr/Yahoo is probably going to do something similar.
Regardless of what happens - I just hope that someone emerges from the chaos to give Getty a true competitor - and hopefully that someone will understand that the photographers are still an integral part of the equation.
5
« on: March 10, 2014, 17:22 »
Here is a great analysis of the situation by Michael.
http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/why-getty-decided-to-offer-images-for-free/
Short version:
Getty has debts of about two Billion dollars due in November 2015. More than double their revenue. Under traditional valuation as a media company, they can command a P/E of about 15-18 times profit. Rebrand as a technology company, they can get double the money, with a P/E around 30.
I guess that would be worth throwing out 35 million files to the internet. Especially if they dont use their own content but that from crowd sourced contributors.
What do you think? Is the rebranding before Getty is sold the main motivation for this bizarre decision?
Great article - thanks for sharing. And yes, I think it lays out the case very well. In a nutshell, it is a simple change. Getty doesn't really want to be in the photo business - they want to be an internet "play" like Yahoo or Google or Facebook. Sure - they'll lose some (or a lot) of photographers over their decision to let online use of 35 million images become "free". But if the Carlyle Group can sell them for a billion or two more than they bought them - especially before their big loan payments are due - then they'll do so happily. If you cannot compete in a game - one of the best ways to enable yourself to win is to change the rules - or change the game.
6
« on: March 09, 2014, 08:53 »
I am completely missing how this works. I have opened my store, but how do I get this invite code? Are there two stores? One regular and one for 70%.?
Do I just upload images and put them in my store and 500px will pick the special ones?
I dont get it.
There are two different initiatives at 500 px. The 500px print store sells prints and digital downloads. The 500px Prime site is a beta test (for buyers only currently) that showcases images hand selected by their editors from people who are in the 500px store and have been invited to have some of their images offered for sale via 500px Prime. The Prime test is the one that offers the sale of an image for $250 with the 70% royalty to the photographer. More here: http://500px.com/blog/1043/500px-prime-making-the-world-of-photography-a-better-place/#comments
7
« on: March 08, 2014, 11:48 »
By the way - I read your latest at your site. Great recap. You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry. On behalf of all of us....
Cheers. Here's another 
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/03/08/free-images-from-getty-why-it-matters/
Another stellar recap, Sean. Best article online yet that I've read summarizing the situation. Should be required reading for any photographer who sells stock or is interested in making money with their photos. My biggest concern on this move by Getty is that for the vast majority of non-photographers, this move makes them think that all of Gettys photos are free for online use. Thats sure been the reaction of a the many bloggers who have applauded this move with a standing ovation online. And ultimately, whether it does hurt sales or not it threatens the premise that an image has value and cant be used for free in all situations. That devaluation is a real threat to photographers worldwide.
8
« on: March 08, 2014, 11:33 »
Good article:
http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2014/03/07/getty-images-not-quite-free-to-use/
Very good article, Sean - thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, I doubt if many of the thousands of people who are already using this "free" feature of Getty have read the terms. They get to the part that says FREE = GETTY and that's all they need to know. By the way - I read your latest at your site. Great recap. You do a really fine service to your fellow photographers by sharing so much of what is happening in the industry. On behalf of all of us.... Thank you.
9
« on: March 08, 2014, 11:11 »
Don't forget 500px core business is charging photographers an annual fee to host their images on the site, so they should easily be able to afford 70% royalties. Whether they invest properly in sales and marketing to make it a success as an agency is another matter.
Well said. I'm hoping they are going to be a success so that the photography community will have another viable option that actually pays out decent rates. But it all depends on the buyers. I've seen a lot of agencies fail - and it wasn't because they didn't have good content. They did. What they didn't have was enough buyers. Time will tell. But 500px's launch is coming at a good time when so many of us are looking to move our stuff out of Getty.
10
« on: March 08, 2014, 10:14 »
They are missing good watermark now... If they do that, offer will be attractive.
I think Tickstock said it all: "Hard to believe that one second they want to charge 70% and then the next they decide they can still be profitable charging 30%."
The incredible shift in commissions to me anyway is a massive red flag, not to mention you basically are selling your image rights. Forget it. Don't be fooled by this. The $175 commission might sound like a good carrot but in reality it's a rotten apple.
I disagree. I've been selling microstock and macro stock for many years and there are only a few sales (out of thousands of sales) that have netted me $175 for one photo with one client after the agency took their share. The founders at 500px have stated that they listened to photographers and changed the commission rate after realizing that they needed to do so. Why is that a red flag? They made an informed business decision. They want to launch and attract photographers - that makes perfect sense. And if you are routinely making more than $175 per image per client - then you probably won't want to take advantage of this offer. That makes sense. But with the revenue per image per year at most agencies in the $1.00 to $5.00 range - then a $175 payout is pretty darn attractive to many of us. I just see it differently. You may be right. I may be right. Only time will tell.
11
« on: March 08, 2014, 09:59 »
Choices. We all have them. I don't fault yours. Why fault others who have a contrarian viewpoint?
All i'm saying is that many of you guys are over reacting, Getty is just offering embedded images, it doesn't mean webmasters will be able to use them as they please (making thumbnails, removing credits, etc etc), actually it's a way to get free advertising for getty and brand awareness and eventually make some sales too.
As for educating the spongers, once they click for the 100th time on an image and they're served with a getty page where the image is on sale for a hefty price then maybe they will finally learn once and for all that good photos are not free and can not be stolen for fun and profit as they did so far with impunity.
You said it well in your comments above - "actually it's a way to get free advertising for Getty and brand awareness..." Once again, I am now certain that you are a big fan of this new and innovative approach. If you don't work directly for Getty - you should. Because your statement indicates that what's good for Getty is naturally good for the photographers. But I DO NOT AGREE. I did NOT sign up and offer a thousand photos of mine that took years to create so that it could be used to create free advertising for Getty. Sure - if they want to use a few photos - I'm willing to agree to that. But ALL of my stuff? No - that's morally wrong and clearly a stretch that would probably be found to be illegal if anyone had the deep pockets to fight them legally. Your argument is flawed because you wrongly assume that we should all "see the light" and realize that our stuff isn't worth much. You keep shouting via this forum that we are overreacting. You are trying to get us to believe it because you personally believe the Getty narrative that this is "good for photographers". Saying it over and over doesn't make it right. Yes - the market has changed. Yes - photography and photos cost a lot less than they did ten years ago. But you can post 10,000 posts telling all of us how wrong we are and how great this new Getty promotion is and it doesn't mean you are right and we are wrong. A vast majority of us here see if differently. Is the reason you can't accept that FACT is because somewhere deep inside your mind you are worried that we MIGHT be right and you might be wrong? This move from Getty to devalue online use of images is BAD for photographers - in my opinion. I'll be happy to meet you back here at this forum in 24 months and we can see the fallout. If you're right and this is a great move for Getty and the photographers - I will publicly state how right you were and how wrong I was. That's a promise. But I will never agree that you - or any other human on this planet - has a right to tell me how I should feel about something, or that my photos have no value.
12
« on: March 08, 2014, 00:48 »
Thank you for the info Jeff
You are very welcome. Here's some more from one of the founders at 500px: http://500px.com/blog/1043/500px-prime-making-the-world-of-photography-a-better-place/#commentsWhat a pleasant surprise to read that a company still values the content providers - yes, the photographers that create all that salable content. Getty goes in one direction and 500px goes the opposite way. Will it be a success? Who knows. But I sure know which route I'm taking - even if its a gamble.
13
« on: March 07, 2014, 18:39 »
Maybe I'll write to them and ask what I am doing wrong? Do they have a selection process or do they take everything you upload? Edited collection or more like Photoshelter?
It is always nice to be invited and I appreciate it. So I would definetly like to try them out and see what happens.
Obviously 70% of 250 dollars sounds great.
But can they sell? 
stocksy is doing a fantastic job and have set a very high bar for what is possible as a start up. And Westend61 is an established Macro House with excellent reputation in Germany.
They do not take everything you upload - they have editors going through the vast 500px photo library and inviting specific photos. I've had about three dozen photos of mine invited this way.
They sure have a great website and a lot of new venture capital backing according to the Toronto press. Do they have buyers? Unknown.
But I'd rather give them a shot then see my stuff devalued at Getty.
Hello Jeff, I am not understanding the process very well and wonder if you would be kind enough to answer a few question I have. I have an old account on 500px with some older photos that have editors choice awards and high popularity. I am no longer active and not set up to sell on the site.
Are you saying that they are going thru images on the site and they are inviting only those images that they choose to participate in the prime site?
Or are they including images in the the prime marketplace that have been added to your store when you enable the store function in your 500px account?
Remember - I'm just a beta photo contributor. I don't have any other affiliation with 500px. My understanding is that your images do have to be enabled in the 500px store (at least currently) before any of those photos would be invited. And they have to meet the minimum size requirements of 2000x3000. I also believe (note - I don't KNOW this for a fact) that the photos of mine that have been invited are those that had high popularity (views/comments/faves) and thus were chosen by the editors for possible inclusion in the beta test of this initiative. The big unknown is whether they have any buyers lined up? They can have a great product but without buyers, any photo sales site will have a very short lifespan.
14
« on: March 07, 2014, 18:13 »
the stock industry is becoming like prostitution in germany .. in some FKK clubs now they have "flat rates" and "all you can F kk" promotions, along with rock bottom cheap women working inside RVs and roulottes for as low as 10-20 euros.
due to the prices falling down i've read many girls moved to greener pastures as they felt germany is no more a place for easy money.
my feeling ? all this getty bashing is totally overboard, we should better be concerned about oversupply and oversaturation instead, serious buyers will still pay decent prices, bloggers and scroungers shouldn't even be expected to be near our core business and if you do i'm sorry for you guys, you've put yourself in a very risky business where you'll fight to survive among iphone snaps, flickers, embedded images, and who knows what's next.
i mean if getty decided your images are worth nothing who am i to say otherwise, and most of that ancient Photodisc cr-ap should be thrown to the dogs anyway, it's 2014 for f ks sake ...
"If Getty decided your images are worth nothing". Ahh.....that's the exact thing we're all upset about. Getty does not have the right to say our images are "worthless". Only the copyright owner could make such a statement. If you want to say it about your own work - you sure can do so. But Getty doesn't have the right to do so. Getty is a broker. They offer representation for 80% of the take of an image's sale. We are suppliers/contributors or perhaps just simply fools to be in bed with them. But NEVER did they say they would give away our total image library for free. That's why they keep referring to this as "promotional use". Every one of their spokespeople keep using those exact words. Why? Because they know that VERY FEW photographers would agree to this massive online use giveaway. It sounds like you are a big Getty fan. I get that. You have a different viewpoint than the majority of us here, it appears. I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the devaluation of millions of images overnight and the Getty = FREE online campaign. I'm pulling my stuff and you're obviously staying with them. Its a gamble either way. But at least I won't have to find my stuff for free with Getty's name all over it - and with Getty ads in much larger visibility than my credit line. Choices. We all have them. I don't fault yours. Why fault others who have a contrarian viewpoint?
15
« on: March 07, 2014, 17:56 »
Maybe I'll write to them and ask what I am doing wrong? Do they have a selection process or do they take everything you upload? Edited collection or more like Photoshelter?
It is always nice to be invited and I appreciate it. So I would definetly like to try them out and see what happens.
Obviously 70% of 250 dollars sounds great.
But can they sell?
stocksy is doing a fantastic job and have set a very high bar for what is possible as a start up. And Westend61 is an established Macro House with excellent reputation in Germany.
They do not take everything you upload - they have editors going through the vast 500px photo library and inviting specific photos. I've had about three dozen photos of mine invited this way. They sure have a great website and a lot of new venture capital backing according to the Toronto press. Do they have buyers? Unknown. But I'd rather give them a shot then see my stuff devalued at Getty.
16
« on: March 07, 2014, 16:28 »
17
« on: March 07, 2014, 16:26 »
This is from the 500px Prime FAQ as of today:
500px Prime Frequently Asked Questions
Last Updated: Mar 03, 2014 08:32PM EST
What is the difference between Exclusive and non-Exclusive licenses?
Exclusive licensing means that only 500px Prime can license the image commercially and you have never licensed this content commercially before. Non-Exclusive licensing means you can sell your image to other commercial licensing vendors, or to other commercial buyers or you have licensed it commercially in the past.
The licenses will start at $250 (USD) and the photographer will receive 70% of each license sold. You can still use your licensed photos for selling fine art prints, self-promotion and for your portfolio.
Which license is better for the Photographer?
Exclusive licensing provides a greater revenue opportunity for the Photographer and exclusive content will be featured more often by 500px. Exclusive content means only 500px can license this photo and you cannot license this photo to any other agency or make it commercially available to anyone else.
While both licenses offer $250 price per photo, an exclusive license can potentially be "bought-out", which is a one time sale of the photo, for several thousand dollars in most cases. Once a photo is bought-out, it can not be sold commercially ever again. The photographer will earn 70% of the buy-out price.
Non-exclusive Licensing is meant for photos that have been licensed in the past, or you want to make available for commercial licensing through other vendors or agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So - at least for the beta test according to this FAQ copied directly from their site - the photographer gets 70% of the sale.
And licenses start at $250. Thus, a sale of $250 would net the photographer around $175 US Dollars.
18
« on: March 07, 2014, 16:05 »
Hi Petr,
Wed like to invite you to our private beta launch of 500px Primeroyalty-free licenses for premium photos.
You know 500px as a community of 37 million breathtaking photos created by over 3 million photographers in 200 countries.
Today were making a collection of these photos available for commercial licensing. In a world of diminishing profits for photographers our revolutionary 70% royalty plan is sure to make waves, but from a buyers perspective heres whats even more exciting:
Exclusive content Over 75% of our collection has never been published.
Simple buying One option covers it all. For $250 per photo you get the highest resolution and its always royalty-free with a worldwide, any-media usage license. No expiries or seat limits. That means unlimited print and digital impressions forever.
Audience insights We collect billions of consumer signals each month and give you in-depth audience metrics to ensure your photo choices are the best ones for your needs.
Cant find the perfect photo? Email your brief to [email protected] and well reach out to our photographers on your behalf. Or call our researchers at 1.855.561.4584 x105 and they can handpick a custom selection for you.
Please visit http://prime.500px.com
hh good timing
Full disclosure - I'm one of the photographers in this beta test with 500px.com - and everything I've seen so far makes me think that this particular start up still is keeping the photographer's interests in mind. Paying out 70% to photographers with commercial licenses starting at $250 seems like a bold move. Will it work? Who knows. But I know that my portfolio is moving from Getty to 500px. Sure - its only 1000 photos or so, but I'd rather sell 10 photos a year for a decent price then allow all of my work to be devalued to zero. And if that doesn't work - well then I'll give them away for free - but then I'll get the credit and I won't help the millionaires at Carlyle become billionaires.
19
« on: March 07, 2014, 10:47 »
Having now read the 350 plus posts on this subject, I think I can recap the key points: 1) Getty did this because it is good for Getty. They may have consulted some of their photographers - but since they have 200,000 contributor/photographers - the vast majority were never consulted. 2) The Carlyle Group owns Getty. They are a hedge fund company. They buy companies and they flip them - that's what they do. They aren't concerned about photos or photographers - they are concerned with how they can quickly resell a company and cash in on the sale. 3) Getty was getting undercut on small web sales by the dozens of microstock competitors. This move - although surely denied by any official spokesperson - is aimed at derailing or destroying those small competitors. Getty has the wherewithal to give away a portion of the business because it still has most of its business on the large commercial side - whereas the other guys thrive mostly off of small sales 4) The Getty contributors cannot opt out other than leave Getty. But even if they do, it requires 30 days notice and during that time Getty will give away all the images in their portfolio for free web usage. 5) The move by Getty has been applauded almost universally by the non-photography community and the word FREE and GETTY are now splashed all over the world. 6) We can complain, but Getty has all the complaint answers down to one basic premise: This is promotion and we are allowed to do that with the contracts you all signed 7) It is hard to ascertain the long term effects of this completely - but short term it will destroy the premise that using an image on the web is a copyright infringement for most websites and bloggers. And it surely will devalue the monetary value of imagery overall - at least to some extent.  Getty intends to sell ads and to capture data with this new FREE initiative. The intend to become a consolidator on content - like YouTube. That turns them into an internet "play" and we've all seen where anything that is an internet "play" seems to be getting sold for billions. The smart people at Carlyle have reinvented their company - and will cash out long before the bottom drops out of the commercial market. Bottom line - probably a very good business move by Getty. Clever and crafty and very disruptive. Probably a very bad outcome for those of us who sell our photos.
20
« on: March 06, 2014, 18:57 »
This new move is about flipping the company again. My guess is they are trying to line up Google as a potential buyer by building an advertising platform under their nose.
This could potentially end Getty, Connect is a woefully poor revenue generator absolutely no one will produce new content for a Credit tag.
If SS get their act together on the editorial side and set up an exclusivity program it could be a gift for them, there will be a lot high quality content producers out there looking for a new agent very soon.
This whole initiative is about the existing Hedge Fund bailing out looking for a new buyer, someone with very deep pockets. Huge, huge gamble for them.
I concur with your sentiment - but I don't think is a huge "gamble" for them. More like a calculated risk to reinvent themselves as an internet "play" versus just a stock agency.
Huge gamble in context of image producers losing money through iS and Getty, if income dwindles there and affects income elsewhere I'll pull my work completely from Getty out of pure self preservation.
I apologize if if misread your earlier quote. I thought you were talking about a gamble for Getty. If you're talking about a gamble for the image producers - that's us photographers - then its not really a gamble. The folks at Getty are playing craps in Vegas with our photos (remember - its not their money, its ours) and we're funding their losses. I give them high marks for audacity. They earned those high marks by saying in no uncertain terms that photographers/contributors cannot opt out.
21
« on: March 06, 2014, 18:47 »
This new move is about flipping the company again. My guess is they are trying to line up Google as a potential buyer by building an advertising platform under their nose.
This could potentially end Getty, Connect is a woefully poor revenue generator absolutely no one will produce new content for a Credit tag.
If SS get their act together on the editorial side and set up an exclusivity program it could be a gift for them, there will be a lot high quality content producers out there looking for a new agent very soon.
This whole initiative is about the existing Hedge Fund bailing out looking for a new buyer, someone with very deep pockets. Huge, huge gamble for them.
I concur with your sentiment - but I don't think is a huge "gamble" for them. More like a calculated risk to reinvent themselves as an internet "play" versus just a stock agency. And I think they'll destroy several dozen microstock agencies by taking away their core business - selling to small websites and bloggers. I'm sure they've calculated that out and figured out how they can do it without spending a dime. It might be called predatory pricing - but they call it "promotional activity". The group at the hedge fund have proven time and time again that they think they are smarter than the rest of the world and they've put lipstick on a pig in other situations - so my guess is we have just begun to hear the spin doctors weave their magic about how "good" this is going to be for the industry.
22
« on: March 06, 2014, 18:29 »
I don't know about thousands waiting in the wings... I closed my direct account with Getty last year after Google "deal" (they were asking me why  ), and the only reason I am still selling on iStock is I am doing it non-exclusively. The moment I see my sales affected by this "free" bulls**t I am gone from iStock. So will many remaining others. Let them offer their own in-house content for free. [/quote] You have a point there - maybe there will be less and less photographers wanting to sign up with the "prestigious Getty agency" when they realize that Getty will take their imagery and devalue it to the point of it being worthless. But I'm sure the finance people at Carlyle figured this out and said something to the effect that "we may lose a few million images from our database, but in the long run we'll still come out ahead with the ad revenue and data mining". People are commenting that Getty surely didn't think this out properly - and I think that is just not the case. I think they thought out all the ramifications - the pros and the cons - and decided what was best for THEM. For Getty - not for the contributors. For Getty. One thing is for certain - they've already done some major damage to the perceived value of any image on the internet.
23
« on: March 06, 2014, 18:08 »
One more very obvious point that I dont see people talking about but the radio silence from many friends makes it obvious:
What about all the artists that specialise in lifestyle? That work with models. With families.
Their own families.
Their own children.
This is commercial photography produced by professionals to be licensed responsibly by what used to be the most elitist stock agency in the world.
Licensed to registered buyers.
Now everyone, can embed images with models, family, children on any blog of the world. For free.
In fact anyone is being invited to embed images. Even in pages with advertising.
If you have reassured your models, although of course there is no perfect security, but that you are working with a professional agency selling files for very high prices - how can you look into their faces today??
You didnt tell them you were going to "freely share the images for free on the internet". With ANYONE. Unregistered.
What happens to your production plans. What do you tell the models?
I mostly do still life. My easter eggs dont care.
But I am sure my models do.
So much irony in all of this. Getty makes the photographer/contributors jump through hoops to get "official" Getty model releases. They have to be witnessed and you have to have one for every photo - even if it is the same model time and time again. That's their rules - and they don't bend them. So those of us who play by THEIR rules just realized that they can change their rules anytime - for any reason - under the guise of promotional use. And so my children and my grandchildren's images will be all over the web in countless situations that there will be no way to monitor. I just love the Getty employees who keep responding to all the contributor's complaints with the generic - "just wait and see"...or "trust us on this one - it's going to be good for the photographers long term". Reminds me of the old saying - if someone shows up at your door and tells you that they are from the government and they are there to "help you" - you better grab your wallet and head out the back door. Trust is earned. If you violate a person's trust - as Getty has just done - they won't get it back because they say that we're overreacting - or that we should wait and see. I feel violated. And the first time I see one of my kids and grandkid's photos used freely on a website with Getty's blessing, I think I'll probably be sick to my stomach.
24
« on: March 06, 2014, 16:34 »
Brilliant? Short term maybe but certainly not for an extended amount of time. Why on earth would anyone keep their images at Getty? I don't get. Its like saying "well... since Getty can't sell the images no one else can either so I guess giving them away makes sense". Really? Getty can serve the people who want stuff for free. I'll continue to serve the people who actually pay for images. The likely scenario is that the market will divide into those who pay (for a large variety of reasons) and those who were never going to. If Getty is going after the freeloaders and thieves so be it. I've been in business long enough to know that the extremely cheap customers are the ones you wish for your competitors to have. At some point Getty is going to become the "Goodwill" (a donation store for leftover garments) of the industry. That is the type of place high school kids and poor college kids love but most professionals will not set foot in unless it is to donate. Talk about unsustainable. Unfortunately while this all transpires there will be a lot of collateral damage. Mostly in the form of the photographers and artists.
The Carlyle Group is interested in flipping Getty after paying $3.5 billion for it last year. They really don't care about selling photos - they want to sell the company and cash out. They have done it with lots of other companies - buy them at a deep discount, make them look presentable and then sell them before anyone is the wiser. Sure - Getty is going to lose hundreds - if not thousands - of photographers because of this move. But they have thousands of replacements waiting in the wings that would give anything to be part of Getty. I know one guy who paid Getty thousands under the Photographer's Choice banner so he could brag that he was a Getty photographer. That said - even if every Getty photographed bailed (not likely) - they still have millions of images from agencies that they've acquired in the past. And they can disrupt the marketplace long enough that they can cash out. You are right - it is not a LONG term sustainable business model. But that's the beauty of it for them - is IS a sustainable SHORT term model so that they can cash out.
25
« on: March 06, 2014, 15:58 »
What a great idea. No one can steal your images if you give them away for free. Brilliant! What substance abuse was occurring at that executive meeting?
Full disclosure: I condemn this move by Getty. Seriously condemn it. But as a predatory business move, I think it is brilliantly conceived. They weren't getting much - if any - of the blog and not for profit web microstock market. Their pricing was too high. So they made a very rational move to blindside the competition by allowing free usage. And they hide the fact that they aren't giving away their own assets - they are giving away their contributor's work. And they hide behind the "promotional" clause in their contracts to force their contributors to participate. The web reaction? Almost universally positive. "Great move by Getty". "Getty Gets It". The bloggers are all over themselves and are giving Getty a standing ovation. However, I have yet to see one line on this subject that says "thanks" to the contributors that are proving the content. No - Getty gets the applause and the contributors get the.....shaft. And boy - are they clever. They say that the marketplace has made them take this move - so they can't be accused of being predatory in a world courtroom. And while all those Getty images get used for free and the competition scrambles to stay afloat.....Getty re-positions themselves as an internet "play". They aren't in the photo business anymore - they are a consolidator like Yahoo or Google or You Tube. And they've got 35 million images to play with - at least for awhile until photographers start realizing that they are actually competing against themselves on pricing. The Carlyle Group are smart business people. They might also be called ruthless. But they are turning a money losing proposition into positive spin and setting Getty to be resold to Google or Yahoo or someone else who decides that they want a piece of that great internet play. My guess? 24 to 36 months from now they'll sell for billions more because they will be "The Number One provider of images in the world - by a large margin". Clever people. Very clever people.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
