Getty to License Flickr Images
UPDATE: Lots of interesting views in the comments, and PhotoShelter has now responded.Seeing how many of you have photos on Flickr, this is gonna be a topic of conversation around here.
We have one of the largest groups on Flickr, and the quality is such that the photos in the Flickr Strobist group regularly make explore. So this is definitely gonna be relevant.
Main points:
1. They come to you, based on your photos. Not everyone will be involved.
2. It's an "opt in" thing. You do not have to participate.
Full official FAQ, links and your comments, after the jump.
_________
Flickr/Getty FAQ
What is being announced?
Getty Images and Flickr are announcing an exclusive partnership that allows Getty Images to invite Flickr members to participate in a Flickr branded collection on www.gettyimages.com that will be available for licensing to Getty Images’ creative and editorial customers in the coming months.
How does this benefit my customer?
We know that our customers were already going to Flickr for inspiration and they often would try to license images. This partnership allows them to more easily find the images that are commercially viable, and then to license them with confidence.
It also means customers will have access to even more fresh, authentic and regionally relevant content that expands our best-in-class imagery offering.
Are all images on Flickr going to be in the collection?
No. At launch (which is scheduled for later this year), we will have tens of thousands of high-quality images available for commercial licensing on Getty Images. Our goal is to make thousands more available over time. Getty Images editors will select the most marketable Flickr images and create a Flickr Collection for customers to license at www.gettyimages.com. They’ll select images for the Flickr collection according to Getty Images’ unique understanding of what our customers need, using insights gained from the creative research processes developed by Getty Images. Photographers will have the option to take part, or not.
The images selected will be cleared with their Flickr copyright owners, so that they are ready for license on gettyimages.com.
Their prices will vary, depending on the licensing model assigned to each image and each customer’s intended use.
What license model will the images be under?
At launch, the edited collection of Flickr images will be available to Getty Images customers through the Flickr branded collection on gettyimages.com – which will span across all three licensing models – rights managed, rights ready and royalty free. Prices will vary, depending on the license model, but the pricing will be similar to other RM, RR and RF imagery at gettyimages.com.
When will the collection be available?
The collection will be available to customers in the coming months (it is not available right now). Prices will vary, depending on license model, but the pricing will be similar to other RF, RR and RM imagery at gettyimages.com.
Will customers be able to find the selected images available for license on Flickr?
A “license this image on gettyimages.com” button or function will be enabled on Flickr for images included in the Flickr collection, to enable Flickr visitors to license such Flickr images through Getty Images.
Can Flickr photographers distribute the images they have on Getty Images through any other distributor, or is this an exclusive deal?
This is an image-exclusive deal. If a Flickr photographer decides to have an image distributed through www.gettyimages.com, they cannot distribute that particular image, or any similar image, through any other site. They may, however, choose to distribute other images anywhere else.
Does this deal mean that our customers can legally use images from Flickr?
Yes. When the Flickr collection launches on www.gettyimages.com, customers can be confident in the rights and clearances of any Flickr image licensed by Getty Images.
What customer segment does this deal address?
All of Getty Images’ customer segments: media, agency and corporate.
What is the goal of the Flickr collection on gettyimages.com?
This partnership represents the continued innovation that moves the industry forward to meet the changing needs of Getty Images customers. This relationship offers a responsible way to bridge the world of Flickr’s photo-enthusiasts with traditional photography, offering a customer experience that is different than microstock. Getty Images customers will have even more fresh, diverse and regionally relevant imagery to use for their communications projects, with confidence.
What does the deal mean for each company?
Getty Images will have an exclusive partnership with Flickr to source and license select, potentially marketable photos discovered on Flickr for Getty Images’ creative, commercial and editorial customers.
For Flickr, this partnership gives members a potential entry into the world of stock photography, leveraging Getty Images’ strengths and expertise for their members’ benefit. The Flickr collection on Getty Images is a testimony to the photographers who have influenced the aesthetics of commercial photography with authentic, creative and personal images.
_____________
More reading:
Previous Strobist Series: Flickr and You
Press Release
FAQ
Interview (PDN)
Discussion
__________
Light and other fun stuff: Strobist on Twitter
Meet other readers: Discussion Threads | Reader Photos
Strobist OCF Mags: Locator Map | What's an OCF mag?
by David, at 9:01 PM.
44 Comments:
Funny how it mentions nothing about benefiting(paying) the photographer, only how it will benefit Getty and its customers........
When there was a lot of talk of people's photos being stolen from Flickr and other sites, I pulled all of my Flickr photos down.
Guess I'll have to re-think that now. I have some in the PhotoShelter Collection and in my Personal Archive, but more sales is a good thing.
Pete
this could get interesting.
I think this could be a fruitful relationship and a real encouragement to photography enthusiasts.
I'm going to watch how this unfolds very closely.
Yeah that is interesting that there is no mention of photographers getting paid. A lot of people are going to get took on this, and I bet that's what Getty is counting on.
I think this is going to be a big blow to the Creative Commons movement on Flickr. People are going to be less likely to offer up their photos through Creative Commons licensing in the hope of making money. Perhaps Getty/Flickr will approach these photographers, and they will change their CC licenses.
If you don't know what creative commons is: http://creativecommons.org/
But if there is legitimate money to be made by users this could be a good thing (buy more gear!), but I bet Flickr and Getty take a hefty chunk of the $$.
I hope they have some sort of "please look at my gallery" button. So they can send me an email: "yeah, we looked at your crap, and you ain't gettin' nothing for your photos."
Photographers can license their photos in multiple ways if they want: some sort of creative commons license specifying non-commercial use only with an option to license for commercial use for a fee.
Hopeful Flickr users will now be getting signed model and property releases, right? And keeping them in a safe place forever ...
Another way of licensing images on the cheap from people who know well that flattery will get you just about anywhere. Like the 'free' travel publication that emailed me the other day from Flickr, inviting image submissions and the benefit of 'exposure' (as opposed to wonga) if mine was 'chosen'. Excuse the cyniscism, but in one form or another, it's all benn done before.
For a good assessment from an industry insider take a look at this blog post: You Just Have Been Flickered.
It does seem like an interesting deal on the surface, but not as earth shattering when the onion is peeled back. In fact the Shoot! The Day exercise over at PhotoShelter is a clear example of just who disconnected many of today's photographers and the stock industry are (with Shoot the Day being an effort to close that gap). In my mind, there are a few jewels on flickr, but they're in the tiniest of minorities.
I can't see how this can be turned into a successful business venture based on the scale and the incremental return that is not otherwise achievable.
For all those saying 'nothing's been said about paying the photographers'. The wording of the posted FAQ very much looks like a Getty FAQ to their customers.
Most agencies operate on a 50/50 commission basis. But that is reasonably standard. Then a monthly cheque gets mailed to you. Not sure what Flickr is getting out of it. In that interview they are not commenting on that.
My guess is that this is not the greatest deal for photographers, as has been stated above in comments about no mention of compensation. Odd that Flickr would slip on serving its members first, but perhaps there is more to it than we are being told right now.
If this were the Getty of 5+ years ago I'd be far more interested. Unfortunately Getty seems to be a shadow of its former self scrambling to keep pace in a highly competitive market. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if any participating photographers discuss their contract openly with the Flickr community. I really wonder if Getty will offer competitive contracts or make an effort to take advantage of green Flickr photographers.
As somebody who does supply to Getty let me put your mind to ease ... or not.
First off: The prices your images fetch with them is better than any other site/company out there. These guys are pro.
This however brings us to quality:
Currently, through the master delegate I supply through (I'm in South Africa), the minimum requirement spec for any image is as following:
RAW captured - exported as Adobe 1998
Full-frame 12mp sensor MINIMUM spec camera - Canon 5D thus being a good example of entry level.
All images accompanied by signed Getty Model releases and Property Releases.
All images quality requirements :
RGB highlights no more than 245 245 245 and shadows no less than 5 5 5. ITCP metadata supplied with all images etc etc etc and the list goes on.
Trust me - this disqualifies about 95% of Flickr for Rights Managed catalogues. Royalty Free are slightly less stringent, but then you'll most likely end up being showed in istockphoto catalogues (owned by Getty nowadays).
What does this mean? It means if you have images according to this criteria on Flickr, you've got a good chance of getting listed (to compete with about 10 000 000 other images on the net), but you can make good tom.
Getty takes 50% royalty, which is, if you look at the amount of work (they outsource keywording, description writing etc of each image, sales reps, books etc )they put into selling images, and the price it fetches, is a good deal.
Anybody whose images don't fit the criteria, don't get your hopes up, rather submit directly to dreamstime or istockphoto.
And wait.
danienel.blogspot.com
www.danienel.co.za
Smart move by Getty. Too bad Flickr didn't do it themselves. I would love to have a way to license photos directly through Flickr, without exclusivity restrictions.
Konstantin Sutyagin
I too had seen that on the "thoughts of a bohemian" blog. I imagine one would get very little money from any sales. I think if everyone would abandon the low paying (to photographers) sites and go to photoshelter et al that actually pay the majority of proceeds to the photographer things would be a little better. But, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
I'm really excited about this, first could be a nice opportunity to get some money out from my photos (hell if I can buy some rolls/development with them...) but also it means Flickr survivability, no more money losing.
Yet is going to mean so different things for all the "uses" we make from Flickr, must keeps its community/friendship feeling while filing the needs of sellers and all their business models around Flickr.
Keep your eyes open!
According to the PDN article (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003825627),
"As it does with professional photographers, Getty will keep most of the licensing fees. Flickr collection images will be offered under three licensing models: royalty-free (where photographers get 20 percent), rights-managed (where photographers get 30 or 40 percent) or rights-ready (where rates vary)."
I'm surprised at the stringent criteria for highlights and shadows etc. "I got this great shot of the Hindenburg exploding - they won't want it though - the flames are a bit too bright" I think they'll probably be a bit more forgiving with the stuff on flickr - or else they're very naive.
I think it's a brilliant idea. The vast majority of flickr images are submitted by photographers who never had any intention of hope of selling an image. Suddenly the photogrpahers are in a situation to actually make money.
From a legal standpoint I wonder how it works with individuals making money. In France where I live you need to be licenced as a corporation, paying plenty of taxes just to start earning money. An individual can not simply decide to sell his photo for $5 if he's not registered...
Does this mean that the image will be only exclusive to getty?
Will this undermine my photoshelter collection?
How are photogs going to be paid, as tax laws vary country to country?
Will this push the less commercial and amaters away from sharing on flickr?
Anyhow my images will be signed to getty. I am member of scoopt as well as several other agemcies. I just have concerns that the fun aspect of flickr will disappear and it turning into a dire and boring microstock site.
Rich
I really don't can't see this as a good thing. I looked into submitting to Getty and they want THE PHOTOGRAPHER to PAY a "membership fee" and then they want THE PHOTOGRAPHER to PAY $50+ per image that goes to Getty and then they want 60% of the profit. PALEEEEEEEZE! Getty is a terrible option for freelancers without representation.
What if all the Strobist poolers banded together and formed our own rights-managed stock site, or something similar to Photoshelter? That's my 2 beans. Getty is notorious for ripping off the little guy. Anyone think a Strobist Photosheltery-type thing a good idea?
The only people to benifit from this will be Shitty Images
Count on it!
Callum
I dont understand the complaints. This is what business does, it makes money. The more for them the less for you the better. I would not be supprised if we see a profit split near 70/30 or less. This model puts much more work on Getty's side to weed through the images and select them. All we have to do is keep doing what we have been doing. Posting our random crap.
BEWARE!! of working with Getty. I have a few images with them and wouldn't even have known they had been "sold" had I not seen them turn up on a major news magazine's website. That was in Feb. and I still haven't seen a dime of the low price I am sure they sold the picture for and the small percentage of that commission I would get. But they still say I have no sales. And now they won't answer my emails.
Please, Strobist readers do not help other people, be it Getty or anyone else undercut the market for professional photographers. I beg you.
One comment above mentioned..."(hell if I can buy some rolls/development with them...)" THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! If you try to make a living from making pictures, then a few rolls and development is not going to satisfy your landlord. I know it is cool to see your pictures in print and it makes you feel good, but I don't go in to other people's line of work and say, "sure I would love to do (consulting, construction, lawyering, whatever you may do,) for almost nothing. Hell all I want is gas money. Then my neighbor can't pay his mortgage, since I am only doing this for one afternoon and don't have to suffer the consequences of a destroyed market.
And think about it, if you ask for say--a fair market price--you will get even more than a few rolls and development and everyone wins.
As was mentioned in above comments there is little talk of how photographers will benefit from the transaction, except..."Prices will vary, depending on the license model, but the pricing will be similar to other RM, RR and RF imagery at gettyimages.com." The "similar to" part should be read as "but less than".
It is not that Getty in particular or other picture buyers are evil people but remember the most profitable business model for them is to have a constant supply of creative, beautiful images that clients love and pay nothing for them. The closer they get towards that model, the better off they will be. And every time you say yes, no matter how insignificant it may seem, it helps them work in that direction.
Please, I beg you again, don't help them. Walk away, ask for more...And tell your friends to to the same.
You generally "Pay to Play" at Getty. You don't submit to them for free. You do a lot of the work getting the images ready for them with the hope of having them selected and selling usage.
If they are tapping into this new resource I could imagine that it is a lower end deal. For clients who were looking for low cost, lower quality images. It seems like this is a new pricing tier in photography for Getty.
Can't beat'um? then Join'um.
If market research has shown that there is a high demand for lower file sizes [due to Web use you don't need a 12mp camera to produce a good 72dpi image] than of course they are going to jump on a new lower grade revenue stream. Flickr I am sure is making bank on this deal too. They have what Getty wants, the interface is already there; all they have to do is add something to it. This effectively makes Getty the middle man when it comes to licensing images.
The photography pot is watering down, maybe this makes room for everyone who wants to make a profit from photography, maybe it is a leveling of supply and demand. Pricing will stay low if there is something for everyone. Maybe a line is being drawn in the blurring world of intellectual rights licensing.
Getty is not a proponent of CC licensing, this is a way of exposing those who are unfamiliar with how photography is licensed in the working world. Getty also has a huge library of images and future profits to protect. They will make money off of you and educate you ate the same time.
I do not personally submit to Getty, but I know plenty of photographers who do. I have a Flickr account but removed all of my images from it. This transition stage of intellectual licensing for all creatives leaves me conflicted. Do I try to make a profit fom my talent as a photographer or do I get a regular job? What is on the other side of this hill? Hmmm...
~ T
You generally "Pay to Play" at Getty. You don't submit to them for free. You do a lot of the work getting the images ready for them with the hope of having them selected and selling usage.
If they are tapping into this new resource I could imagine that it is a lower end deal. For clients who were looking for low cost, lower quality images. It seems like this is a new pricing tier in photography for Getty.
Can't beat'um? then Join'um.
If market research has shown that there is a high demand for lower file sizes [due to Web use you don't need a 12mp camera to produce a good 72dpi image] than of course they are going to jump on a new lower grade revenue stream. Flickr I am sure is making bank on this deal too. They have what Getty wants, the interface is already there; all they have to do is add something to it. This effectively makes Getty the middle man when it comes to licensing images.
The photography pot is watering down, maybe this makes room for everyone who wants to make a profit from photography, maybe it is a leveling of supply and demand. Pricing will stay low if there is something for everyone. Maybe a line is being drawn in the blurring world of intellectual rights licensing.
Getty is not a proponent of CC licensing, this is a way of exposing those who are unfamiliar with how photography is licensed in the working world. Getty also has a huge library of images and future profits to protect. They will make money off of you and educate you ate the same time.
I do not personally submit to Getty, but I know plenty of photographers who do. I have a Flickr account but removed all of my images from it. This transition stage of intellectual licensing for all creatives leaves me conflicted. Do I try to make a profit fom my talent as a photographer or do I get a regular job? What is on the other side of this hill? Hmmm...
~ T
@richard: it is their standard contract, which means it must be exclusive with getty (i.e. can't crosslist with photoshelter). it's unclear how this will affect an image that is available for CC-non-commercial use. Lots of intellectual property minefields.
@danie: this is the most damning point of the deal. 99.99% (if not more) of photographers will be excluded because their cameras do not meet the technical requirements. this is in part, why i'm skeptical as to the reasons behind the deal.
Here's our PhotoShelter response:
http://blog.photoshelter.com/corp/2008/07/how-getty-is-killing-the-stock.html
Looking forward to meeting some of you guys next week with David.
I was with Stockphotos/Image Bank for twenty years 1985 to 2005 and i must confess to being heartily cheesed off at getting 30% sales even from wholly owned image Bank Offices. Web sales where you do all the donkey work of keywording and quality control for 70% has been a revelation and has rekindled my enthusiasm for Stock.
I'm totally with Allen and PSC's blog!
Here's another interesting blog about that!
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/karmas-rhymes-with-witch.html
I must be missing something. I can see people's discontent with Getty and not wanting to do business with them, but there's nothing in this release that says Getty is going to be able to grab whatever they feel like. "Photographers will have the option to take part, or not."
So, why is this deal bad then? I have never dealt with Getty (or any stock agency) so I don't know the particulars of a Getty contract. They have not released these contract details yet, so everything is just speculation.
Just seems like people are quick to condemn this before all the facts are in. It certainly will be interesting to see how this partnership develops. If nothing else it is an example of how the job of media production in general is undergoing a massive change.
Read the PSC blog
Getty pays something like this
%20 for RF
%35 for MR
...and they choose what picture they want.
I think this is a train wreck waiting to happen. I'd say many FlickR users will simply push the Getty button and pay absolutely no attention to the exclusivity they have apparently give to them.
Surely Getty is going to have a nightmare on their hands enforcing exclusivity for such a wide range of images from non-professionals.
Any thoughts?
Guy
I think this is purely a PR move by both Getty and Flickr and nothing more. Flickr likely doesn't have enough acceptable content (with the acceptable releases, etc), and Getty likely doesn't have any intention of using Flickr. However, to the average Joe on the street may see this as a reason to use Flickr (earning Flickr revenue by giving Average Joe the "possibility" of selling images through Getty), and Getty keeps Flickr out of the business and out of the hands of others (less competition).
If that is the case, I think Flickr got the better end of the deal.
/Andrew
One comment mentioned stringent image standards. I don't know where these ideas came from, but I see Getty staff shooters at events I'm covering shooting with the same 1D mk II and mk IIn cameras I use- at only 8.2 mp.
I think these requirements may be for entertainment and commercial aplications only, as Getty does news and sports editorial images as well (that don't require a model release or such lofty and specific file standards).
I think very highly of Getty, and have been considering working with them myself, but this flickr deal seems a little fishy. Any pro who is good enough to work with them is perfectly capable of aproaching them and signing a deal themselves, so what are they looking for on flickr?
As one final comment, anyone who is thinking about selling themselves short for "a few rolls and processing..." please don't-- I have to eat and pay my bills.
Thanks.
Well, Getty got to fight somehow with evergrowing set of microstocks somehow. If they making this as PR move or for real - matters not much for them. Whats important for them is to show that they arent sitting on some totally separated island, b/c potential buyers do indeed splipping to use microstocks and younger photobanks, and Getty got this bad rap going of being too snobbish , so some publishers (and not just some cheapos) now will not even bother check them out.
For me interesting question is - about every single pro i know with stream on flickr got images downsized, so they wouldnt be stolen/copied. Now - we all do know that some images may look great when they small and pretty crappy when they blown up to 30x40 print. So question is - how on earth they do expect to judge general quality of pictures (Getty) and how they plan to deal with huge amount of large size subscriptions (Flickr) that this announcement may bring in (and again - i doubt most of serious shooters will bother but very same average Joe may go in frenzy of putting up tons of vacation shots @ 12mp in hope Getty will come and pick it up).
Just test uploaded 10 images to Photoshelter, only 7 turned up. Oh dear the key wording, model release, rights management interface is completely clueless. If this is the future of web based stock photos, good grief, I am watching with interest!!!!!!!!!!!!! Two images that were rejected have made over $2000 in the last few years, the rejection "because they were desaturated" I am sorry Black and White photography is still cool!!!!
the only thing relevant about this post is that strobist has a major presence on flickr. aside from that, i don't think getty will be looking for the 'obviously over-produced' imagery found in the strobist pool. they have plenty of that with far more art direction and commercial value. they are looking for more editorial-type snaps that convey a subtle concept, which strobist pics are typically not. besides, aside from camera requirements, there's only so much one can do with small strobes at a low enough iso to meet getty's technical requirements.
also, if any of you are going to sell your photos, plan to profit from it, rather than use the money to subsidize your hobby. if you're going to sell out, do so for a good reason. otherwise, you might as well keep shooting what you enjoy without the pressure of trying to shoot for the market.
Screw Getty. I've already licensed images from flickr without their help, or their taking half the profits. This is simply Getty trying to horn in on us taking them out of the market.
This is amazing... for Getty.
It will only hurt photographers that are trying to make a living on this.
Now Getty can pick from a huge archive and sell cheap, cause the work they have to do is slim and alot of the flickr-crowd will be happy to cash in $5 on a shot - not knowing it was actually worth ten or twenty times more, had only the proper channels been used.
(For the record, I am not one of those photographers trying to make a living on it.)
The comments on here are usually worth reading. Most of these are more like reading the Strobist Flickr group.
It's an 'opt-in'. If you don't like it, simply do nothing.
Don't do it... Getty are the like an enormous black hole swallowing up photographers and agencies across the universe, this is just another example of how they're trying to dominate the image market... If you want to make money from your pictures syndicate them with an independent agency... support diversity !
I have ready probab;y every post in Strobist in the last three months, since I stumbled upon it. Great stuff, keep it coming.
I found this quote on PhotoQuotes.com, I think it ultimately applies to the Getty and flickr teaming up along with the proliferation of cameras. no longer is it a hobby for the few, but it is obtainable for the masses:
"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster." - Ansel Adams - "A Personal Credo," in American Annual of Photography, vol. 58 (1944; repr. in Photographers on Photography, ed. By Nathan Lyons, 1966), Photographers on Photography : A Critical Anthology by Nathan Lyons (Editor)
Ok ... so I'm late to the party, but this bit caught my eye:
"This is an image-exclusive deal. If a Flickr photographer decides to have an image distributed through www.gettyimages.com, they cannot distribute that particular image, or any similar image, through any other site. They may, however, choose to distribute other images anywhere else."
And, while it has been pointed out that this is a FAQ for Customers, it is a little frightening from this perspective: Who decides what is similar or dissimilar?
It's a dangerous statement and, again, without reading the fine print of the contract, impossible to surmise. But it perks my ears up and gets me on the defensive already. While it has been pointed out that, "These guys are professional," it's disconcerting to say the least that a fellow photog may be railroaded by a company from selling photos that it deems, "similar," elsewhere.
I hope I'm wrong because it could be a good deal. This just makes me very wary.
There are lots of problems here. I just don't trust big business. Look at the examples today. Do you need anymore.
I would love to know how I can verify the usage of my work through Getty. How much exactly am I selling? Is Getty selling a lot of my work and sending me a very small check? How can I absolutely verify this info without question?
Answer: I can't
Question: Do you trust Getty?
Post a Comment
<< Home