"Stock Photo Hell?" An Article.

[Bigtime]

Interesting article from todays Herald, I was wondering what your take on this is? I noticed the Getty Images option on Flickr a couple of days ago:

Stock photo hell

By Kevin Brooker, For The Calgary Herald June 21, 2010

Oh goody, another story about the struggle of traditional media to remain economically viable. This time it's commercial photography, and here's the seismic shift: as of last week Flickr, the popular photo-sharing website with over 40 million registered members warehousing an incalculable number of blurry birthday party snapshots, will now enable users to earn money by selling those pictures to commercial publishers.

The middleman is Getty Images, a Seattle-based stock photo agency that for the past year has been testing the scheme with a select 100,000 images posted to Flickr by professional and semi-professional photographers. The conclusion? Easy cash, baby. Now bring on the amateurs.

For those unfamiliar with how stock agencies work, not to mention how quietly ubiquitous they have become, here is the drill. A publisher -- say a magazine, advertiser or website -- visits Getty's online archives and searches via keywords for an image it is hoping will illustrate a certain concept. When it finds it, or more typically, something kind of, sort of, a little bit like what it originally wanted, it pays a licence fee for a high-resolution copy, of which a portion goes to the original shooter.

Although Getty hasn't finalized its fee schedule, it expects its rates to match the industry standard for single use, around $150 to $250. Flickr users must opt in if they wish to be considered.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/enterta...#ixzz0rUr3LQpE

Personally I don't have a big issue with it. I feel that Mr. Booker is very biased in his view of Flickr and the quality of some of the photos on there, perhaps he should look at the work that many of you post to it? I know I'd LOVE to see your work of skylines and buildings inserted into more articles and stories, instead of the usually dull and boring images used currently (for proof of this look no further than the Heralds own "Building the Bow" photo album).

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Interesting article from todays Herald, I was wondering what your take on this is? I noticed the Getty Images option on Flickr a couple of days ago:




Personally I don't have a big issue with it. I feel that Mr. Booker is very biased in his view of Flickr and the quality of some of the photos on there, perhaps he should look at the work that many of you post to it? I know I'd LOVE to see your work of skylines and buildings inserted into more articles and stories, instead of the usually dull and boring images used currently (for proof of this look no further than the Heralds own "Building the Bow" photo album).

I have to disagree with you on this one. I think Booker is right. There's some really good photographers on Flickr, but one has to wade through a ton of crap to find them. I checked out the Getty group on Friday night and they already had over 200,000 photos submitted. I think it was over 300K, but I'll stick with 200K. I obviously didn't wade through them all, but the majority that I saw were crap.

The quality of photo is not Booker's concern, nor is it mine. The more crap the better it is for those who actually have some talent.

Booker's major concern is this move by Getty Images will lead to reduced work for professional photographers. Which is a very valid concern. The usually dull and boring photos you're referring to most likely come from stock which is why they're dull and boring.

Eventually, once Getty acquires the rights to a billion or so photos, they will slash rates and put the squeeze on photographers. They'll also do what they did with iStock, which is not pay photographers until their account reaches a certain doller value.

[Bigtime]

I see that side of it, I didn't know there was a Getty group on Flickr. I thought if you bought into the program Getty could contact you on any photos in your photostream?

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I see that side of it, I didn't know there was a Getty group on Flickr. I thought if you bought into the program Getty could contact you on any photos in your photostream?

I think they will contact you, but with the number of users on flickr, we have a better chance of being drafted by the Flames.

[defaultuser]

What Booker doesn't say is that those same publishers and advertisers are going to Getty for ease of use, properly tagged images, the guarantee that their newly purchased licensed image will have any property or model release signed and that it has passed some sort of quality inspection. With randomly plucking images of Flickr comes the hassle of waiting for Getty to contact the flickr user in question, them agreeing to terms, signing a contract, attaining signed releases (if necessary,) uploading the image, then finally inspecting and passing the link onto the customer. With no guarantee that everything will fall into place. Seems like a whole lot of hassle for a stock shot.

What this new agreement does help is anyone on Flickr who has been contacted randomly to license their work, as it adds someone who knows what they're doing to the equation. Of course, Getty will take their slice, but for someone not comfortable with the process or unfamiliar with the stock value of their image and licensing terms, it should work out in their favour.

[defaultuser]

Oh and 30 or so of those 100,000 images on the Flickr Collection are mine! So if you have any questions about Getty or whatever, I'll be glad to answer as best I can.

[Ramsayfarian]

I totally agree that this will be a boon for publishers and editors, but I think at the expense of the talent. Time will only tell. I wish you well with the photos that you've posted. I'd be interested in hearing how they do.

[defaultuser]

My point was the opposite of that. A mostly good thing for flickr folks and a waste time for Getty's core clientele. If anything this new deal is a boon to "talent" as they now have a better chance of earning some coin off their images. If it's taking money from "real" photographers, then so be it. Adapt or find a new occupation.


My photos are doing alright on Getty and much better than they would collecting dust on my hard drive. I'm going to give them 2 years (length of the initial contract) for a fair assessment. Oh and they do have a limit of $50 before issuing a cheque, but as the commissions are much higher than penny stock sites like iStock, this isn't really an issue.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by defaultuser

My point was the opposite of that. A mostly good thing for flickr folks and a waste time for Getty's core clientele. If anything this new deal is a boon to "talent" as they now have a better chance of earning some coin off their images. If it's taking money from "real" photographers, then so be it. Adapt or find a new occupation.


My photos are doing alright on Getty and much better than they would collecting dust on my hard drive. I'm going to give them 2 years (length of the initial contract) for a fair assessment. Oh and they do have a limit of $50 before issuing a cheque, but as the commissions are much higher than penny stock sites like iStock, this isn't really an issue.

Your comment reads like you're begrudging professional photographers. Which is a tad confusing. I don't know about you, but I would kill to be able to make a living at photographer.

As Getty catalogs more images from flickr their rates will drop to where the pricing structure is similar to iStock. Btw, I assume that you know Getty Images owns iStock.

[defaultuser]

I don't begrudge professional photographers. In fact, a good friend of mine has earned 100% of his income in the past half decade from photography. I only begrudge people holding onto a dying business model thinking they're entitled to this revenue stream for them and themselves only. The more talented people that can earn money from doing something they love, the better. The smart ones will adapt, as my friend has, and will find alternative ways to earn money in their profession.

And yes, I'm well aware of Getty's structure, with gettyimages.com being their top-tier and iStock being closer to the bottom. I'm sure these two will come closer to each other one day, but that's the nature of the business in the digital age.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by defaultuser

I don't begrudge professional photographers. In fact, a good friend of mine has earned 100% of his income in the past half decade from photography. I only begrudge people holding onto a dying business model thinking they're entitled to this revenue stream for them and themselves only. The more talented people that can earn money from doing something they love, the better. The smart ones will adapt, as my friend has, and will find alternative ways to earn money in their profession.

And yes, I'm well aware of Getty's structure, with gettyimages.com being their top-tier and iStock being closer to the bottom. I'm sure these two will come closer to each other one day, but that's the nature of the business in the digital age.

There's a huge difference between earning money and making a living. I would rather see the ones with talent push the untalented hacks out, due to hard work and using the internet to promote themselves, rather than reduce the value of photography through volume and their being chosen, down more to keywords than image.

With music and the digital age, the smart artists have realized that with the internet, they don't need big business to distribute their work and make the lion share of the profits.

The opposite seems to be happening with photography.

[defaultuser]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

There's a huge difference between earning money and making a living. I would rather see the ones with talent push the untalented hacks out, due to hard work and using the internet to promote themselves, rather than reduce the value of photography through volume and their being chosen, down more to keywords than image.

With music and the digital age, the smart artists have realized that with the internet, they don't need big business to distribute their work and make the lion share of the profits.

The opposite seems to be happening with photography.

All I'm saying is that if you're sole income is stock photography, now is the time to diversify. Yes, these stock photo guys had it good for a long time, but the reality now is that anyone with a digital camera can snap a stock worthy shot. I'm a prime example, a good chunk of my shots on Getty were taking with a point and shoot before I knew anything about photography. Aim, point, shoot.

The opposite is only happening with stock, and like the mainstream music industry, it's a dying business model that has, for the most part, seen its day. Stock is but a small part of the photography profession and a good portion of it is filled with hacks anyway. There's some really talented pros out there and the majority of them can't be bothered with Getty et al. They're making money in real ways. Be it corporate clients, weddings, portraits, fashion, news, sports, etc.

You can't change what is happening, so there's no point in being bitter like Brooker up there.