Getty images

[David Hedley]

Through flickr, I have been invited to license some of my photographs through Getty Images. Initially flattered, I have become a little concerned when I read through the legal agreement at the end of the registration process - for example the exclusivity clause;

All Content submitted to Getty Images is on a Content exclusive basis. This means that Content submitted to Getty Images and any other content that is substantially the same (a "Similar") may not be licensed to any third party unless Getty Images has notified you that it has been rejected. However, on a non-exclusive basis, You may use Content and any Similars for your personal or self promotional, non-commercial use, including sharing Content on photo sharing websites, blogs or social networking websites for personal or self-promotional/non-commercial use, provided that you do not compete with or limit the rights granted to Getty Images under the Agreement. Also on a co-exclusive basis with Getty Images, you may use Accepted Content that is available for license through a royalty-free license model in connection with the sale by you of prints, t-shirts and other retail merchandise where the Accepted Content is the focus of the product, so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the Accepted Content for anything other than such merchandising. On an exclusive basis you may use Content and any Similars for limited edition, signed and/or numbered fine art prints (though Getty Images retains the exclusive right to sell and license prints not signed or numbered).

Does this mean, for example, that I'd have to withdraw my current book from public sale, as some of the images they have invited appear in that? Given that I am an obscure amateur photographer, I'm highly unlikely to make significant income through sale of images, and I'd probably prefer to keep full control over my photographs, and publish what I like, when I like. Or am I being unduly cynical?

Advice and insight from those who have experience in this area would be highly appreciated.

David

[GPS]

David,
Getty is a crocodile that eats all smaller fish in the water. Now, if you think you would get substantial sales from them, go for it. Much more probable is that you would just get a few pictures paid in a longer time period, given your status.
No, former published books would not be affected.

[Edwin Beckenbach]

Getty allows you to publish your own work in book form. You do need to obtain prior written permission for the cover image if they represent it. When you submit images you can make a note regarding the book usage to avoid any misunderstanding.

[Frank Petronio]

F@&K Getty

Corbis and Getty are evil, evil, evil.

Blow up Walmarts and Getty Images, execute their executives, and the world will be 20% better.

[GPS]

I can see, they certainly don't sell your images...

[Ramiro Elena]

I've made some good money through them.

[Frank Petronio]

If professional and serious photographers banded together and boycotted them, you'd be making a lot more money.

On Flickr they float offers of 80-20 splits, they get the 80. Insanity. So when you sell through them, you are hurting the rest of the industry and your fellow photographers.

But you don't care, "found money" right? After twenty years of this BS, only a handful of photographers are making a living from stock and a lot retired photographers have watched their incomes dwindle.

[Leigh]

Blow up Walmarts and Getty Images, execute their executives, and the world will be 20% better.

Excellent idea, but...

We need to add a bunch of names to the list, to get above 50%.

- Leigh

[edtog]

If professional and serious photographers banded together and boycotted them, you'd be making a lot more money.

On Flickr they float offers of 80-20 splits, they get the 80. Insanity. So when you sell through them, you are hurting the rest of the industry and your fellow photographers.

But you don't care, "found money" right? After twenty years of this BS, only a handful of photographers are making a living from stock and a lot retired photographers have watched their incomes dwindle.

Well said, when have Flickr photographers ever cared about the pro market?
At least the agency use still "try" and look after photographers.

[Ramiro Elena]

I agree with you Frank 100% but, boycott a monster like Getty?
You're right the steal like crazy but most clients get they're images from them now. Back in the day clients used to go to photographers for an image they wanted. I know because I used to do a lot of book covers in the 90's and I haven't done a single one since then.
Their deal with Flickr isn't aimed at proffesionals anyway. They're abusing the amateur offering them a few cents for images they never thought they could make a profit of.

I'd like things to be like before but I guess times have changed and one has to move on and adapt.
I know lots of photographers who complaint the jobs they got paid for before are being done by somebody with a point and shoot. Well maybe that job didn't require a pro to begin with... that's a different story though.