|
Search this group's discussions
|
Problems in The Contributor Agreement - A section by section by guide
|
I've gone through the agreement in full and generally speaking the agreement is well written - it is short, simple and easy to follow.
However, i have spotted a few things that seem very problematic.
Here is the first portion of the contributor agreement, posted with comments. I hope that this will help people identify the most important and problematic sections of the agreement.
"All Content accepted by Getty Images is on a Content exclusive basis. Such Content and any Similars may not be submitted to any third party for license, sale or distribution. However, on a non-exclusive basis, You may use Content and any Similars for Your personal or self promotional, non-commercial use, including Photo Sharing, provided that You do not compete with or limit the rights granted to Getty Images under the Agreement. On an exclusive basis you may use Content and any Similars for limited edition, signed and/or numbered fine art prints (though Getty Images retains the exclusive right to sell and license prints not signed or numbered)." Problematic. I don't understand how this in incompatible with a Creative Commons non-commercial license. If someone with a non-commercial blog wants to use my photo, this is both non-commercial use and an opportunity for self-promotion. It doesn't compete with Getty because the alternative is using some other CC licensed or permission granted type imagery, not the use of a competing image library. Why doesn't Getty allow the use of CC-NC type license then? If CC-NC type licenses are not allowed, are we allowed to grant individual permission to blogs, artists, students engaged in non-commercial projects under this portion of the agreement?"Subject to the rights granted in this Agreement, You will retain Your copyright in all Content. You may register the copyright in any Content with the relevant copyright authority, or Getty Images may do so on Your behalf." Sounds reasonable. This makes it clear that we retain the rights to the images we create, especially after the agreement has expired."Using the credit line supplied by You, Getty Images shall use commercially reasonable efforts to credit You as the source of Content, but shall have no liability for lack of credit." Sounds reasonable. This means that Getty will work to assure we are attributed for our work, but doesn't want to assume unreasonable liability for doing so."Royalties are paid on Gross License Fees for business to-business licenses and on Net License Fees for Consumer Licenses (all as defined in Section 14), based on the license model through which Content is being licensed at the time, as follows:
LICENSE MODEL AND CONTENT TYPE ROYALTY
Rights Managed / Rights Ready Still Images and Footage - 30 percent
Royalty Free Footage - 25 percent
Royalty Free Still Images - 20 percent" Problematic.While this is clearly articulated and prominently positioned, you have to do some digging to figure out what Rights Managed and Royalty Free mean."Within 20 days after the end of each calendar month (the “License Month”), Getty Images will make available to You a report (the “Royalty Report”) showing transactions occurring during the License Month. The Royalty Report will state the Royalties due to You and any Royalty Deductions and will also include the following information for Rights Managed and Rights Ready licenses: (i) the invoice number or transaction identifier and date; and (ii) where appropriate, the rights granted by a license." Sounds reasonable. When our work is used, we'll be informed of it."Getty Images will make Royalty payments monthly, within 60 days after the end of each License Month, by PayPal or by electronic funds transfer. No payment will be issued unless a minimum of US$50, after Royalty Deductions, is due. Any unpaid amounts under US$50 will accrue and be paid in the next monthly Royalty payment once the total amount due exceeds US$50." Problematic. For example, I've been asked to submit 7 photos for use, which isn't very many. In my opinion, my selected photos are very mediocre. I only get 20% of each transaction involving these images. it seems quite conceivable to me that these images might be sold on a very limited basis by Getty and that I will receive no compensation whatsoever for any of those sales.
I can understand the managerial issues related to multiple minuscule monthly payments. however, I don't understand why if a photographer has earned 35 dollars after two years, you won't pay them at that point. Will Getty be publicly releasing information related to what percentage of flickr contributors do not receive any payment after the two year term?"Term is 2 years from the Commencement Date, then automatically renews for successive one-year periods. Either Party may terminate by providing notice: (a) at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the then-current Term; or (b) if the other Party: (i) breaches any material term or condition of the Agreement and, if capable of remedy, fails to remedy such breach within 60 days after being given notice thereof by the non-breaching Party; or (ii) becomes insolvent or suffers any act of insolvency. Upon expiration or termination, Getty Images will use commercially reasonable efforts to inactivate digital Content in its inventory. The expiration or termination of this Agreement will not affect the accrued rights and obligations of the Parties or any licenses issued to Clients prior to termination (including any licenses renewed pursuant to Section 8)."
Problematic. This is *extremely* poorly worded and confusing, especially considering that it is one of the more important sections of the agreement.
The wording isn't particularly clear because it says you can "terminate", when what it really means is that you can "prevent renewal", which is a very different concept. If you're terminating a 2 year term at exactly the end of two years, I don't think that's really "termination" - by using the word "terminate" it more strongly suggests that you can terminate the contract within the 2 year period."You agree that You are an independent contractor. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that their relationship is not one of partnership, employment, joint venture, principal-agent or any other legal identity, and that Getty Images has no obligation to find or offer employment to You." Sounds reasonable.
This leaves me with some suggestions.
1] Allow us to grant individual permission to blogs, artists, students engaged in non-commercial projects, either using a CC-NC license or by way of individual permission.
2] Explain more, sooner. like what "rights free" and "rights managed" mean, and whether or not they apply to your images. currently the flow is "click, click CONTRACT".
Without explaining much beyond "hooray, you're one of the special chosen people!", you're asking for SSNs and dropping people into a legalese ridden PDF.
3] While the need to avoid repeated "micro-payments" under $50 is obvious, pay any sub-$50 amount accrued at the end of the two year period.
4] Either allow us to terminate the agreement within the two year period, or make it much, much clearer that the agreement is totally irrevocable for a two year term.
Posted at 6:28PM, 27 January 2009 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
Stri, I'm sure that a number of these queries have been covered in the Getty Images Contributors Group. There was a link to this private Group included in your invitation. Have you checked that out?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Stri, I'm sure that a number of these queries have been covered in the Getty Images Contributors Group."
that's a private group for people who have been selected.
it is better to have these things discussed out in the open, where people can gather information in advance of being selected.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i've also run searches in that group for "rights free", "creative commons", "$50" and "terminate" and do not see any responses that address any of the concerns or suggestions here.
you can run those searches yourself and find unanswered questions from Brenda Anderson, blank search result pages, pages with no relevant responses etc. etc.
i understand how it is to Getty and Flickr's advantage to have these queries handled in a place where they can't easily be seen or linked to by outsiders, but it is ultimately counterproductive for informing the flickr population at large. this is the sort of information i would have liked to have had known *before* going through an involved sign up process, so keeping the information cloistered in a private group isn't very helpful for flickr members deciding whether they'd like to participate or not - or for outsiders interested in simply observing and reporting on how agencies like Getty interact with flickr and its community.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
striatic edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
i mean, the way the system currently works, by the time you receive the "Welcome to Getty Images Contributor" email and its link to the private "getty images contributors" group, you've likely already given Getty your images for a two year period.
the system is set up in a very smooth "web 2.0" way, where people have been trained over the years to click through EULAs almost by reflex guided by terminology all along the way that they've been invited into some "exclusive club" .. all this feeding into the contract that is totally unlike what the process "feels" like, in that it is almost completely exclusive and irrevocable.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
striatic edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
striatic wrote you've likely already given Getty your images for a two year period. Striatic, I understand why you are posting these questions here... and I agree that it is better to be transparent about the whole issue ... but I think that is a bit misleading. You can access ALL the information in the group and on the Getty Images contributor's website without ever licensing any of your photos to Getty. Signing the contributor's agreement does not obligate you to license anything. I have 3 photos that I'm still sitting on that were invited back in December, so I can say without qualification that it's not as simple as "click a button and license your photos".
Yes, there are still some unanswered questions there, but I would hope that people are not licensing their photos if they are not 100% sure of what they are getting into.
*edited to clarify my thoughts*
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
"You can access ALL the information in the group and on the Getty Images contributor's website without ever licensing any of your photos to Getty."
obviously you *can*. i personally have both signed the agreement and not licensed anything yet. but let's be real - it takes less time to click a couple times and license your images than it is to exit the licensing wizard, check the email you've received, go to the private flickr group, search the appropriate strings and so on.
you've got a machine built for securing rights on the one side, and a private group that you're only informed of very late in the process on the other side. i think that's imbalanced and it is very likely that you'd license your images before encountering any discussion on the matter.
"Yes, there are still some unanswered questions there, but I would hope that people are not licensing their photos if they are not 100% sure of what they are getting into."
i don't think the answer is to reduce the level of publicly available information, just because people who make a mistake 'should have known better'.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
striatic edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
@striatic, kudos for your insightful and well-written post.
(And thanks for posting it here, where both current and future contributors are able to wrap their minds around the issues.)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
a private group that you're only informed of very late in the process on the other side.
That group is available to you from the minute you're invited, before you sign the agreement, no? Unless I'm mistaken you're auto enrolled in the private group. Isn't the URL in the invite email?
There was never any intention by either Getty Images or Flickr to hide any aspect of our relationship, esp.,
We felt that we needed two groups to manage the needs of those who were participating in both. Those who've been selected can have access to subject matter experts from Getty Images to answer specific questions like those that you've asked (you're not the first), and a more general group about the partnership for those who haven't yet.
If those two groups were mixed, the signal to noise ratio would be impossible for both parties (as only the Flickrverse can be -- whom I love dearly) and would lack the clarity that's required esp., for those who are entering into a business relationship with Getty Images.
I would ask that you respect that division and seek the answers to your queries in the contributors group.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Unless I'm mistaken you're auto enrolled in the private group. Isn't the URL in the invite email?"
the URL isn't in the initial invite mail. you only get that link in the mail after you've fully completed the sign up process.
here is the text of the invite email sent from flickr:
"Hi striatic,
Flickr has partnered with the fabulous Getty Images to offer an invitation-only service for Flickr members to license their photos for commercial use.
The Getty Images team has noticed your work on Flickr, and is pleased to offer you an invitation to enroll with them. They have selected 7 of your photos for possible inclusion in the program. Here are a few of them:
[list of photos]
If you're interested, find out how to get started at the Flickr page below:
* www.flickr.com/gettyimages/
Congratulations! And, good luck!
Regards,
The Flickreenos
For more information:
About Getty Images
gettyimages.com
About Flickr’s partnership with Getty Images
flickr.com/help/gettyimages/
About opting out of invitations like this:
flickr.com/account/prefs/gettyimages/ "
"I would ask that you respect that division and seek the answers to your queries in the contributors group."
but this information isn't for "contributors". it is for people who aren't contributors yet. by the time you're a contributor, this information is largely useless because you've already signed the agreement.
i understand the utility of a private group for running a tight beta, or for answering technical questions that would have little interest outside actual contributors, but i don't think that "signal to noise ratio" is an adequate reason for keeping Getty's responses on the nature of their contributor agreement private.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
[quote]If someone with a non-commercial blog wants to use my photo, this is both non-commercial use and an opportunity for self-promotion. It doesn't compete with Getty because the alternative is using some other CC licensed or permission granted type imagery, not the use of a competing image library.[/quote]
You are incorrect in assuming that noncommercial clients only use images from free sources.
Example: I am a designer at a university (noncommercial entity) and I want to use your image on a brochure. If I find the same image on Getty for $50 and also on Flickr for free, you have just competed yourself and Getty out of a sale.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
LeKriz "at a university (noncommercial entity) "
That assumption has stirred a lot of debate. It's not clear that your use is automatically non-commercial because you work for a university.
Check out the Creative Commons discussions for more information.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi striatic. We will review the tools to ensure the private group is visible early and often, including in the invite email. Thanks so much for the feedback.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
LeKriz said, "I am a designer at a university (noncommercial entity) and I want to use your image on a brochure. "
Colleen said, "It's not clear that your use is automatically non-commercial because you work for a university."
I'd agree with Colleen here. Especially in the example you cited. If that brochure were used as a form of advertising in order to bring in revenue (whether through students' tuition, or grants or donations for the school) it would be a commercial use, IMO.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks striatic for your work.
I think its important that there is an open and transparent discussion about getty and flickr. I too have an invite but not 100% sure about a few things at this stage.
Of course it is my free choice if i decide to sell via getty but i am keen to hear what others say about the getty contract and if they are going to accept it.
Im think I will stand by and listen to what everyone has to say before I jumping in!
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
john white photos edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
"Hi striatic. We will review the tools to ensure the private group is visible early and often, including in the invite email. Thanks so much for the feedback."
heather sidetracked us into a discussion of where this discussion should take place, and the lack of early visibility of the private group was only one concern. what's the point of the public group anyway? judging by the group description and the other discussions here, this topic seems to fit exactly into this group's purpose.
this post caused Brenda Anderson to ask you about concern 3] in the private group. your response there reflected very well on this project, and yet none of the future contributors will see that response.
"Example: I am a designer at a university (noncommercial entity) and I want to use your image on a brochure. If I find the same image on Getty for $50 and also on Flickr for free, you have just competed yourself and Getty out of a sale."
a brochure that's selling a university doesn't sound like non-commercial use to me. what makes you say that a university is a non-commercial entity anyway?
-----
i'm never going to make a living getting 20% of images sold via Getty. i doubt that many or any photographers will. making a sale might represent a nice "treat" for people here and there, and an ego boost for having been "chosen". i'm not sure this totally supplants all other goals.
my main interest in Getty Images isn't the payback, which would be miniscule, but that it allows photos to be seen in more places. there are companies that will only use images from commercial image libraries, because they want to feel as secure as possible in their use of a work, and Getty provides that security by doing the legwork in terms of establishing copyrights, model releases and so on.
if there's a cloud over CC-NC licensing, why not try clearing it up? i know that Creative Commons put out a survey a couple months ago, trying to figure out how people interpret "non-commercial". why not contact Creative Commons in an effort to generate a Non-Commercial license that is compatible with present and future commercial use by stock services like Getty Images? or maybe generate such a license entirely on your own?
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
striatic edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
"Thanks striatic for your work.
I think its important that there is an open and transparent discussion about getty and flickr. I too have an invite but not 100% sure about a few things at this stage."
you're welcome. me too.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
John,
I'm with you on waiting. They want a lot of my images, but I sell those same images directly in my local market and do not want to make them exclusive to Getty, nor do I want to expose my images to "Royalty Free" usage, which sounds like it sounds... a rip off for the creator. I currently only sell non-exclusive one time use rights at a minimum of $375 per image in even the smallest publication. I sold one image for exclusive commercial use for $15,000 through an ad agency for a Johnson and Johnson ad. In each case I negotiate the fee personally, gathering all the information about placement and circulation, exclusivity, etc... before setting the rate.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Getty Images on Flickr /
Discuss
LeKriz "at a university (noncommercial entity) "
Feed – Subscribe to Getty Images on Flickr discussion threads