So, the individual photographers are actually getting paid then? Can they opt out of such a thing? Or opt in? It sounds interesting, but I'm wary of such things. I hope it works out for those who like it!
intrepidblue
· 9 months ago
totally wary ...
Jennifer Van Grove
· 9 months ago
there's nothing to be wary about, it's opt in so only photographers that want to participate will - plus it provides a huge platform for them to sell their work
Bill Pennington
· 9 months ago
Here is a link to Flickr's page with more details from a Flickr user perspective - http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/ Bottom line you do not have to participate at all and they can't just use your images. Great move on Getty's part and I hope it works out for all parties.
Tarla
· 9 months ago
A girlfriend of mine is a rep for Getty, and I believe she said that it is voluntary. If the photographer does not want their images used, they can deny Getty the right to use them.
I personally think this is a great idea. I have come across so many amazing photos and images through Flickr that it's not surprising that Getty would have recognized this potential. This is giving the photographers a new way to make some money for their work, something that is always appreciated in the artist community.
Nicole "The Card Eagle" Bandes
· 9 months ago
That's disappointing to me. I use a lot of the creative commons licensed photos on my blog and feel this might decrease the qty of those available as photographers start believing they can make some money off having their photos sold this way. I won't pay $50 to have a photo on my blog once. Especially since A. I'm getting them free now with a link back to the photographer's page, B. if they all go away, I'll just go back to using sites like IStockPhoto which is far less expensive.
leatherdonut
· 9 months ago
Nicole,
You have a blog which you are obviously using to try to drive business to your site. It is telling that you think that photographers do not have a right to make money.
How would you like it if someone took your content, reposted it and provided a link (albeit tiny) back to your site?
Photographers do not work at YOUR pleasure, unless you pay them. Do the right thing. Or learn photography.
Facebook User
· 9 months ago
Doesn't the CC licensing allow (in not encourage) her to do this? It's no different than using FOSS software to create something and then not giving that something away for free.
leatherdonut
· 9 months ago
You might want to read some of Dan Heller's posts on CC and photography.
That's all well and good, but Getty already owns istockphoto. They bought them in 2005 and have been using them as a clearance house for images that are out of style or not quite up to par. Most of the images on istockphoto are not amateur self-submitted for credit pictures anymore—if any of them are.
Leonid S. Knyshov
· 9 months ago
I disagree with you.
Those of us who choose to CC-license our content have specific reasons for doing so. There is no conflict between me licensing my images under CC and additionally licensing them to be sold as stock art.
Translation - by explicitly setting our images to a CC license, and this step requires quite a bit of work, we permit our artwork to be shared for whatever altruistic reasons we might have.
We are not fools. You will find that most CC photographers are acutely aware of the potential of licensing images to stock photography companies. :)
BY-NC-SA - free use, attribution required. If you use it on a commercial site, you are in violation of my rights Getty - commercial use
Fairly straightforward :)
My photos are set to BY-NC-SA as a default. However, they feature mostly people and are not model and property released. That basically would limit them to editorial use if I were to license them commercially.
It is very unlikely that your selection of available CC images will be affected by Getty's involvement. Those people are extremely selective. :)
By the way, the only licenses compatible with commercial use are BY, BY-SA, BY-ND. If you are using photos on a commercial site that are licensed with the NC clause, you are legally in violation of our rights.
The market for photos and other things like that is fading rapidly (based on what I see from earnings from various photo companies) but this may revive it a bit possibly. Getty is a big powerful content company.
Fulvio Minichini
· 9 months ago
I've been contacted by FlickR and Getty Images for 5 photos of mine. It's a good opportunity and I'm not a guru of Flickr, so I think more sharing people have got great advantege from this initiative.
Anyway the payment procedure is really annoying for who lives outside USA and there are so many modules to fill that speaks about things I've never heard. In part becouse they refere to United States Fiscal System and in part becouse they deal with copyright issues to which I'm not confortable due that I'm not a Professional Photographer.
It would be great if some elightned would give a sense to all that sheets.
leatherdonut
· 9 months ago
Here's the high level summary of the terms (which Getty is fairly reluctant to have widely circulated).
* Photographers get 20-30% (WTF!!!) Getty claims their reach justifies this. * Pictures are either Rights-Free or Rights-Managed * Selection process seems arbitrary to me. They pick, you don't get to offer up any images to them. * You agree to grant EXCLUSIVE rights for them to license for 2 years * You can't change your mind after you agree i.e. you are stuck for the full 2 years. And they will not delete your picture on request during that time. * The exclusive rights do not include fine art prints but that's about it. * They also claim that you are forbidden from selling "Similars" to a different stock agency etc. That is if you have 2 pics of the same building and only one gets picked for Getty, you are not allowed to sell the other. Getty controls the definition of "Similar"
I have a couple of pictures that I do not care about in the Getty Collection at this point and will see how they do. Frankly, I think good photographers are going to (and should) hold off on their best images as they see how things play out.
This is bad because it lowers the overall quality of the collection. Getty needs to do more to incentivize photographers. At this point, the agreements are very much skewed to Getty's favor.
PS. Getty also has huge overhead which is another reason why they need to take such a big cut to be profitable.
brad
· 9 months ago
The cut they take is the same for all their contributors. 30% is just a side effect of them controlling such a huge part of the stock photo market. It is unfortunate, but if you want to actually sell your images on a regular basis Getty is the only game in town.
Christian debt relief
· 9 months ago
Leatherdonut, Right on. Great response and intuitiveness.
Jon Warren
· 9 months ago
I found an option to "share your photos with Getty" down in the account settings when I created my Flickr acct a couple weeks back. It was turned ON by default. I turned it off... you want to use my photos, come to me directly Getty. I don't like behind the scenes corporate dealings like this -- especially when it's enabled by default for new accounts.
Mas Hudi
· 8 months ago
kulo tiang jawi ,trenggalek
Bob
· 6 months ago
Get real people - GETTY IMAGES will rip you off.
Tim White
· 6 months ago
To follow on other's concerns, I'm also curious regarding the usage stipulations of the contract Getty offers flickrites. I've been approached by smaller stock agencies that manage to get "exclusive," and "in perpetuity" into their contracts, in hopes that someone would be so grateful for the attention or promises of potential income that they waive critical rights. A stock company's motives can often be to merely warehouse images for themselves with no guarantee of return, despite your images providing them an asset.
That said, it isn't surprising that Getty would like to formalize what has been happening informally for years here. Art directors, though most are instructed not to, frequently browse share sites for novel points-of-view. It's a shrewd move, but photographers need to be equally informed as they consider opting in.
All Comments
I personally think this is a great idea. I have come across so many amazing photos and images through Flickr that it's not surprising that Getty would have recognized this potential. This is giving the photographers a new way to make some money for their work, something that is always appreciated in the artist community.
You have a blog which you are obviously using to try to drive business to your site. It is telling that you think that photographers do not have a right to make money.
How would you like it if someone took your content, reposted it and provided a link (albeit tiny) back to your site?
Photographers do not work at YOUR pleasure, unless you pay them. Do the right thing. Or learn photography.
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-cr...
Those of us who choose to CC-license our content have specific reasons for doing so. There is no conflict between me licensing my images under CC and additionally licensing them to be sold as stock art.
Translation - by explicitly setting our images to a CC license, and this step requires quite a bit of work, we permit our artwork to be shared for whatever altruistic reasons we might have.
We are not fools. You will find that most CC photographers are acutely aware of the potential of licensing images to stock photography companies. :)
BY-NC-SA - free use, attribution required. If you use it on a commercial site, you are in violation of my rights
Getty - commercial use
Fairly straightforward :)
My photos are set to BY-NC-SA as a default. However, they feature mostly people and are not model and property released. That basically would limit them to editorial use if I were to license them commercially.
It is very unlikely that your selection of available CC images will be affected by Getty's involvement. Those people are extremely selective. :)
By the way, the only licenses compatible with commercial use are BY, BY-SA, BY-ND. If you are using photos on a commercial site that are licensed with the NC clause, you are legally in violation of our rights.
For further education, please review - http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wiseleo/sets - my Flickr album
Anyway the payment procedure is really annoying for who lives outside USA and there are so many modules to fill that speaks about things I've never heard. In part becouse they refere to United States Fiscal System and in part becouse they deal with copyright issues to which I'm not confortable due that I'm not a Professional Photographer.
It would be great if some elightned would give a sense to all that sheets.
* Photographers get 20-30% (WTF!!!) Getty claims their reach justifies this.
* Pictures are either Rights-Free or Rights-Managed
* Selection process seems arbitrary to me. They pick, you don't get to offer up any images to them.
* You agree to grant EXCLUSIVE rights for them to license for 2 years
* You can't change your mind after you agree i.e. you are stuck for the full 2 years. And they will not delete your picture on request during that time.
* The exclusive rights do not include fine art prints but that's about it.
* They also claim that you are forbidden from selling "Similars" to a different stock agency etc. That is if you have 2 pics of the same building and only one gets picked for Getty, you are not allowed to sell the other. Getty controls the definition of "Similar"
I have a couple of pictures that I do not care about in the Getty Collection at this point and will see how they do. Frankly, I think good photographers are going to (and should) hold off on their best images as they see how things play out.
This is bad because it lowers the overall quality of the collection. Getty needs to do more to incentivize photographers. At this point, the agreements are very much skewed to Getty's favor.
PS. Getty also has huge overhead which is another reason why they need to take such a big cut to be profitable.
That said, it isn't surprising that Getty would like to formalize what has been happening informally for years here. Art directors, though most are instructed not to, frequently browse share sites for novel points-of-view. It's a shrewd move, but photographers need to be equally informed as they consider opting in.