|
I'm sure you'll find all that out when they contact you.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Depends on what you mean by buying your photos. I am guessing what will probably happen is that Getty will license your photos for resale. If this is the case you will get a portion of that sale. Being a non professional photographer, a very small portion ( for example in an RF sale the smallest file size for even professional photographer may only generate $1/sale )
Usually the terms of the license will dictate how they can use the photo. It the case of a Right Manged agreement you will probably only be allowed to sell exclusively through them. I am guessing it will probably be a Royalty Free or Microstock license. They may ask for exclusivity but this severely limits you ability to generate revenue from other sources ( Microstock would got through their IStock site), however they do have the largest market share and exposure.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The account setting is in preparation for the Getty/Flickr partnership, which is supposed to launch "soon" (ie, sometime this year).
More info in the FAQ: flickr.com/help/gettyimages/
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I sell through Getty.
Yes, of course they pay for your images!
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@koknia: How much do they pay/image?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We don't know yet what the arrangements will be for the Flickr/Getty partnership. People who get asked will presumably find out then.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It will probably be around Microstock pricing ( cents/ not dollars per image/ sale) they can justify it because most people on Flickr are not professionals. However they can't sell people images without releases.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ok, thanks everyone.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We're currently in a testing phase with Getty Images and have sent out a handful of invites. Even though we're testing, we felt that it was important for all of our members to be able to set their preference.
While it's a little "cart before the horse", it will all make much more sense when we exit the testing phase and start sending out the bulk of the invitations. There will be more FAQs and a public group where you'll find information and answers to your questions.
In the meantime, we've published a new FAQ that gives a little background to this new account setting:
www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/#401556
[I work for Flickr]
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok, thanks, Heather. I just hope I didn't ruin any surprises...;)
[I work for no one]
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
k3n13 - I sell through an agreement with my stock agency. It's an even three way split. So the % to the shooter is kinda low, but they get me out to a massive market and sell quite a bit.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
From the FAQ:
We’re hoping that the Flickr Collection on Getty Images will debut early next year.
Is that this year, or next year?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, it said that last month, so I would assume 2009.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am just a little scared about the fact that Flickr changes Private Settings without informing their members in a mail or a "News" Button on the homepage! And when Flickr changed these settings why with "yes" and not with "No" in the defaults?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Probably because it is just an invitation by Getty Images and you can always deny the invitation.
Still, I would agree: this should be announced first.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am just a little scared about the fact that Flickr changes Private Settings without informing their members in a mail or a "News" Button on the homepage! And when Flickr changed these settings why with "yes" and not with "No" in the defaults?
The Getty Images testing process is a little different than most new Flickr features. Were this something that impacted everyone immediately, the announcement would have been made simulatenously with its appearance.
As it is now, a handful of invitations have been sent out and to simplify the testing, we turned on the opt out for everyone. When testing is completed (soon) and prior to the bulk of the invites (thousands) being sent out, we will be making an announcement on FlickrBlog.
And as to whether this is opt out or opt in, as this is a setting for the receiving of an invitation, we went on the assumption that most people would like to at least receive the info on what such a relationship with Getty Images might mean for them. If they then determine that once contacted, they'd rather not participate, they can turn off further invitations.
I'm thinking back over a similar new feature and printing comes to mind. When we introduced our relationship with EZPrints back in 2006 and the "order prints" button was added to everyone's photo.gne pages, you'll remember that our members had to opt in to having this feature for themselves and could determine who else (friends, family, contacts, etc.) could see this feature.
We don't take the addition of new account settings lightly, it's just that with something as complex as the process for the Flickr Collection on Getty Images, the order of doing things is going to have a few weeks of muddied waters or "the cart before the horse" that I spoke of previously.
[I work for Flickr]
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't really see the big deal for the default. It's just asking if you'd like to be contacted, not if you want to give your pics to them.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I have thought I decide what to do with my Private Settings!
But thanks for your answer heather .
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have thought I decide what to do with my Private Settings!
You don't create your private settings though - those are part of the flickr interface. You can choose what to set them on once they're there, which is what is happening now.
edited for emphasis
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
I'm actually surprised that we have the ability to opt out of receiving emails from Getty at all, since all Flickr members can send mail to any Flickr members (unless there are blocks).
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Because Getty is a commercial operation, I think they need a special arrangement as not to violate the TOS
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok, thanks, especially Heather. As I said before, I hope I wasn't ruining any surprises. It just startled me to suddenly see a chance for Getty Images to buy my photos on my privacy settings.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A short, related piece in todays Guardian.
www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/jan/13/yahoo-yahoo
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm glad we can opt out!
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
what crap. at least Getty is being legal. I have had some of my (yeah, their crappy) photos used by folks with no payment but at least they asked. It's the ones I find with no acknowledgment or notification (which is what I care about) that pisses me off the most.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I find the opt out thing strange and misleading. When you "opt in" do you give them some special permission to look at your photos and send you a flickrmail that you don't give to some other company scouting for stock photographers on flickr? It seems to suggest that. Why would anyone want to decline having their photostream considered by a company like Getty? the photographer can always decline to sell the photo selected. If you are going to give people the choice to exclude Getty from being allowed to contact them with an offer you should also give us the option to prevent other companies contacting us with "offers" (most of which are spam).
Odd.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I imagine that the Getty editors will only look at photostreams that have not opted out, otherwise they are wasting their time.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree, Brenda. Nice avatar, too, Brenda. ;)
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So the next phase has been launched - just came up as a flickrblog announcement...
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
Could someone from Getty explain why they require any images they sell to remove Creative Commons?
I'n glad they are working with flickr photographers, but it seems if they really got it, they'd understand that a photo under non-commercial Creative Commons would not impact the commerical value of the photo and could reach more potential buyers.
Will they require the photo to be removed from sites that use it under CC? If not, then why can't it continue to be under Creative Commons?
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
Steve Rhodes edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
Creative Commons is a legal minefield and large risk-averse companies shy away from it.
Because there is no third party license-storage/validation with Creative Commons the photographer can claim a use was not Creative Commons licensed and there's no proof to the contrary.
EDIT: Here is an interesting blog post detailing the legal challenges using Creative Commons.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
Eric Hunt. edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
Eric in SF And what is the 'third party license-storage/validation' for all rights reserved images?
That link you posted is misleading. I noticed he turned off comments, because his logic is twisted and his argument is weak. Who says you can't reverse your all-rights reserved license and license it as CC? Wouldn't that create the same situation with your licensees? It's not the license that causes fraudulent or misleading behavior.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rick - the scenario in question was the opposite - the image was originally licensed CC, it was used properly under the license, and after it was used the photographer retroactively changed the license back to ARR.
Without an independent third party that can authenticate the time period(s) a license applies to an image, the situation devolves into he-said-she-said.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I understand his argument:
People bait and switching their license. i.e., switching from CC to all rights reserved after releasing it into the public domain.
That has nothing to do with CC license. Unscrupulous behavior is not limited by the license you apply to your works.
He states that people are unlikely to register their work with a copyright agency. Again, this has nothing to do with CC licenses.
Basically the guy is just spouting off about CC licenses. He has some sort of beef with public domain licenses. Not sure why. Possibly he sees it as a threat to his competitiveness.
(edited to add: he was talking about a hypothetical situation. there's no concrete example that he pointed out.)
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
Яick Harris edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
I used this example to point out why large companies are shy about allowing Creative Commons inside their doors. No other reason.
And it wasn't hypothetical, read the blockquote contained in the third paragraph of the blog post.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks, everyone, including Trapac for the link to the flickr blog. Now, if only Getty would get in touch with me...
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
But Eric, that is exactly the scenario Getty is proposing. If an image is Creative Commons and they pick it, you have to change to ARR.
That is no less of a legal minefield than if if they allow Creative Commons non-commercial. If anything, Getty supporting Creative Commons would help with education and setting standards.
I was also surprised they aren't interested in news photos. The photos of the inauguration and many other events show there at least as much value as for stock photos.
And news photos don't have to deal with model releases. While I'm sure there will be photos they choose where the photographer knows the subjects, there will be many where they won't be able to get releases.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This thread required bumping as it now appears Getty have an approved list of gear for taking pictures. I don't know if that applies to the Flickr Getty collaboration and whether all Getty Images aspirants on Flickr are aware of the requirement.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not applicable to the Flickr collection - this is for other collections in Getty.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Those lists are more guidelines than anything - Alamy have an approved camera list too, yet I've got several images on there taken with unapproved cameras (including a G9 compact).
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wonder if Getty will dispense with their list of expensive cameras approved for submissions?
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, as mentioned, there is no such list for the Flickr collection. This may be because the intent of the flickr collection is to look fresh, real, not posed, not stock. People have compact cam shots in the collection and in fact, when Getty selects images for the collection they may not even have access to the exif data and they probably don't care.
As for the other Getty collections, there is one called "Photographers' Choice" where you must pay Getty $50 per image to have them try to sell it for you. I'd be surprised if they enforce camera models for that collection.
That leaves the rest of them where quality standards are quite high but i believe that if you can meet them, they will accept your files even if the camera used isn't in their list. The main thing is they don't want you to waste their time with middling quality digital images or poor scans.
Originally posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
Muzzlehatch edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
heather .
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
