Help / The Help Forum

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

Hot Topics

Change to Limit of "Groups a Photo Can Be Submitted To"
Latest: 13 minutes ago
[Fixing - staff response] Very slow and many pandas today
Latest: 3 hours ago
[Official thread] New commercial use section of Flickr Community Guidelines
Latest: 2 days ago
[fixing - staff response] "this photo is no longer available"
Latest: 2 days ago
[Official Thread] Login issues? Try this.
Latest: 4 days ago

 

Current Discussion

Deactivate Flickr Navi Bar?
Latest: 55 minutes ago
Unable to Add Photos In Group Discussion Comments
Latest: 2 hours ago
New Email and your verification email
Latest: 3 hours ago
[Fixing] Flickr app
Latest: 3 hours ago
Dismayed at Moderate Rating for Entire Account over a Fine Arts pic (textured and raw versions)
Latest: 5 hours ago
Stats for the day don't match totals???
Latest: 6 hours ago
Change to Limit of Groups is going to kill the smaller groups
Latest: 7 hours ago
Firefox Quantum
Latest: 9 hours ago
old - please delete
Latest: 10 hours ago
[Official Thread] New Flickr Photo Editor
Latest: 10 hours ago
[answer provided] Editing is disabled right now message
Latest: 10 hours ago
the new group limit
Latest: 10 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

Flickr + Getty Images

colerise PRO says:

What are the price points + licensing models? Custom pricing? Exclusive vs. Non-exclusive agreements? What's the flow from any given entity to photographer?

Let's figure out what's best for Flickr users. Thoughts?
Posted at 3:34PM, 8 July 2008 PST ( permalink )
colerise edited this topic 114 months ago.

← prev 1 2
(1 to 100 of 143 replies in Flickr + Getty Images)
view photos

Gray Lensman QX! PRO says:

Sssh! It's a surprise.

In order to get paid and allow their images to be used, Flickr members must sign a Getty Images contributor contract, which stipulates that the photographer is the owner, and has any necessary model releases and originals. It also outlines the various rates based on size and intended commercial usage.

Those rates, not yet available, are likely to follow some of Getty's standard rates. As part of the deal, Yahoo will be getting a cut of the revenue, though neither company is disclosing how much that would be.

Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

What are the price points + licensing models? Custom pricing? Exclusive vs. Non-exclusive agreements? What's the flow from any given entity to photographer?

This is just the announcement of our relationship (like, we've just started dating). There will be more information available as we move forward with the development of the platform, etc.

FlickrBlog post:
blog.flickr.net/en/2008/07/08/the-flickr-collection-on-ge...

FAQs:
www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Dunstan PRO says:

I can't wait 'till we get to second base.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

Dunstan Orchard "I can't wait 'till we get to second base."

Be sure you flag those images correctly.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

iansand PRO says:

What's on second?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

"microstock"? (From the cnet story linked above) So this isn't going to be standard stock rates then? I'm sorry to say I have yet to see a microstock model benefit the photographer; it's usually only in the aggregate that money is made (Photographer earns $1 a month, Getty earns from everyone)

Will be interested to see if this ever picks up steam. The need to vet photos for content and releases though, not unexpected, and might keep it pretty niche for a long time.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

"microstock"? (From the cnet story linked above) So this isn't going to be standard stock rates then?

There are a number of inaccuracies in the CNet article. This is not microstock.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson PRO says:

/wonders if Getty will use the interestingness algorithm to "identify photos that they would like to feature in the collection" (as per the FAQ)
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

Yet one more use for Explore....
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson PRO says:

Another wondering... how will this work with Flickr's current URL structure? I mean, anyone can get to anyone's public 1024px wide image now without restriction. If Getty is going to be selling usage rights for images, then surely some of those images would be for web rights... what's to stop people from just grabbing the photos as they do now?

Or will there be an entirely different interface for those photos (ie, not on your usual flickr stream, etc.)
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

werewegian PRO says:

Yay. Sounds interesting! Now if only I could learn how to take better images. Or at least pimp them better. Mmm, maybe hdr isn't that bad a style to take up after all... :)
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

Brenda: Getty may require entirely different standards for who they choose. Perhaps after approval, you upload your images to Getty, then Getty returns a "medium-sized-only" version with the Getty watermark for you to use on the Flickr page. I would say that's one of the number-1 logistical issues they'll have to deal with.

If they do use "interestingness", that's going to be a whole new, and finally real, reason to game the Magic Donkey.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

colerise PRO says:

super smart move - if this relationship ends up working, it's totally going to help the transition from hobbyist to semi-pro and beyond.

i'll look into getty more - i've found myself quite apprehensive when it comes to stock photo licensing and i'm not sure why.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Eric Hunt. PRO says:

I've looked at several of the stock sites and the economics are awful. Most expect absolute technical and compositional perfection in all aspects of the photo and I get how much per photo? 25cents? $1? For the amount of time it takes in Photoshop to achieve the technical standards I could just be a photoshop jockey and make +$200/hour!

That being said, I will pay attention to this new partnership and see how it can benefit me as an avid amateur.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

This is interesting. I have a few practical questions:

1. Will there be minimum size upload requirements? Will originals need to be unsharpened and/or in Adobe RGB colour space (which is the case on Alamy)?

2. Will arrangements with Getty be exclusive of other stock agencies or nonexclusive?

3. Will all keywording be done on Flickr, or will it be done on the Getty site?

4. How much information does Getty give about where photographs are licensed? That can make a difference to me in licensing work elsewhere, in changing restrictions elsewhere, or even in deciding to pull images from other agencies.

I'm going to assume that it will be really clear that this isn't microstock (one of the stock agencies I work with now does not permit its photographers to do microstock) and that Getty will work out details with individual photographers about restrictions and releases.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
Lú_ edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

Eric in SF wrote

Most expect absolute technical and compositional perfection in all aspects of the photo and I get how much per photo? 25cents? $1?
Those are microstock prices, not standard stock prices.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic PRO says:

sounds possibly good.

at least it isn't microstock or some bizarre zooomresque "choose your own price" system that's unreliable for buyers.

chief concern would be increased interestingness gaming.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Well, my chief concern is that many people already view flickr as a free stock site (i.e. public photo=public domain); I'm concerned that partnering with Getty, a known stock agency, will just reinforce that flickr images are up for grabs (regardless of the license). Of course, you have to pay for the use of the ones on Getty, but the ones here on flickr are free!
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic PRO says:

Q&A: Jonathan Klein of Getty Images and Kakul Srivastava of Flickr :

www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_co...
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

RubyMae: it could possibly engender the opposite: that now that there are clearly images on Flickr available for purchase, then Flickr isn't seen as a freebie site any longer.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

clickykbd PRO says:

I'm at least intrigued. Though, it seems to rub against the prior terms of flickr though. That whole not selling your work directly via flickr and this is for fun and sharing. *scratches head*
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

I do wonder about this statement from that Q&A though:

"Cause at the end of the day, as you said, what stops somebody going to Flickr today to get that picture?"

What stops someone is that Flickr doesn't allow members to use Flickr for commercial purposes. So I wonder how this will play out socially. Are people going to feel frustrated if Getty doesn't wave it's magic "you're stuff is sellable" wand their way? Only the chosen few in the Getty Kingdom get to play in the commercial pond? Might rub some folks the wrong way if there isn't some sort of parity.

Also: Illustration. Will this be part of the Getty Collection? no particular reason, just curious.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson PRO says:

The Searcher wrote

Illustration. Will this be part of the Getty Collection?
Do you see illustration in the Getty collection now? That might give you an idea. Here's a quick search I did
www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?src=quick&cont...
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

I know that. But Illustration is still very much a "second class citizen" (quoting Flickr staff) here on Flickr. So will that mean the end to that? Limiting illustration's reach on Flickr certainly wouldn't be good for Getty's commercial interests.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sweet distin PRO says:

Unfortunately if they're using explore, all those of us without exif data will be excluded.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic PRO says:

"Though, it seems to rub against the prior terms of flickr though."

i don't think so.

this is probably going to be pretty similar to the "selling images through flickr mail" that has happened a lot in the past, and that flickr has publicly endorsed .. but with less friction and hassle than had previously been the case.

i'm guessing that this won't have a heavy visual footprint on flickr itself, or hoping so, anyway - while encouraging sales "behind the curtain" where it has less of a cultural impact.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

If Getty-annointed folk get a "buy this" button on their photo pages, I think that's going to be an issue for everyone else who isn't allowed a "buy this" button on their pages.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic PRO says:

"Unfortunately if they're using explore, all those of us without exif data will be excluded."

in the Q&A, Getty seems to say that they're going to be looking for specific types of photography that buyers often request but have difficulty finding, which makes me think they'll be doing more tag searches than explore browsing.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

iansand PRO says:

Would actually waiting to find out how it works spoil the fun?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

completely.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mark Scheuern says:

Eric, it's a pity microstock contributors, unlike you, don't realize what a scam it is but this Flick/Getty deal is not microstock. This could be interesting.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Proggie PRO says:

sounds like what's going to happen is that all sales will go through getty site. Some getty editor will ask flickr user if they want to make their photo available. The photo will then show up on getty and be available for sale there. Otherwise it doesn't make sense why getty would only allow some photos to be sold/bought and not others. While explore may be useful for finding some images, i imagine tags and exif will be more important. If that's the case then I wonder if we'll see some restrictions soon on tags in terms of slapping people who tag "incorrectly".

Edit: striatic beat me to it.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mark Scheuern says:

I would assume there will have to be all sorts of precautions such as making sure the images are actually owned by the people posting them (we know how often that's not the case), technical requirements, keywording guidelines (at the very least), etc.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BigBean PRO says:

I really hope the method of image selection won't be based on something like explore that can be gamed.

From the pdn article it sounds like Getty will be searching for and selecting specific images they currently don't have in their database. I hope they keep their 'section method' unpredictable so as not to encourage a new reason for people to pimp their shots.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

BigBean

Why would it be bad if people started taking shots that Getty was looking for? Often, stock photo companies let their photographers know what clients are searching for (and not finding) so that they can build up a stock of photos.

All I would have to do is go to the Getty website and find out what their list looks like this week.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

There's a difference between "pimping" and taking shots they're looking for. Clearly "interestingness" will be important, if only because Getty searchers will likely order their searches by "interestingness". if they have 10,000 results to go through, fortune favors the folks higher up on the list.

Ooh. Maybe it'll be the new Explore. People grooming themselves and primping in the hopes that Getty knocks on the door to take them to prom.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

Secrets of Getty coming soon. Perhaps I'll use a meerkat for that animated gif.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BigBean PRO says:

ColleenM yeah, what The Searcher said.
Taking photos to fulfill a need is one thing, mis-tagging and pimping any old rubbish to get to the top of some search list is not going to be a positive thing for flickr.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

The Searcher wrote

Clearly "interestingness" will be important, if only because Getty searchers will likely order their searches by "interestingness". if they have 10,000 results to go through, fortune favors the folks higher up on the list.
The Searcher wrote
Clearly "interestingness" will be important, if only because Getty searchers will likely order their searches by "interestingness". if they have 10,000 results to go through, fortune favors the folks higher up on the list.
Stock sites all have some way to order image searches now, though they very. Interestingness would be just another sort method. Still, if the images are going to be searched on Getty not on Flickr, I'd be surprised if interestingness factored in.

Another couple of questions:

1. Will CC-licensed images be considered by Getty?

2. Will there be a separate identification on the Getty site that an image was sourced on Flickr?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Azchael PRO says:

... @Proggie: I dont think there will be any kind of slapping when u mistag photos. I pretty much expect Flickr to function the same way as before, with all those tag games, tag groups, etc.

Plus there will be some people looking at photos, and those will be people from Getty Images. I expect them to directly contact specific photographers via a certain interface Flickr is supplying to them. As soon as the contract / arrangement with the Photographer is settled I could imagine that the following things happen:

- The Flickr Profile gets another dot "gettyimages included"
- The respective licensed / bought / whatever photo will be locked in terms of size download (or if otherwise stated will still be viewable in high-resolution)
- The respective photo will be transferred to Getty Images and cross-referenced by the Flickr system with the Flickr image

Maybe's:
- Additional counters (x times purchased on getty images)
- Additional Getty Images group consisting all images
- Additional link under the explore tab, similar to The Commons, or Places

But all other services of Flickr, all the other fun will certainly still be there...

just my fifty cents :)

Azchael

PS: Flickr-Getty? Awesome!
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

iansand PRO says:

My understanding of stock photography is that it is a very specialised field, and that the sort of images that populate Explore are highly unlikely to be of much use as stock photos. I also suspect that Getty will have already worked this out and will have their own ideas about matching their requirements and images.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

triplecarat says:

As a Seattleite who admires our businesses here in the Pacific NW I say -

Yeah Getty!
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bruce-p says:

Hmmm. The devil, as they say, is in the detail. I think we have all been waiting to see how Flickr would ‘monetise’ their image database.

Not that I expect to be one of the anointed ones, but it will be interesting to see what the economic model is proposed to be. Transparency by Flickr as to their revenue model for this initiative would certainly be helpful. Might help quieten the crowds a little. For example, does Flickr obtain a set fee per image sold by Getty, and how does that relate to the fee offered the photographer?

There are many questions to be answered. I suspect both Flickr and Getty are watching this thread, to gauge reaction, and if they are smart, to begin to pro-actively address subject / concerns / issues raised.

But I will not be giving up my day job just yet … :o)
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

rgdaniel PRO says:

I for one welcome our new patron overlords.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

JDvB says:

Quick thought, how will Flickr deal with people/photos who Getty chooses who have actually "stolen" the "chosen" images from someone else, another Flickr member, etc?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson PRO says:

I imagine that most people who "steal" other people's photos probably wouldn't sign a legal contract saying that it is theirs.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

JDvB says:

Sadly, you'd be surprised.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson PRO says:

then Getty would deal with it the same way they would do so now, I imagine. It's their business on the line if they license a stolen photo, so I think they'll be pretty careful.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dbphotography PRO says:

Well, I certainly wouldn't sell my images for Getty's $50 internet use fee. Every photographer here would be smart to make sure they are paid a fair price for a good photo. I know that will be bad considering most images here are from hobbiests and they'd be excited to get any $ for their image.

It will be interesting to see what develops.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

4tuneseekr: right there with you. Just don't try to take a picture of the Getty building in Fremont. Not allowed. Ironically it's one of those "not allowed to take pictures of public buildings in public spaces, even though you are allowed, we're just going to intimidate you into thinking it's not allowed" places.

I wonder if I could double-down on the irony and get them to sell the photo of their building. (and security guard) on Getty.

crossing fingers.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

♥ shhexy corin ♥ PRO says:

how dare you develop something for the more professional photographer! Flickr is for hobbyists and snapshot-shooters!

KEEP FLICKR AMATEUR!
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic PRO says:

i'm kinda pleased that this has been announced without any serious whining or theatrical protests.

well, more amazed than pleased.

hopefully flickr and getty can keep things this steady as they unveil more details. build more good will instead of ire or "meh".
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

tompagenet PRO says:

Being a miserable old sod, I'm a bit reluctant to see Flickr comercialised in this sense. I love the openness of Flickr, the fact that people share large images as part of the joy of sharing images.

I hope that the Getty deal doesn't encourage people to be more restrictive (smaller images or no Creative Commons licenses) with their photos, and that it doesn't encourage people (like myself) who take pictures that are way short of professional level to get delusions of grandeur and only try to post pics they think will be commercial rather than just fun.

Just to keep striatic happy I'm not about to stage any large scale protests, and I'm not sure I'm at the stage of "serious whining". I'm just hoping people keep the big images up and the creative commons licenses flowing.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Alvaro's Pix says:

As we all know Flickr is used for sharing and having fun as well as for promotion or selling (photos/services), have any of these spoiled either of these practices? I don't think so.

So bringing Getty in, one of the leaders in photography selling, is a great move and I'm sure the model is going to be completely new and mostly non intrusive with our beloved Flickr, because lets face they are not going to cannibalize their own business.

If it is going to fit people who is on all the different models? (direct selling, licensing, microstock...) Probably not, but again I think this is a different game.

At least I'm excited.

My two quick euro cents.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sharkbait PRO says:

Considering that Flickr strips all EXIF tags from images provided via "all sizes", I find this announcement pretty bizarre.

May I humbly suggest that Flickr clean up their own act first.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

To me this is clearly the first small steps in the takeover of Flickr by Getty.

I would never deal with Getty having seen their extremely heavy handed legal activity and debt collection activities in recent years against those with no web/copyright experience who used even small images in their own website that were unwatermarked and then found themselves being issued with huge overblown back-dated fee charges of many thousands of dollars that they insist must be paid for to their debt collection agencies Getty has localised worldwide. You can find many posts in forums if you search for ' Getty legal bill' or 'Getty legal action' on google.

There is no way I would let them anywhere near my photos or illustrations. The thought of them being anyway involved with Flickr puts me off using Flickr altogether.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
dublinkillsme edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

iansand PRO says:

dublinkillsme Obvious once it is pointed out.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Stig Nygaard PRO says:

This sounds at least interesting.

(IF some of my photos have the quality for this...) I hope it will be compatible with the Noncommercial Creative Commons licenses. If so I will then consider changing from CC-BY to CC-NC for my new uploads.

I do NOT hope there will be any restrictions on how the photos are presented on Flickr. Ie., I don't want watermarks, max-size, etc. I still want my photos available (for everyone) on Flickr in all sizes including the original. Yes, theoretically people could steal them instead, but I trust people and my experience is that most people play by the rules.

(edit: added "for everyone" to clarify my opinion)
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
Stig Nygaard edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

Corbis and Getty use software that scours the web and analyses the images themselves. In many ways legal actions against so called copyright "infringement" has been a useful revenue stream for them as people use more free/cheap stock or even flickr CC license images.

Do you really want people being sued for thousands of dollars who use your flickr images?

You may find this article of interest. And the last line is the kicker.
Corbis and Getty have bought up cheap stock websites like istockphoto already. Flickr is the last one they need to ensure a monopoly.

A picture paints a thousand invoices:
www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/feb/01/copyright.newmedia
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

Stig Nygaard wrote

I do NOT hope there will be any restrictions on how the photos are presented on Flickr. Ie., I don't want watermarks, max-size, etc. I still want my photos available on Flickr in all sizes including the original.
Given that stock photography agencies need original-sized images, I'd expect it more likely that the restriction would be against posting small images only. In which case, perhaps alongside this new potential created for us, Flickr might consider making the large size secret as well moving forward. The current ease of getting the large-size filename is a real impediment to may people for posting original-size images on Flickr.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

dublinkillsme so-called copyright infringement? The article makes it pretty clear that it's cut-and-dry copyright infringement. Good on Getty for enforcing it. Heavy-handed? Yep.

Loved the last paragraph of the article you linked, though:

For anyone running a website the message is clear: you are responsible for everything that appears on your site. You should assume that every picture or graphic must be paid for unless you can prove otherwise. The written agreement with your web developer should specify that the source of all material must be documented. Many sites offer royalty-free or low-cost cleared images, and in the end this is the worst squeeze of all for photographers. Even mainstream publishers see the web as a vast, low-cost library provided by people who are flattered if asked for the use of their work. "The real problem," says Sleep, "is Flickr."

Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

No - the copyright infringment is not clear cut. In most cases images were found on the likes of google but they contained NO Getty watermarking whatsoever - and were posted to blogs, small sites, etc,

This is by people with no real understanding of copyright and going back to the early open days of the net - as Getty/Corbis back-dates their legal actions from today to how long the images have been on the actual website. So in many cases they are looking for the likes of 6,00 dollars for a small thumbnail that has been on a small website for a few years.

The real problem I have is the heavy handed way they handle this. The fees demanded are grossly excessive and the heavy handed way their debt collection agencies act is uncalled for.

More links:

www.business7.co.uk/2008/02/01/firms-scour-web-for-unlice...

many cases are documented here:
www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=445041


But the bigger picture here is the inevitable sell-out of Flickr to Getty.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

I'm sorry, but images found on the Internet are not just open to the taking, and website devs need to understand this. The images were not supposed to be used in the manner in which they were used, and Getty has the clout to be able to press for the charges, no matter how heavy-handed it may seem. Even when you do a Google image search, Google always states the image may be subject to copyright.

It's not Getty's fault that people grabbing images off the net do not understand that they have to ask for permission or license to use images "found" on the net.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

d.kumar says:

Even if Getty takeover Flickr , they can not make any of my photos into stock photos without my permission .
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

striatic PRO says:

"Even if Getty takeover Flickr , they can not make any of my photos into stock photos without my permission ."

the plan is for getty staff to find photos they think they can sell, and then ask the photographer for permission.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

Getty knows it is far easier to pick and choose photos, taken by amateurs in the majority, who will happily take a few cent for their images, rather than have to deal with professional photographers who need the revenue to survive. And as any illustrator knows the royalty free stock image system directly feeds into the declining usage of illustration, as illustrators just can't compete with super cheap photo stock.

Flickr had an opportunity to built their own fair commercial system that empowered the creator rather than the stock house, yet already they seem to have caved in to the pressures and no doubt the dollar signs being offered by Getty to muscle in on the community and further their monopoly.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mark Scheuern says:

PhotoShelter's reaction, "How Getty is Killing the Stock Photo Industry":
blog.photoshelter.com/corp/2008/07/how-getty-is-killing-t...

"It's about locking out competition from the industry to ensure a continued, virtual monopoly."
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
Mark Scheuern edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

who will happily take a few cent for their images,

Oh, did someone tell you the pricing structure of this new arrangement?

No?

OK, so this is more warrantless speculation. How about we wait and see what the pricing structure actually is before decrying it.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

Regardless of the model it is still Flickr embracing the monopoly Getty holds rather than staying independent.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

dublinkillsme wrote

Regardless of the model it is still Flickr embracing the monopoly Getty holds rather than staying independent.
You'd rather Flickr had created its own stock photo agency from scratch, rather than partnered with an established, trusted agency?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

I would rather that Flickr divide itself into "Amateur" and "Professional" sites. Let those who wish to be professional load their images into their part, and snapshooters like myself stay in the hobby part. I have been looking for a better place to keep my photos of dogs, cats and sunsets...mainly because I don't want anyone to make money off of my hobby.

Added: I've always had this creepy feeling that Flickr was always designed to be more than a paid storage / photo sharing site (with the emphasis on sharing - not selling). I always liked the idea of being a member for the pure pleasure of enjoying photographs done by people with no other motivation than just learning how to capture a moment in time. When you add the motivation of profit, you move away from that ideal.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
Brian T Wright edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

ushu says:

Did I just see trusted agency used to describe Getty??????

Wow, just wow!

There are many things that I trust Getty to do, none of them benefit photographers or photography.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

tabhastal wrote

mainly because I don't want anyone to make money off of my hobby.

You might check the bit where it says Getty will ask first. Nothing's being done without your permission.

ushu wrote
Did I just see trusted agency used to describe Getty??????

Wow, just wow!

There are many things that I trust Getty to do, none of them benefit photographers or photography.
Well, apparently they're trusted by buyers of stock photography -- and therefore used. That benefits their photographers over those photographers in a little-used stock agency. I wasn't making a complex philosophical statement about the state of commercial photography today.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

@Lu: "You might check the bit where it says Getty will ask first. Nothing's being done without your permission."

Agreed. But my photographs contribute to the very large photo pool that Yahoo can use to attract business. Yahoo is using them to make money over and above the $25 that I pay to them to host my photos.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

tabhastal

From the very beginning the photo pool here has been used to attract business. Flickr was a business long before Yahoo! bought them.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

@ColleenM: Agreed. However, Flickr, before Yahoo, was much more about social photography.

EDIT: removed a remark that could be considered sarcasm.

Added: I guess my complaint with seeing things like the Getty deal is that we have changed so much from the early days. It used to be: "Hey, I really like your photo! Here's one of mine, what do you think?" Now it is: "Hey, look at my great photo! Would you like to buy it?" The Getty deal just encourages that type of behavior. That's fine for those who wish to do photography as a business, but that's not why I joined Flickr.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
Brian T Wright edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

tabhastal wrote

Yahoo is using them to make money over and above the $25 that I pay to them to host my photos.
What, like a profit? If you want to have your photos online at a site that doesn't try to go beyond breaking even (or even to break even -- I doubt our pro fees added together cover the full cost of operations), you just might have to look farther.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

@Lu: My $25 more than covers the cost of hosting my photos. Flickr has to make more than that to cover the losses that Yahoo is seeing in its other investments.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

What is it with speculation today?

tabhastal Tell me, have you seen Flickr's financials somewhere to be able to assert that your $25 "more than covers the cost of hosting" your photos? Or that Flickr is trying to make up for Yahoo's other losses?

Can we get reality based sometime?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

@zyrcster: Yes. Until a few months ago, I worked in Silicon Valley for 15 years. I was there for the growth, decline, and rebirth. I attended Yahoo investor meetings, viewed annual reports, performed stock analysis, attended hundreds of meetings hosted by them and/or held in their facilities. I have numerous friends and acquaintances who worked or are working for them and have had thousands of conversations with them over the years. I am fairly well versed in the storage industry, with experience with everything from storage manufacturers to hosts. I am very interested in Yahoo's future, not only for the effect it will have on my friends, but for the effect it will have on the Valley and industry, generally.

Added: Let's not bump heads. I've been with Flickr about as long as you have. So you must see the changes that I have. My complaint about the Getty deal is that it is just another indicator that the Flickr I knew is not the Flickr I know.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
Brian T Wright edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

sschaper_iowa says:

This may be Flickr's response to the concerns about recent illicit use of our images.

Flickr will now likely have to do something like what I've suggested in the FlickrCentral area discussing these abuses of the ToU by Flickr in order to be appealing to Getty. That is good.

I like Flickr a lot, but I don't want others profiting off of my images without my getting a cut, and having a say-so in their doing so. I don't want to be losing my rights just by uploading an image. The ToU says we aren't, but in practice, others are using the API - in some cases innocently as Myxer seems to have - to violate our rights.

The microstock sites show that preventing that is technologically do-able, perhaps even trivial. If Flickr would do so, then I think that we all - including Flickr - benefit.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

tabhastal So with nothing more than your word (I don't doubt your experience, but without pointing me to a document, all I have is your word), I'm to believe that all Flickr Pro accounts combined cover the costs of all Flickr operations and salaries, etc, and then some to the point where Flickr is somehow covering Yahoo's other losses? Is this correct? I suppose the ad revenue on the free accounts, then, is not covering any of Flickr costs (since you claim the Pro accounts do) but is instead also going to pay down the other Yahoo losses?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

@zyrcster: Yes.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

And all I have is your word on that one.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

Yahoo owns Flickr. Flickr's profit is Yahoo's profit.

Besides, it's not as if the only beneficiaries of the Getty-Flickr partnership will be Yahoo and Getty. There will be clients who get images they couldn't find elsewhere, with a level of ease and certainty they didn't have before, and there will be photographers earning money they might not have otherwise. I really can't see how it's actually so horribly evil that the companies making that possible would profit as well.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

@zyrcster: Of course not. Do some research.

@Lu: It's not evil. I am one of the first to support capitalism; I retired at 47 completely due to my decisions regarding employment and investment. I'm not knocking Yahoo for doing all it can to increase value to its stockholders; after all, their board must do so by law. My complaint is the change I have seen in Flickr as I have experienced it. I'm not happy that my photos have, admittedly in a very minor way, been used to foster that environment.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
Brian T Wright edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

I can (and have) read yahoo's annual reports and their quarterlies, but the revenue from Flickr is not a separate line item. There is no public Flickr revenues report that I am aware of. Do you know of one?
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brian T Wright says:

@zyrcster: You must do more than that. You must also read broker analysis, news articles (especially those posted just prior to and after the Yahoo acquisition), bulletin boards, talk to insiders...

I'm done, folks. Thanks for the discussion. I've made my argument against the Getty deal. Good luck selling your photos. Take a look at my dogs, cats and ducks if you wish, but don't ask to buy them.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jshook says:

tabhastal: "This may be Flickr's response to the concerns about recent illicit use of our images."

Yeah, I'm sure.

flickr is a business. They wouldn't be doing this if it didn't support their business goals. There's nothing wrong with that, just don't confuse it with something else.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

tabhastal "This may be Flickr's response to the concerns about recent illicit use of our images."

Stewart Butterfield announced in this interview in August 2006 that Flickr was looking for a way to do this.

It's hardly a recent response. You would know as well as anyone that announcements like this are the result of months of conversations, not just a knee-jerk response to pitchforks.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

Be interesting to see whether the Getty deal is an attempt at a genuine service that Flickr can't handle technically or is it really just a way of locking Flickr and any other competitor out of creating a better system and competing with Getty. And of course if Microsoft takes Yahoo, you can expect a more aggressive erosion of Flickr's brand equity.

FYI there are some good points being made here:
thomashawk.com/2008/07/yahoo-and-getty-strike-deal-to-sel...
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

zyrcster PRO says:

OMG, you just lost any and all credibility by linking to a Thomas Hawk blog. Sorry.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

Yeah that's a bit like linking to a FoxNews page expecting "fair and balanced" insight. The motivations pretty much invalidate the message.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

Hey, I've no idea who is. Wasn't meant as a terrorist fist jab ;)
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Wow, we haven't even reached page 2 and someone's citing Thomas Hawk.

Of course, now that we've invoked his name 3 times, he's bound to appear here any moment and tell us personally how he feels about this deal (and why zooomr is a better model).
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wooble says:

The folks over at Photoshelter have an interesting take on this. Of course, they have an obvious interest at stake...
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

_mpd_ says:

Sounds like goodness, and I'm a glad you are not doing an abusive-to-the-photographer microstock deal.

Seems like a creative way to get some revenue for Flickr -- just be careful to see that the community isn't comprimised by it getting a bit greedy for attention.

Good deal.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Amanda Emily says:

I posted a version of this on the Seattle-PI, but will repeat here:

-------------
So, hypothetically lets say Getty licenses a photo from Flickr user "Joe Photog"

Joe Photog also uses the same photo on his personal website - will Getty send Joe a bill for not "licensing" his photo for his website through Getty?

Getty has apparently been heavy-handed in sending legal notices to webmasters who are inadvertently using non-licensed Getty images per dublinkillsme comment above.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

...Steve says:

dublinkillsme, while I agree that the approach by Getty and Corbis taken in the linked articles in your post is quite drastic, the bottom line is the protection of their business interests and, believe it or not, those of their contributing photographers.

While you may not like this approach, as a photographer, I believe that it is the correct approach. Too many view the web as a free source of just about everything and have absolutely no concept of Intellectual Property rights.

Many photographers depend on the libraries for a significant portion of their income and it is only right that this is protected. Don't forget that any recovered license fees in a case like this are shared with the contributing photographer.

Theft is theft no matter how you dress it up or complain about the jackboot of big business. Behind every Corbis or Getty image there is a photographer trying to earn a living.
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )
...Steve edited this topic 114 months ago.

view photos

dublinkillsme says:

Getty has a system set up currently with an Israeli company called Picscout whose software bot scours servers worldwide - the software does not honour meta tags, robots.txt , other security measures or even internet archives from long changed websites and crawls through directories as well as images that are online. Picscout in fact make up to 35% of the fees generated from any infringements, not the photographer.

If a Getty Images copyright image is found with no license on a site, threatening letters are dispatched to the company or individual demanding that they pull the image and pay some extortionate fee. There is no cease and desist notice. They demand money within 21 days of receipt of the letter. This is where they also have localised debt collection agencies to threaten the individuals or companies on an ongoing basis until they have made the payment in full. If you pay within a certain date they offer a 10% discount.

This heavy handed tactic has been deemed illegal by many lawyers that deal with copyright / intellectual property and indeed many online lawyers now have specific services to help individuals fight such excessive monitory demands they receive from Getty. The fees are so excessive many people just dont have the money. Especially as the companies tend to pass on the fees to those who designed the site.

It would be extremely worrying if Getty / Picscout were to use images that originated from Flickr really as a huge stream of revenue gathered through debt collection for infringements rather than the usage fee of the image in the first place.

Another big question is whether this is leading to a deployment on Flickr of Picscout's application PicApp - which "will allow publishers and bloggers to select images from Getty and post them to their sites."

This could effectively turn the "Blog This" functionality of Flickr into a huge revenue stream for Getty.

But it would be unclear if a 2nd or 3rd person were to blog the same image down the blog chain that they would be open to legal action from Getty's PicScout and debt collection wing.

PicApp:
www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/531009.php


PIcscout:
johannburkard.de/blog/www/spam/corporate-web-abuse-the-wo...

williamfaulkner.co.uk/wordpress/archives/84
Posted 114 months ago. ( permalink )

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

← prev 1 2
(1 to 100 of 143 replies in Flickr + Getty Images)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads