Help / The Help Forum

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Take a survey to help us improve Flickr groups
Latest: 60 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Update on the new photo experience
Latest: 2 hours ago
[Official Thread] Detailed explanation of new features in Flickr 3.0 apps
Latest: 3 hours ago
[Official Thread] Using a Yahoo username and password to sign in to Flickr
Latest: 5 hours ago
[Official Thread] Using Flickr over a secure (SSL) connection
Latest: 35 hours ago
[Official Thread] Providing feedback on Flickr 3.0 for iOS and Android
Latest: 6 days ago

 

Current Discussion

How to delete permanently photos from flickr?
Latest: 12 minutes ago
missing invites
Latest: 21 minutes ago
Oops! An issue occured (SIC) while loading. Please refresh the page.
Latest: 28 minutes ago
What happened to Sets ?
Latest: 44 minutes ago
Merging Accounts.
Latest: 66 minutes ago
jaipur eSCORT Services,(09643444009~$~09643444008),jaipur eSCORT Services, jaipur eSCORT girls 09643444009~$~09643444008,jaipur eSCORT Services, jaipur eSCORT girls 09643444009~$~09643444008,jaipur eSCORT Services, jaipur eSCORT girls 0
Latest: 2 hours ago
[confirmed bug] search for machine-tags not working anymore
Latest: 3 hours ago
Why are views down 80% today (Thursday) ???
Latest: 3 hours ago
GM script to make photo-page tag search only in the photostream (rather than in all of flickr)
Latest: 4 hours ago
Import Exif location data setting was OFF all the time! what about all my previews uploads?
Latest: 4 hours ago
Problem login in Flickr with Google
Latest: 5 hours ago
copyright/protection from public use
Latest: 6 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

[Official Topic] Getty Images “Request to License” - Feedback & Bugs

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard says:

We've just launched a new feature that lets you add a Getty Images "Request to License" link on your Flickr photos!

Read all about it on the blog or in the FAQs. There is an FAQ about Request to License specifically and there is more info in the full Getty Images FAQ section.

New "Want to license your photos through Getty Images?" link
Only you see this note about the account setting. To make it go away just choose the option you'd like and click "Save".

If you have any feedback or bugs about the feature, please let us know below.

Questions about the Getty Images program and licensing info through Getty should be asked in the Getty Images Call for Artists group.
Posted at 1:19PM, 17 June 2010 PDT ( permalink )
zyrcster (staff) edited this topic 47 months ago.

← prev 1 2 3
(1 to 100 of 277 replies in [Official Topic] Getty Images “Request to License” - Feedback & Bugs)
view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

Blog link isn't going to the blog...

EDIT: I assume you meant this:
blog.flickr.net/en/2010/06/17/request-to-license-via-gett...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

It's fixed now. :-)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard says:

It always does that I don't know why! Sorry, I fixed it :)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flet©h says:

I never get in early for these things so I just thought I'd say this is going to cause one almighty fuss.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

Flet©h said:

this is going to cause one almighty fuss.

Probably. :-)

But Flickr members will fuss if you slightly changed the font of the FAQ, or altered the RGB of the blue font by one point... As long as the process works, I don't see what anyone really has to fuss about... (Edit: As usual, I was wrong. :-)

Zack Sheppard said:
We've just launched a new feature that lets you add a Getty Images "Request to License" link on your Flickr photos!


Thanks for making this "opt-in" by default. That's the best part of it for me...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
Wil C. Fry edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

jakerome says:

Any chance the "request to license" link can be set to send us an email directly instead?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Muzzlehatch says:

LOL
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BlueRidgeKitties says:

*LOL*

Cool idea, but this is either on for all your images or off for all your images? I'd like to be able to selectively turn this off on pictures I don't want or can't make available for a commercial license through Getty. No use in advertising the ability to request a license if the answer has to be "sorry, not this image."
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian Aslak says:

*random irrational fuss about something new on Flickr*

Grr!


;-)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

Ditto the request to allow the setting to be applied to individual images.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mr Tickle - Wachoo Wachoo Tribe Congressman says:

BlueRidgeKitties has a good point, there may well be images that someone may not want to be available to Gettys. ie., the odd occasional family photo which is sentimental
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

If someone requests to license a photo that you don't want to license, you can simply decline for that photo. But I agree that if you know for sure that you would never offer a license, then it would be good to be able to pre-emptively exclude the photo.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flet©h says:

Any chance the "request to license" link can be set to send us an email directly instead?

Yep!
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

I really don't get what Getty is doing to earn their 80% cut here. At least in the Flickr collection, they provide exposure. I suppose there will quickly be a way for users to search for photos available for licensing... will that include CC-BY stuff? One casualty of this, I imagine, is that folks making the occasional licensing deal directly will lose a lot of sales.

Looks like a fantastic deal for Getty.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

See, this FAQ bothers me, www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/#848394 . Not that it's going to make any real difference, but why not just say "contact Getty or send the photographer a Flickr Mail directly."

I'm guessing folks looking to buy stuff don't read the FAQ real deep, so in practice it won't mean much. But it seems emblematic of the whole Getty/Flickr relationship.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Scott Hortop says:

The existing Flickr on Getty collection requires image exclusivity.

Many of my images on Flickr are already on sale rights managed but non-exclusive at other agencies. If I turn on "request to license" then then how will these arrangements be affected?

Does turning on "request to license" have the effect of making my images Getty exclusives?????? Seems absurd but the FAQ page is very confusing - it's not clear which FAQs deal with Flickr on Getty and which deal with 'request to license'. Flickr should set up separate FAQ's for each programme.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

Scotty "H" wrote

If I turn on "request to license" then then how will these arrangements be affected?
It's only a "request to license"... you aren't actually licensing them so your previous arrangements should be not be affected unless 1. someone actually requests a license and 2. you decide to license it ... at which point, it becomes part of the Getty-Flickr collection and is subject to all the exclusivity clauses etc.

So, if a photo is already "taken", so to speak, then you would simply decline the request.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sgoralnick says:

I really don't get what Getty is doing to earn their 80% cut here. At least in the Flickr collection, they provide exposure... One casualty of this, I imagine, is that folks making the occasional licensing deal directly will lose a lot of sales.

Looks like a fantastic deal for Getty.


+1
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

paul_clarke says:

any way to change these settings for batches? I can't see the options in the Organizer view, and it seems a pain to have to set each photo individually?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

It's all or nothing, paul.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Scott Hortop says:

Brenda, that makes sense but could be clearer with a separate FAQ page.

Seems to me there must be a "request to license from Getty Images" search function coming soon. Buyer finds photo on Flickr - seems they then still have an open choice of contacting me direct or asking Getty to license.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

***Nerthus*** says:

They will probably prefer to deal with Getty to be sure they get a picture they could use without problems ( for example with proper model releases)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Muzzlehatch says:

You're right about that. I don't think they are doing anything to earn their huge cut. Unlike in the old program where they actually host the photos on their site, keyword it, give it their imprimatur, etc.

I think it's a terrible deal for people who are approached for licensing arrangements through their flickr stream with any regularity and know what to do when that happens.

Some people don't get much of that, don't know what to do, what to charge, how to deal with the contract, etc. For them I think this will be better than what they were doing before.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

paul_clarke says:

@jakerome - thank you - goodness me, so it seems. how very odd! The CC clash issue will certainly need to be sorted out...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard says:

@paul_clarke You can use the Request to License feature with CC photos. Here's some more info:

www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/#425795
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Allablur says:


Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Scott Hortop says:

Nerthus wrote:

"They will probably prefer to deal with Getty to be sure they get a picture they could use without problems ( for example with proper model releases)"

Licensing from individuals who don't know how to deal with buyers could be problematical - but it's only I that can generate proper model releases.

Anyway I've joined, just to see what happens. But with all images included I'll get more requests for images that can't possibly be licensed than those that can.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BlueRidgeKitties says:

I'm curious on the CC license thing. Two questions that come to my mind:

I've read the FAQ and it says images can be licensed only as royalty-free if they have been CC. Since any Flickr user can change the licensing settings on their images at any time between ARR and different types of CC licenses, does Flickr track and keep a record of which images have in the past had a CC license on them?

How does this apply to having several versions of an image on Flickr, e.g. a CC-licensed version in computer wallpaper size and a high-resolution full-size ARR version to use for printing. If the full size version is requested, would the CC-licensed smaller version of the picture have to be changed to ARR?

(edited for clarity)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
BlueRidgeKitties edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

MrPhilDog says:

 Zack: Zack - sorry if I am being dim but I don't get this from the FAQ:

"There is a chance one of your Creative Commons-licensed photos may catch the eye of a perceptive Getty Images editor. You are welcome to upload these into the Flickr collection on Getty Images, but your contract requires that all images you place with Getty Images be licensed exclusively through them. So, if you proceed with your submission, switching your license to All Rights Reserved (on Flickr) will happen automatically. Any image selected to be part of the Flickr Collection on Getty Images that had been in Creative Commons will automatically be designated for Royalty-Free licensing."

It first seems to say that any CC licensed image will become ARR if licensed through Getty and then later says they become royalty free... What does that mean?

My photos are CC licensed for non-commercial use only. If I make them available for "request to license" what happens to them?

"Royalty Free" implies Getty will give them away.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

MrPhilDog wrote

My photos are CC licensed for non-commercial use only. If I make them available for "request to license" what happens to them?
If someone requests to license it, and you say yes, then the photo gets switched to ARR on Flickr. The photo in the Getty collection can only be licensed under the RF (royalty free) program, which means that the person buying the license pays a set fee (depending on the size of the image used) and can then use that photo from then on without having to pay again. (that's what royalty-free means). Anyone else who comes along can also license it RF, pay the fee, and use it.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SF Lіghts says:

Down with this sort of thing. Or something.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Cynthia E. Wood says:

Personally, I think this is a bogus arrangement/deal, and that Getty should split the deal 50-50 with the photographer for any images licensed this way. Heck, make it 40-60 -- or better!

As others have said (or implied) before me, Getty isn't even doing anything to earn their 70-80% with this set-up; they're just skimming all of that away from the photographer without having to lift a finger (or press a shutter)!

As a participant in the Flickr-Getty Collection as it has functioned until now, I am disappointed that they would attempt this kind of a 'takeover' of the ENTIRE Flickr-verse without giving the actual image creators a much better deal...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Sheila Smart Photography says:

The main benefit, as I see it, is that now the photographer has a choice of RM or RF. I assume (and I maybe wrong) that if a client approaches Getty with a request to licence, then Getty directly contacts the photographer with details of the request, which, again, I assume, will state if its RM or RF and then the photographer can choose to license or not. In my case, I only license RM, never RF which choice at present is not open to me with the previous Getty arrangements wherein Getty selected RF regardless after upload. So in effect, the ball is in the photographer's court, which makes a nice change! Or am I reading this incorrectly?

I agree with Cynthia in that there has to be a better commission than the appalling 70-80% which Getty is charging which they have "justified" in the past by all the keywording they have done which in my case, have already been keyworded. So, Zack, what is the commission rate for this new venture?
Sheila
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
Sheila Smart Photography edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

The Searcher says:

It does seem odd, and a shame, that if I have a "Request to License through Getty" button on my photos, I get 20% of whatever they decide to charge.

But if I put a "Request to License through ME" link on my photos, I'm breaking Flickr's rules and risk account deletion.

If we're getting to the point where there is now a button next to the photo to request to purchase the image, I really wish Flickr would go the Imagekind route, and give me control over pricing and terms and markup.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard says:

jakerome said:

See, this FAQ bothers me, www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/#848394 . Not that it's going to make any real difference, but why not just say "contact Getty or send the photographer a Flickr Mail directly."

Good point Jake. That FAQ didn't match up with the other similar FAQ we have in the top General questions section. So, I updated it.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

Zack, your update, I'm afraid, makes it even more confusing (to me, at least). Isn't the point of the "request a license" link that the person will click the link which then automatically routes to Getty? The FAQ makes it sound like you can only contact the photographer via flickrmail if you see the link, or you have to contact Getty directly.

*edit to add/clarify*

Surely, the point of that particular FAQ is that if the photo is not currently in the Getty collection, then 1. you can contact the owner directly via Flickrmail or 2. if the "request a license" is shown, then you can click that to negotiate with Getty or you can still just contact the photographer directly if you don't want to deal with Getty.

Now, it just seems mushed up.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

jakerome says:

Zack Sheppard Thanks!
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lisanne! says:

Getty gains by having more images to offer. In theory we gain because people are looking for images and are willing to pay for them. But it seems to me that the only way we can make any money is by giving the exclusive rights to Getty. And even for that, after looking at parts of their contract (which is a large document) deductions are made to cover their costs of doing business.

I think I will opt out totally. My eventual goal is to see that my work is preserved for archival purposes by a cultural institution. I really doubt my work has commercial value.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

The Searcher said:

It does seem odd, and a shame, that if I have a "Request to License through Getty" button on my photos, I get 20% of whatever they decide to charge. But if I put a "Request to License through ME" link on my photos, I'm breaking Flickr's rules and risk account deletion.

It *does* seem odd, doesn't it? :-)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Muzzlehatch says:

Dagnab that capitalism!
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Now if you really want to optimize Getty's (and thus Flickr's) profits, you should set the default search settings to include art/illustration. Since art is currently essentially invisible to search, and most users have no idea that function is set to "off", Getty and Flickr are missing out on potentially massive revenue from otherwise public images hidden from searches.

Speaking as a completely unbiased observer in this matter.

[edited for trying to spell properly in a loud soccer pub.]
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
The Searcher edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

striatic says:

"I really don't get what Getty is doing to earn their 80% cut here."

they are presumably paying yahoo! a significant amount of money in order to gain exclusive access to the flickr market.

the photographers on flickr are a captive market, and once they've paid to gain access to such a market, they can take almost any cut they wish.

is flickr had the photographer's best interests at heart, they would have opened up to a variety of licensors who would then compete on price/service/return for the business of flickr photographers.

flickr instead has the interests of whichever corporation they've cut a deal with this month. a few months ago it was snapfish paying yahoo! for exclusive access to the flickr printing market. now it is getty paying yahoo! for exclusive access to the flickr licensing market.

so what they're doing to earn the 80% cut? having enough money to begin with to buy their way into an exclusive market.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

“It does seem odd, and a shame, that if I have a "Request to License through Getty" button on my photos, I get 20% of whatever they decide to charge. But if I put a "Request to License through ME" link on my photos, I'm breaking Flickr's rules and risk account deletion.”

seems par for the course, really. and totally fair.

after all, far fewer people, if any would see your photo to buy it unless you were on flickr, using flickr's search infrastructure, etc. so it is sort of fair that flickr should be able to get a kickback from sales you make, since they've had a significant hand in helping you make that sale.

but there are most certainly other ways for flickr to make that money, other than cutting a deal with getty, and having not one, but two middlemen between the photographer and the licensee. taking what could be a two party transaction and turning into a 4 party transaction.

but those "other ways" require yahoo actually doing, you know, "work". to build a revenue sharing system, transaction systems and so on.

and the one thing we know about yahoo! is that they try to avoid "work" at any cost, even if it will benefit them in the long run. i mean, we're talking about the company that was known for pioneering web search, but that recently laid off the bulk of its search engineers and cut a deal with microsoft to use bing instead.

that's all yahoo is really good at anymore. cutting deals. eventually they'll slice themselves into so many pieces that they won't really be a company anymore, but in the short term the stock holders might see some money, and yahoo gets to justify being lazy for yet another year.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
striatic edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

dsphoto- says:

I'll decline, the name 'Getty' sounds too much like 'Ghetto.'
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.dnurv.ca says:

although it's very unlikely that i will respond to this offer for several reasons...

i am very pleased to have found the option has been made available to accounts like mine...

this is one of the first occasions in over thirty odd months that i feel as though the site is tipping its hat to those members like myself who post adult content...or have restricted accounts...in that options offered to safe accounts are also being made available to all members across the board...

i hope that more features and opportunities will be made available to members like myself as we move forward...

as i have said on many previous occasions in these threads those posting original high quality adult content are doing their bit to pay the bills around here...any effort to see us become less segregated as part of the diverse flickr family is definitely a step in the right direction...thx
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Blackbird says:

The Flickr Blog post on this dated Jan 17 states:

When a prospective licensee sees an image marked for license, they can click on the link and be put in touch with a representative from Getty Images who will help handle details like permissions, releases and pricing. Once reviewed, the Getty Images editors will send you a FlickrMail to request to license your work, either for commercial or editorial usage.

Doesn't this directly contradict Flickr's Community Guidelines which state:

Don't use Flickr for commercial purposes. Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account.

Isn't it time Flickr took the time to clarify what it means by "selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream?" I have been very careful about how I present my work and have quoted the community guidelines on this manner on my profile page so people won't send me Flickrmails or leave comments indicating they are interested in purchasing my work.

Even so, I still did not wish to risk having my account deleted, so I sent Flickr a message about this about a month ago. Flickr never responded.

Is it only okay for us to sell ourselves and our work if Getty Images gets to make a profit? Come on, Flickr! Just tell us what it is you want!!!
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
The Blackbird edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

Jayel Aheram says:

This is confusing, Flickr.

It is either "for personal use only" or it is not. Can someone clarify this?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Danack57 says:

Question regarding image resolution.

I only upload relatively low resolution images to Flickr to prevent them from being stolen and sold elsewhere.

To take part in the 'license through Getty' scheme would I need to upload high res photos to Flickr or would I pass them directly to Getty after they contact me?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jacquie Gibson Photography says:

It would be a case of selling your cow for the 'magic beans' like the simpleton! To give over your whole photostream for peanuts, I think not.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

MrPhilDog says:

 Brenda: Thanks Brenda, that makes sense. :)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

teh resa says:

Are we still allowed the one commercial link on our profile?

Seems fair enough. If you don't want to offer your photos for licence through Getty you can just post an alternative on your profile.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Blackbird says:

I think not either, ratte salat. I think it is blatantly unfair and hypocritical of Flickr to demand that we not advertise ourselves or our work unless someone special gets the profit. I have loved Flickr up to this point, a pro-account owner the last three years and though I can without arrogance call myself a prolific Vancouver-based photographer with several photos published on the City website and the Mayor's official blog (who has placed a link back to Flickr on each page wherever a shot was first published here first), but maybe it's time I created a website and left Flickr altogether. Remember the good old days when it used to say, "Flickr loves you," where the Yahoo! logo is now? :(

I think it's great Flickr has a relationship with Getty Images, but why can't we - the paying membership who keep Flickr financially afloat - be allowed to do business when someone leaves a message in our Flickr inbox?

I'm not suggesting users be allowed to put a price in the description of each photo, but if our work attracts people without our making any effort and doing everything we can to respect the community guidelines, why can't we send a reply to potential customers? It's almost mean not to allow pro users this privilege.

One last question. How much is Flickr's cut of the Getty Images deal?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
The Blackbird edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

This seems a potential minefield as far as licensing is concerned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Getty use an image then it has to be licensed exclusively to them? That naturally means that any CC image will have to be changed to ARR here on Flickr?

But what if the image has been used under CC by someone, then taken by Getty and changed to ARR. There's currently no way that the person using the image under the previous CC can prove that CC applied when they used the image (save for a screenshot - not many do that) or the photographer remembering that it was once CC.

Sadly a lot won't remember, or will have misunderstood the nature of CC (that happens a lot in the Forum - "why are my photos being used by this or that site - answer because you licensed them as CC) and will consequently support efforts by Getty to take away the right to use the image under the previous CC agreement.

There really does need to be a way to track licenses of photos on Flickr to prevent this from happening. I'm not a programmer, but surely this would be easy to implement as far as new changes were concerned, impossible to implement regarding previous changes to licenses (no data saved regarding that). Which means that even if Flickr implements this it could only be used on new uploads.

This means in effect that Getty could not claim a photo as property as things currently stand as they cannot prove that the photo has never been CC licensed. Nor can the photographer back up such a claim, and as it's imcumbant on the Appellant (or Plaintiff) to prove their case beyond the balance of probabilities it's going to get messy. (UK law only of course - I know nuffink about US etc) ;o)

I've no moral objection to Flickr and Getty getting into bed together, but it does seem to be poorly thought through.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
~Rid©ully~ edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

Trapac says:

Sorry - this is a long post. If you hate long posts - just move on, I thought I'd get it off my chest in one go and have done with it. I won't do it again...

I objected to this when I was approached to take part in the launch publicity, and my view remains unchanged. Flickr/Yahoo had already changed flickr forever when they first agreed to allow Getty to license images on behalf of flickr members and sad that I am about that, I've been pragmatic about it. It's the real world, change happens, yadayadayada...

I have been an active contributor to the Flickr/Getty arrangement as long as I have been able to determine which images I would like to submit for licensing through them AND I have been able to continue negotiating my own sales of other images when a potential buyer has contacted me directly. It's happened enough times, and I have felt comfortable negotiating a license myself for 100% of the fee - not 20 or 30%. I have been very happy about that way of working - it has recognised the changing nature of the internet/flickr/user content but I have maintained control over my work.

How much money has changed hands between Getty and Flickr/Yahoo in order to monetize OUR content? Why haven't flickr members been co-opted as shareholders/partners/associates in this process as an acknowledgement that it is their content that is being placed on the market?

Getty have been given a significant commercial advantage over any other agency, and indeed over the owners of OUR content. Given that the 'non commercial use' clause on flickr has been well and truly exploded by flickr/Yahoo - I assume it will now be OK for me to write a line that reads 'If you would like to license this image for commercial use please do not hesitate to contact me directly on [link]. underneath EVERY image that I am willing to license, in order to give me a fair and equal opportunity to sell my image as that provided to Getty?

I will remain a member of the flickr/Getty collection because I have a level of control I've been happy with, but I will not be entering into this arrangement because of the 'all or nothing' nature of it. It provides difficulties in the following circumstances:

1. If you are shooting street portraiture (as I have just started doing) and you make a promise that you are not taking their photograph to sell it, that link next to every photograph sends the opposite message when that person visits your stream to see their picture. Especially if you are already licensing some images via Getty and have a link that says so on your home page. The same is true if you have licensed that image to someone other than Getty and they have agreed that you can keep your image on flickr (as I have, several times) - they won't be too chuffed to see that default Getty link either...

2. If you take part in double exposure collaborations you have to have a new level of trust now, because technically the output is jointly owned. Both participants have to agree not to sell/to sell - with the default setting on every image if you have opted in, selling could happen covertly. This would not have been possible if batch opt in/opt out was possible.

3. Editorial release. Flickr/Getty have stayed silent on the issue of editorial use. Creative use requires model and property releases, but editorial use doesn't. How many flickr'rs would be so thrilled about this if they knew that a relative/friend/IRL flickr at a flickr meet, could upload a picture of you/your home/your loved ones and sell it without your knowledge IF it met the conditions of a certain editorial line...

4. As Getty are the default agency with an inferred interest in the image even before a potential purchaser approaches them, does this mean that Flickr/Getty will now take active responsibility for managing mis-appropriation of imagery on this site? Nah of course not - it was rhetoorical question, they'll only be interested once they've had their cut.

When first approached I asked about the ability to opt certain imagery out of the arrangement. I was told it was not possible. I don't believe flickr has any intention of making that possible. I don't know if this is down to bloody intractability and money fever, or if there are coding/back end issues with making this possible. If it's the latter then they should say so, because it looks like the former from where I'm sitting.

The benefits of this arrangement (unrivalled exposure and market dominance) far outweigh the responsibility that either flickr/Yahoo or Getty are willing to take to earn their 70%(RM) or 80%(RF) of any fee negotiated.

Either way, flickr as we have known it really has changed forever - and if you do opt in, make informed decisions about the images you upload to flickr. Be aware of the message that link sends to people in those images (and actively manage that before upload so they know what is going on). Know that once you license your image to Getty for 20% - 30% of the fee, you will not be able to sell it to anyone else for the term of the contract. If you sell artwork privately and you don't already sell limited edition numbered prints, then NOW is the time to start - you can't sell an image privately otherwise if it is also licensed by Getty. Finally, manage your expectations about how much money you can make here. Seriously.

End of soap box. Will limit to no more than four line responses from now on!

Edited to make sense...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
Trapac edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

~Rid©ully~ says:

I have to agree with you Trapac about Flickr still refusing to allow commerical links in the light of this devolopment.

It's okay for Getty to use Flickr commercially (they've no doubt paid a lot of money for that), and okay for the members to use Getty to make money form Flickr.

But members are still being refused permission to make their money by listing their commercial website in the description, or add it as a (c) watermark in the photo itself.

Getty have paid, no doubt, but so have a lot of the members. Why do paying members (myself obviously excluded) not have the same rights as Getty to promote themselves on Flickr?

It's not something that I have an interest in, but it does seem extremely iniquitous
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

geographyphotos.com says:

With 'Request to Licence' the images can be non exclusive?

What about a contract with Getty?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Trapac says:

geographyphotos.com wrote

With 'Request to Licence' the images can be non exclusive?

What about a contract with Getty?


No. Their FAQ here makes that clear.

With 'Request to license' your acceptance of an offer means that Getty have the exclusive right to sell that image. You can't sell it commercially or editorially to anyone else. Period. Nor can you sell other similar images that they didn't ask for.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

geographyphotos.com says:

Trapac,

Thanks

Isn't that about the Flickr Collection rather than 'Request to Licence'?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Trapac says:

@ geographyphotos.com If you have the 'request to license' button, a potential purchaser clicking on it will be taken to Getty where they indicate their interest. Getty then contact you, to ask if you'd like them to go ahead and license the shot. If you agree, you will then have access to the Getty editing dashboard (not on flickr) where you will have to sort out property/model releases where they are needed, and upload a large clean file to Getty. If it meets their requirements, Getty will then add it to the Flickr/Getty collection and sell it. You will get 20%(RF) or 30%(RM) of the final sale. You can't negotiate an RF or RM license, you see what they allocate it as and make a decision to upload or not based on that.

The 'Request to license' link doesn't go to any other agency, or you. It's the Getty/Flickr collection or nothing.

Your call.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

geographyphotos.com says:

Trapac,

Thanks again. Could you link to where it says that please?

My reading of it was that 'Request to Licence' stood alone and was nothing to do with the Flickr Collection on Getty.

I got the impression that they would handle the licensing of any images requested through Flickr. I don't see anything about only adding the RtL button to images that can be exclusive. None of mine are available exclusively.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Trapac says:

OK - There was an explicitly clear line in the private e-mail that was sent to me via flickr marketing when they invited me to take part in promoting this programme. It's all over the FAQ's really by omission rather than an actual statement. See what it says here. Maybe a staff member might answer that question outright.

If you opt in - the RtL button goes on every image in your account.

If an interested potential buyer clicks the RtL link on a picture. Getty contact you. If you agree to go ahead and it is licensed for that buyer and then your image becomes part of the collection. It's not a one time only agreement with regard to that sale. Getty keep the image on their books with the exclusive right to re-license that same image again and again if it proves popular. You don't agree to that one sale and then say no thanks to the use of the same image after that - it's all or nothing.

You can refuse to license it via Getty in the first place, or you can agree that Getty license it exclusively via the flickr collection for a few years. There's no 'in between' if you get a request, you'll see a contract. Read the small print on that to be certain.

Anyhooo - I'm out of here now. Work to do, people to see, images to make...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
Trapac edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

geographyphotos.com says:

Thanks.

I have a Getty contract fro Photographers Choice but haven't pursued the Flickr Collection route.

I don't put any of my Getty pics on Flickr, only the ones that I have with non exclusive agencies.

Getty should make the situation clearer. Zack, could you confirm what Trapac says please?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ܤ Mun - Jølly ܤ says:

hi
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dom Greves says:

The 80/20 split is completely unjustifiable. Which is a shame because the partnership with Getty could be great for everyone concerned. But it's not. Why should the agency get more than the photographer without taking any risk or putting in the effort? Alamy's terms are much more reasonable.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nevena Uzurov says:

One question.
Do the all flickr members get this option of licensing with Getty, or just chosen ones?
Thanks
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dom Greves says:

P.S. Does this arrangement apply to video footage? The Getty linkage doesn't seem to discriminate.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

etherflyer says:

If you have the 'request to license' button, a potential purchaser clicking on it will be taken to Getty where they indicate their interest. Getty then contact you, to ask if you'd like them to go ahead and license the shot.

Which is how all my Getty pictures got there in the pre-button days: someone contacted Getty asking about a license, and Getty contacted me. So in a way this is nothing new in terms of functionality — just streamlining the process a bit.

The downside of having the button is that potential licensors might not realize that they can contact the photographer directly. (Which is how I've made all my sales — someone requesting a license through Getty doesn't mean they will buy!

(Which does lead me to wonder if it's possible to game the system? Get a buddy to click the button on a bunch of photos, and one they're in then they show up on the Getty Flickr Collection.)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

Well, there goes the "no commercial use" line.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

etherflyer says:

Do the all flickr members get this option of licensing with Getty, or just chosen ones?
Thanks


Everyone.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BlueRidgeKitties says:

So I'm wondering... if I wanted to sort out my "license-able" pictures from those that I cannot offer a commercial licensing option for and don't want that Getty link showing (e.g. don't want to upset people in the picture by insinuating that they are for sale, don't want to be asked to pay commercial usage fee on university-owned equipment I used to take pictures for teaching etc) and there is no option to choose this on a per-picture basis, just a per-account basis, pretty much the only option I have is to sign up for another account and use that to upload only images that are "for sale"?

Now just a thought - if I don't want to pay additional Pro user fees for additional accounts but still get plenty of pictures "out there" where potential buyers might see them and be able to click the "request to license" link, I could theoretically create several "commercial accounts" as portfolios for different types of pictures and fill them up to 200, then start the next one etc. Now if I then advertise all of those "commercial accounts" on my regular Flickr profile, would that run afoul of the "no commercial use" and only one link allowed guideline? To redirect potential customers from my established pictures, could I use another account to upload the same image as in my regular account and then put a link to the "license-able" one in the description of the one in the account that I do not wish to activate this feature on? Would that run afoul of the guidelines? After all, those links would all be internal to Flickr and not point to another website.

I think some clarification is needed and by far the easier option would be to allow this to be turned on and off selectively on a per-picture basis.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

nicolesy says:

This is pretty cool! But I'd like to set my photos so I can only make individual ones available. I have some images that I can't license and some that I don't want to license.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"Are we still allowed the one commercial link on our profile?

Seems fair enough. If you don't want to offer your photos for licence through Getty you can just post an alternative on your profile. "


if you think these two "sales methods" are remotely comparable, you should learn more about marketing.

"Well, there goes the "no commercial use" line."

to the contrary. the more strictly yahoo! enforces the "no commercial use" line, the more they force people into getty's yahoo! sancationed monopoly.

so yahoo! has more incentive than ever to crack down on commercial use. outside of their paid partnership with getty, anyway.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
striatic edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

Eleven Eight says:

Getty says that the "Request to license" only links to Getty, instead of offering the option of sending a FlickrMail, because Flickr doesn't allow commercial activities on its site. (Source: www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/16...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Linus Gelber says:

I'm a perfectly content member of the Getty-Flickr collaboration as it currently stands - I think their rates are not especially fair, but they are acceptable as things go. It is a great deal of work creating and curating a colleciton built largely of amateur photographers, and they truly have a greater customer base than I could access on my own.

However, for this kind of scouting, they do not deserve an 80% cut. I'd participate in this program for a 60/40 split, but not for 80/20. I may test the waters of the program - the opportunity is a good one - but I will not accept sales referrals for less than 40% of the total fee.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello says:

I have no particular axe to grind - I'm here to share not sell. BUT if I did opt in and I sold something(s) for £100, for which I received £20, have I made £20 or lost £80 ?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

EJP Photo says:

This really ought to be a per photo setting. There are a few photos that (for whatever reason) I just wouldn't license, so there's no point in having the link there. In fact it makes the most sense to just include it with the copyright/license types for a photo, which can be set individually.

Secondly - what value is Getty offering for being middle man here? If someone is browsing Flickr, finds my photo, wants to license my photo for whatever reason... they can just contact me directly and make the request. As people already do now and then. So why do we need Getty at all, let alone why does Getty deserve any money?
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jayel Aheram says:

So, Flickr Staff have determined that the issue of their partnership with Getty is one and the same with the issue of their inconsistent, hypocritical "for personal use only" clause and thus closed the separate thread.

There are answers to be gleaned from that action.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

etherflyer says:

if I did opt in and I sold something(s) for £100, for which I received £20, have I made £20 or lost £80 ?

That depends on whether the person who bought it would have contacted you directly, and offered you the £100 rather than a lesser amount.

If they would have, then you've lost £80. If they wouldn't have, then you've gained £20.

So by elementary probability theory, you need to make four times the sales (for the same amount) to break even.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dsphoto- says:

Patrick the ever optimist. But if you did opt in and sold something it would then be owned by getty so that would elimnate any and all future monies you might receive from that work. That could be a significant figure
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

zyrcster says:

Jayel,

That's fairly inaccurate. Your question came as a direct result of this feature launch and it's also what's being discussed by other members here in this topic. It's redundant and unhelpful to post a clarification of the policy in the topic you opened when people here in this topic have also been questioning it. So, clarifications and updates will simply be made here, that way the conversation doesn't get forked into two running topics on the same issue. Thanks.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Eleven Eight says:

Zyrcster: You might want to spend a bit more time answering legitimate questions about the Getty/Flickr deal instead of focusing on the duplication of threads. Just a thought...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"But if you did opt in and sold something it would then be owned by getty so that would elimnate any and all future monies you might receive from that work."

"eliminate 80% of all future monies" would be the more accurate description although even that's not entirely accurate. close enough tho.

also, i don't believe that getty "owns" your photos if you license through them. you grant them the exclusive right to license the photo commercially, which is different than transferring ownership.

at any rate, the bottom line is that yahoo! won't let you sell your own photos on flickr, say through links in photo descriptions, and has instead granted getty images a monopoly because getty is giving them some kind of kickback.

whatever PR getty puts out about the exposure and service they provide, this is a for profit business partnership between getty and yahoo! which is based on denying flickr photographers the choice/freedom/opportunity to market their photos themselves.

if the exposure and service getty provides is so great, why not allow flickr photographers the choice between marketing their own photos on flickr and having getty do it for them? since getty is so 'prestigious' and their service is so great - surely the vast majority of photographers would elect on their own accord to cede 80% of sales to them in return for services rendered.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

slight clutter says:

@dsphoto - I believe that your "then it would be owned by getty so that would eliminate any and all future monies you might receive from that work" is inaccurate. Getty will never own a photo as a result of this set up; they will simply have exclusive rights to license it...for the duration of, I believe, two years.

My take on this arrangement, for what it's worth --

Let me start by saying that I'm choosing the middle option -- the one where Getty can still invite me to have photos in their collection. Based on where I am in my career, the licensing I do already and my goals for the future, that is what works best for me.

That said, if this deal came up five years ago, at a time when I was often giving my work away for free, I would have jumped at it...and rightfully so I believe. I think this is a terrific deal for newbie photographers and folks who have zero intention of "quitting their day job." For those folks, earning little bonuses here and there is golden. I would totally do it if I were just starting out.

For those in mid-career, I think it just depends how many steady clients you already have licensing your work. For example, I get paid fairly well be many of my editorial clients when they decide to license a photo that I already have in the queue. Because of my relationships with those clients, relationships not at all having anything to do with Flickr, I can't just partner up with Getty willy nilly. I just think when you've already established yourself professionally, there are many more factors to take into consideration. Opting in with Getty might still be a good move for those in the mid-career category, but it really is, like most decisions in life, a personal one.

Of course, do I like the 80/20 RF and 70/30 RM payout percentages? Not at all. I'm a photographer. Do I understand the percentages from a business standpoint? Absolutely. Flickr and Getty are in the money-making business. Just as you and I are. Getty doesn't receive the entire 80%. In making this deal to tap into the great resource of Flickr, it had to pay Flickr a percentage -- either literally as a percentage of each sale or as another form of payment, which they then would justify the 80% as "recoup" dollars. It's the way business works. And unless you can honestly say that your company would pass up on huge money generating opportunities, then you probably understand this -- both from a business standpoint and from one of principle.

I many ways I credit Flickr for my career. I don't see this as either a stumbling block or a career killer for me. I see it as an opportunity for others. And I'm okay with that.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"I many ways I credit Flickr for my career. I don't see this as either a stumbling block or a career killer for me. I see it as an opportunity for others. And I'm okay with that."

but it is the *only* opportunity available on flickr and there is absolutely no reason it has to be. everyone on flickr, including "newbies", could make a lot more money if getty simply wasn't involved and yahoo! allowed commercial use of their service.

initially, flickr staff said the "no commercial use of flickr" rule was to prevent flickr from feeling too commercialized. turns out the actual reason was to establish a monopoly condition over sales on the service.

slight clutter - if this deal came up up five years ago, and flickr had already been allowing commercial use of their service, you still would have forgone 80% of your profits and jumped at the opportunity? five years ago, had flickr allowed commercial use, i'm sure the flickr community would have had no problem peddling their own wares. anyway - an 80% recoup is also not "the way business works". it is "the way business is lazy" if yahoo! had built the sales infrastructure themselves, there'd be no need to get a second mega-corporation involved to stiff photographers by doubling the re-coup. if yahoo! had competed with getty rather than colluded with them, they could have won a much greater payoff long term for both photographers and for themselves.

"the way business works" is by, you know .. "working". building things and creating value. and even sometimes, yes .. *gasp* .. "innovating".

but that's not the kind of business yahoo! is anymore. they hardly make anything these days, let alone look out for the long term interests of their company. it is just a long, slow liquidation.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dsphoto- says:

according to what I read on the corporate controlled media Yahoo has been making acquisitions lately that have a lot of experts confused. But yahoo insists they are all part of grand new plan and it will all work together using this banner yahoo live or whatever it is called. But what it really represents is a move by these companies, following the move by facebook, to be more "viral" and spread out their influence and connections across the web, and be more "integrated" with other websites. It's like you sign up for an account to use a photo sharing service in a simple way, and then you get hooked into this huge webring of other websites that are all integrated in such a way where you lose the ability to distinguish what is the original service and what isn't. It's a nice dream but I find it really annoying as a person who just wants a simple photo sharing site.

And also, I explicitly set my flickr preferences before, a while ago, that I was not interested in Getty, why did you ignore that setting and bring up this tag thing to force me to choose again?

slight clutter I remember you from way back! I think you may have been one of my first contacts here. Good to see you and I am glad to hear you are doing well. Ok amend my statement that it is only exclusive for 2 years, but the point still is that another offer could come and you would ahve to say no, for a paltry 20%
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

slight clutter says:

"it is just a long, slow liquidation."

I do tend to get the same feeling.

"slight clutter - if this deal came up up five years ago, and flickr had already been allowing commercial use of their service, you still would have forgone 80% of your profits and jumped at the opportunity? five years ago, had flickr allowed commercial use, i'm sure the flickr community would have had no problem peddling their own wares."

I still think I would have jumped at the option. Flickr has always been psuedo-commercial. Buyers see your work on Flickr and find a way to contact you, either through the site or through an email address of yours that they have found online. I was contacted frequently back in the day, and I gave a lot away. I had zero experience in the creative industry, and I just didn't have the confidence in my work or my business savvy to negotiate anything. I had no idea that I'd become a photographer at that point, and anything moneywise would have been something. Actually making money while building a portfolio would have been great. Again, do I wish they gave a larger cut? Of course. But they don't. And current decisions need to be made on what is, right? Not what could have been? Like I said, I'm not opting in to the whole "Request to License" thing because I don't want to confuse buyers who would otherwise contact me directly into thinking I'm exclusively with Getty. I know how to negotiate these days and I know what my photos are worth. I didn't back then, and I would have skipped happily into the Getty arrangement had we had it.

"anyway - an 80% recoup is also not "the way business works". it is "the way business is lazy"

I don't understand how business can be classified as lazy when they can generate a large profit on what will ultimately be an avalanche of licenses. Sure Flickr could have set up their own sales infrastructure, but that's not their core competancy...and forays into new areas are often costly for companies. That's why they have all these partnerships. So, in a way, okay, maybe it is lazy. It's easier and more cost-effective for Flickr to partner with folks whose core business is already established and who have something valuable to add to the Flickr platform. But, again, it's not at all about striatic and slight clutter, it's about the bottom line. And they have determined that the bottom line is served best by this partnership. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a buyout would take place in the coming year or two.

I actually don't disagree with most of what you have written. I just don't tend to look at it from a would have and should have perspective. It is. So, innovation must start from the "it is" standpoint. One can't go backwards. "Innovation" and "backwards" are in direct conflict with each other. Always have been. We now know where we are, and if inclined, we innovate from where we are going forward. If inclined.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

"so yahoo! has more incentive than ever to crack down on commercial use. outside of their paid partnership with getty, anyway. "

Crucial point. Since previously, the "no commercial" rule was used primarily as a pushback against Flickr being used as an image repository, for selling things other than the images themselves. It was a guard against the intended use and type of images becoming diluted on Flickr. Filling up with eBay and etsy crap, basically.

So if anything, people who may have stepped over or skirted the rules to sell their photos, got a bit more of a pass. Since doing so didn't affect the look or quality of Flickr or the images within.

But now, it will likely be flipped. Flickr now has incentive and need to crack down even harder on people who attempt to sell their photos, instead of those who want to sell sea shell sweater vests.

It's a bit backwards now, and again, a shame.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

slight clutter says:

@dsphoto Good to see you!

"...it is only exclusive for 2 years, but the point still is that another offer could come and you would ahve to say no, for a paltry 20%."

That's true, but let's face it, that's a worst case scenario. I think I do fairly well in the licensing department, but even then, I might license ten photos a year to folks who have found me on Flickr (vs. standing clients who have access to other work). While some of those licenses pay well...I have over 1500 photos here...the odds are, the vast majority will remain unlicensed over the two year period. Just food for thought.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Muzzlehatch says:

But when you license through Getty, you agree not to license substantially similar photos elsewhere. Like other exposures from the same shoot that have a similar look and intent. So that will also limit your licensing choices.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

i noticed that the "Request to license loupiote (Old Skool)'s photos via Getty Images" link appears on non-safe photos.

is that normal, i.e. can getty actually license flickr photos that flickr considers "non-safe" (i.e. "moderate" or "restricted") ?

of course i'd be happy if getty would license my editorial dog-meat photos (which flickr marked "restricted")...
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
loupiote (Old Skool) pro edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

Muzzlehatch says:

I'm thinking we jumped the gun a little with this rollout.

Tant pis. It could happen to anyone.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"I don't understand how business can be classified as lazy when they can generate a large profit on what will ultimately be an avalanche of licenses."

it is lazy because pretty much all they have to do is complete a transaction. there's a little more to it than that, but not a whole lot. it is lazy because they're generating a large amount of profit primarily by virtue of their existing size and capital resources, coupled with using that monopoly position to take a draconian cut on each sale.

i consider that lazy when compared to actually innovating or building something new.

which flickr/yahoo! has had 5 years to do, by the way.

"Sure Flickr could have set up their own sales infrastructure, but that's not their core competancy...and forays into new areas are often costly for companies."

but nevertheless, that's what successful companies do. selling music certainly wasn't a core competency for apple when they launched the itunes store, but now here they are selling more music than anyone else, more apps than anyone else and probably more movies and television shows than anyone else at some point. there are a lot of recent examples of tech companies moving beyond core competencies to great success. i mean google is building operating systems that are beginning to outsell *microsoft* for crying out pete's sake.

the whole "core competencies" thing feels like late 90s bizdev nonsense these days. sure, sometimes partnerships are good in areas where companies don't have time to get up to speed and don't want to get left behind - but yahoo has had more than half a decade to get their junk together on this, and already does tons of transactions through other properties and even on flickr itself.

"I actually don't disagree with most of what you have written."

i don't disagree with much of what you've written either. it makes photographers money on a micro-scale compared to what they could have made on the previous "no commercial use" version of flickr. so compared to almost complete restriction it is at least *technically* an opportunity. and you point out that at some point people can move beyond getty and be more successful, which is true at least for now.

but on the large scale, and even on the medium scale, this is a raw deal exploiting a captive market. further, it is difficult to "grow out of" the arrangement because people get locked into multi-year licensing arrangements.

anyway.

flickr staff, think long and hard about whether it is a good idea to allow a very large company to slowly monopolize commercial photography on the internet [or at least on flickr] to the tune of 70% to 80% of the revenues.

ask yourself if it is good for photography, long term, to encourage monopoly practices. to cede *so much* power and revenue to a middleman, in an age where communications and transaction costs are so slim.

ask yourself if you care about maximizing opportunity for photographers, versus maximizing opportunity for a middleman while throwing photographers a bone.

ask yourself if you care about building things that have a positive impact on the web at large [while generating a very healthy long term profit for you], that you can be proud of building, while increasing your job security because the work isn't being outsourced to some other company.

ask yourself why yahoo is shying away from reinventing and revolutionizing the commercial photography market - squandering an amazing opportunity that flickr has worked diligently to create over half a decade now. ask yourself if the primary reason these deals are being cut is because cutting deals is all that your superiors *really* understand and what that means for the potential to do anything remotely interesting at flickr aside from random API sideshow projects that'll never see the light of a sizable audience [an audience they deserve].
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
striatic edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

RubyMae says:

striatic Have you forgotten that Flickr staff are Yahoo staff?

Regardless of what any individual flickr staffer may feel in their personal lives, they're Yahoo employees.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
RubyMae edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

slight clutter says:

From "flickr staff, think long.." and on...those are worthwhile questions. I believe them to be futile, however, in this instance because those kinds of questions are "before the fact" questions, not "after the fact." My guess is this deal is long term and this roll-out is only the first of many that have already been scheduled for the next few years.

My heart is with you, Striatic. I wish behemoth companies would continue the innovation track that got them their success in the first place. I wish companies across the board would view their customers as partners instead of revenue streams. I wish youthful spirits (not necessarily an age thing) with vision and commitment would manage companies, not conservative brass. And I wish all of this as I take off to shoot a photo essay for a mid-sized publishing company who contacted me through my blog after discovering me right here on Flickr. :)

(I recognize fully that I'm almost a cheerleader for Flickr because the site has had such a monumental positive impact on my life and I grant that my views might be a bit colored by that appreciation.)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"Have you forgotten that Flickr staff are Yahoo staff?"

ha. no.

believe me, no.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"(I recognize fully that I'm almost a cheerleader for Flickr because the site has had such a monumental positive impact on my life and I grant that my views might be a bit colored by that appreciation.) "

i think that isn't a colored bias so much as experience. but think of how much more you'd be able to accomplish professionally if you had the latitude to market yourself commercially on flickr in the way that flickr allows getty to market itself - even if yahoo!/flickr was taking up to a 40% - 50% cut compared to getty's 70% - 80%.

and imagine if you'd had that ability for the past 3 to 5 years, with a flickr "commercial search" function directing licensees toward all your commercially licensed work instead of explicitly denying "license this" links on photo pages, only to allow getty the exclusive privilege years later.

you'd certainly not be worse off.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

pixability says:

ask yourself if you care about maximizing opportunity for photographers, versus maximizing opportunity for a middleman while throwing photographers a bone.

The real question asked is how does the company maximize value for the shareholders.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
pixability edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

Jayel Aheram says:

This is what I do not understand with this Getty/Yahoo partnership.

Flickr could have built this system themselves and negotiated with its own members using a far more equitable pricing scheme that actually acknowledges the work of the photographer. 20% is a joke. I rather give it away at the point than be insulted.

Also, an argument could be made that the "REQUEST TO LICENSE" links counts as advertising. I thought we were promised no advertisements on photo pages?

Those links are not really a "in-product marketing module" either. It is advertisement.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 47 months ago.

view photos

Muzzlehatch says:

As it stands, Getty has a lot more cache, clout, recognition among image buyers than flickr.

When designers want to license an image, they think of Getty, not flickr. Getty is the preeminent brand in this field.

I'm not saying that couldn't have been changed if flickr had gone a different route. I don't know.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic says:

"As it stands, Getty has a lot more cache, clout, recognition among image buyers than flickr."

i'm not even sure that's true as it stands, let alone in the future.

the volume of search traffic flickr generates and the incredible distribution of flickr links all over the web surely would have all but erased the recognition issue. as for clout, yahoo! is hardly a fly-by-night operation [although lately ...]

"When designers want to license an image, they think of Getty, not flickr."

i wouldn't say that. there's a whole generation of designers out there who've been trained up on internet image search, and flickr image search specifically. heck, most of these designers are probably *on* flickr to one extent or another.

we're no longer in the age of stock photo CDs. that time is in the past.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

← prev 1 2 3
(1 to 100 of 277 replies in [Official Topic] Getty Images “Request to License” - Feedback & Bugs)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads