I have noticed flickr offers integration of image licensing through getty images. What are peoples comments and experiences with this program? Are there better alternatives?
Printable View
I have noticed flickr offers integration of image licensing through getty images. What are peoples comments and experiences with this program? Are there better alternatives?
Please do not help Getty Images further erode the value of photography.
Frank, you are the man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
haha!
I could be cruder!
Getty is evil.
Wow! Seems like Getty may not be the optimal choice. Do you have a suggestion/s on which company offers the better/best service?
My stock agency is GalleryStock. They represent photographers whose work typically is not commercial, but coincidentally has some commercial value. They represent high end photographers such as Joel Meyerowitz, Stephen Shore, Massimo Vitali, Nadav Kander, Jill Greenberg,... They target high end markets, and the licensing fees are significantly higher than for any other stock agency that I am aware of. So the number of images licensed tends to be low, but the higher rates means more money to the photographer.
Also, for stock work, be prepared to have a model or property release for every image with a recognizable person or building in it. If not then the image will likely only be used for editorial licensing. Getty recently lowered their photographer share to 35% for editorial licensing - and editorial licensing is already lower paying than creative licensing.
Making any kind of worthwhile income from stock is a long shot these days. With low advertising budgets, low licensing fees, and floods of images on micro-stock sites, it is unlikely that you will license many images, and if you do your share of the pie will be depressingly low. The best bet is to have thousands and thousands of images, and even then recouping your investment is dubious. I think the people doing the best in stock licensing these days tend to be commercial advertising shooters who can take the images not selected by the client and push those to stock. That way all the costs of production are already covered and any stock licensing is just gravy.
Getty and Corbis pretty much decimated the stock photography market for commercial photographers. I know of one excellent photographer who put years into building a fine catalog but wouldn't sell out to those vultures and he has lost most of his expected retirement income.
The few photographers that do work for the two made deals with the Devil, and you can be sure they will get downsized and screwed ingloriously in the end.
What Getty is doing with Flickr is to cherry-pick the finest amateur work - offering the amateurs the thrill of being published and making a little money - and further depressing the overall prices long term.
Their end game is short-sighted, as eventually they will find the prices too low too, but they've had technology and near monopoly status on their side for the slide to the bottom.
I know it's a free market but it's a shame photographers didn't band together and freeze these bastards out back in the early 90s when they started buying up the small stock agencies.
They operate just like slumlords, destroying neighborhoods....
Oh boy... here we go.
I am currently represented by GettyImges in their rights-managed galleries. I have, however, decided not to sign their new contract which allowed GettyImages the option of placing any of my images into their royalty-free collections.
As soon as I made this decision I made a (just short of) $10k sale through them. Sales had been okay through them but never that okay.
I'm still good with my decision to say goodbye to Getty though. I'll either sell on my own or through a new agency.
I started with nonstøck about 25 years ago and that was a great relationship. Sales were good but, just as important, my relationship with the owner was terrific. When I first started with Jerry Tavin he told me to never look at a stock houses' images to see what I should shoot. He told me to shoot from my heart and he would sell them. He was right.
After a few years he sold nonstøck to Picture Arts who sold to Jupiter Images who sold to Getty.
I am now considering representation by Glasshouse Images, run by Jerry Tavin.
And round and round it goes...
But yes - Frank is right about Getty & Corbis hurting photography. It's still possible to make a living from stock photography but chances are slim. Getty is pretty excited about their Flickr program because it sucks the best images from young but naive photographers. They simply don't have to pay much at all for what many times is quality work.
I really have no idea how many photographers have defected from the GettyImages ranks when the take it or leave it contract was offered last spring. Quite honestly, I don't much care. I'm happy to say goodbye.