Getty, Meet Free Market.

Yahoo and Getty Images said Tuesday that they have entered into a partnership under which Getty editors will comb Flickr in search of interesting images. They will then invite photographers to participate in the program and ensure that their images have the proper releases to be licensed legally. Those who are included in the program [...]Published July 8, 2008

Related topics

Photography, , , 9 responses

Last updated Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:45:05 +0000

Written by

Photography introduced me to the 'new media' evolution. I currently do community management at Meraki in San Francisco, but this blog is about journalism, some UX design, and the occasional rant. more →

| joey@byjoeybaker.com

Sharing

more
Yahoo and Getty Images said Tuesday that they have entered into a partnership under which Getty editors will comb Flickr in search of interesting images. They will then invite photographers to participate in the program and ensure that their images have the proper releases to be licensed legally. Those who are included in the program will get paid at the same rates that Getty pays photographers who are under contract with the company.

-Great Photo on Flickr? Getty Images Might Pay You For It – Bits – Technology – New York Times Blog

Finally, a good reason to use flickr, perhaps even pay for a pro account!While flickr has always been cool from a technology front, I’ve never really been encouraged to use it. In part, because I’m afraid my images might get stolen, and in part because I was never too keen on the 200 image maximum.Now, from the unlikely source of Getty, who also runs iStockPhoto, Flickr has become a stock image site. iStockPhoto is very controversial because it does not pay photographers royalties and charges little for a purchase. Yet:
Getty also runs a site called iStockPhoto, where amateurs contribute photos that the company markets at lower rates. The photos on Flickr are of sufficent quality to demand higher prices, Mr. Klein said.
It seems that there is something to be said for the free market. iStockPhoto offers an inferior product. Here’s the market correcting itself.“Because the imagery is not shot for commercial services, there is more authenticity,” Mr. Klein said. “Advertisers are looking for authenticity.”
  • ECImage

    “iStockPhoto is very controversial because it does not pay photographers royalties”
    What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any idea how the RF industry works at all? iStock pays its photographers a commission every time one of their images is licenced.

  • http://byjoeybaker.com Joey Baker

    @ECImage

    Thanks for taking the time to comment, let me see if I can set the record straight.

    Your correct, iStockPhoto does indeed pay the photog every time an image is purchased.

    The issue is that royalties pay a photog every time an image is _used_. For instance: An advertising agency can go to iStock photo, buy an image for $20 (the most expensive and largest size available), and proceed to use that one image for a marketing campaign that includes billboards, flyers, websites, t-shirts and coffee mugs. Yet, they only have to pay iStockPhoto and the Photog that one $20 fee. (BTW… “iStock pays contributors a base royalty rate of 20% for each file downloaded. If you are an Exclusive contributor you can earn up to 40%.” http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos.php)

    A royalty system pays photogs _every time_ an image is used, so usage on a billboard is a lot more expensive than usage on a coffee mug, though either way, the photog is going to get paid.

    I think that adequately explains the difference, and should give you an idea as to why iStock is unloved in the Pro industry. It's worth noting that Getty Images does indeed pay its pro photogs on a royalty basis.

  • Mark Hayes

    “It's worth noting that Getty Images does indeed pay its pro photogs on a royalty basis.”

    Your still incorrect to some extent. Getty pays royalty per use on RM and RR, on Getty's very large RF collection they license just as iStock does – one payment when they buyer licenses the image – then they are free to use it as they wish without futher royalty payments.

    The difference has nothing to do with microstock versus traditional but rather Rights Managed versus Royalty Free.

  • http://byjoeybaker.com Joey Baker

    Mark-

    Thanks for the correction, I did overstate my case. Not all Getty images are RM, but at least there is the option, and unless I'm mistaken, a Getty Pro is going to get a lot more from a RR than an iStock photog will.

    The problem with microstock – and in this case iStockPhoto is that it is great for ad agencies and makes it much easier for the average photog to get into the stock business.

    I'm not the first to make this argument. See here: http://www.photoprotips.com/20071015/microstock…

    The great thing about Getty going with Flickr to get higher quality images is that the free market has taken over. iStock is apparently not capable of producing the quality of product that advertisers require.

  • Mark Hayes

    “It's worth noting that Getty Images does indeed pay its pro photogs on a royalty basis.”

    Your still incorrect to some extent. Getty pays royalty per use on RM and RR, on Getty's very large RF collection they license just as iStock does – one payment when they buyer licenses the image – then they are free to use it as they wish without futher royalty payments.

    The difference has nothing to do with microstock versus traditional but rather Rights Managed versus Royalty Free.

  • http://byjoeybaker.com Joey Baker

    Mark-

    Thanks for the correction, I did overstate my case. Not all Getty images are RM, but at least there is the option, and unless I'm mistaken, a Getty Pro is going to get a lot more from a RR than an iStock photog will.

    The problem with microstock – and in this case iStockPhoto is that it is great for ad agencies and makes it much easier for the average photog to get into the stock business.

    I'm not the first to make this argument. See here: http://www.photoprotips.com/20071015/microstock…

    The great thing about Getty going with Flickr to get higher quality images is that the free market has taken over. iStock is apparently not capable of producing the quality of product that advertisers require.

  • http://byjoeybaker.com Joey Baker

    @ECImage

    Thanks for taking the time to comment, let me see if I can set the record straight.

    Your correct, iStockPhoto does indeed pay the photog every time an image is purchased.

    The issue is that royalties pay a photog every time an image is _used_. For instance: An advertising agency can go to iStock photo, buy an image for $20 (the most expensive and largest size available), and proceed to use that one image for a marketing campaign that includes billboards, flyers, websites, t-shirts and coffee mugs. Yet, they only have to pay iStockPhoto and the Photog that one $20 fee. (BTW… “iStock pays contributors a base royalty rate of 20% for each file downloaded. If you are an Exclusive contributor you can earn up to 40%.” http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos.php)

    A royalty system pays photogs _every time_ an image is used, so usage on a billboard is a lot more expensive than usage on a coffee mug, though either way, the photog is going to get paid.

    I think that adequately explains the difference, and should give you an idea as to why iStock is unloved in the Pro industry. It's worth noting that Getty Images does indeed pay its pro photogs on a royalty basis.

  • Mark Hayes

    “It's worth noting that Getty Images does indeed pay its pro photogs on a royalty basis.”

    Your still incorrect to some extent. Getty pays royalty per use on RM and RR, on Getty's very large RF collection they license just as iStock does – one payment when they buyer licenses the image – then they are free to use it as they wish without futher royalty payments.

    The difference has nothing to do with microstock versus traditional but rather Rights Managed versus Royalty Free.

  • http://byjoeybaker.com Joey Baker

    Mark-

    Thanks for the correction, I did overstate my case. Not all Getty images are RM, but at least there is the option, and unless I'm mistaken, a Getty Pro is going to get a lot more from a RR than an iStock photog will.

    The problem with microstock – and in this case iStockPhoto is that it is great for ad agencies and makes it much easier for the average photog to get into the stock business.

    I'm not the first to make this argument. See here: http://www.photoprotips.com/20071015/microstock…

    The great thing about Getty going with Flickr to get higher quality images is that the free market has taken over. iStock is apparently not capable of producing the quality of product that advertisers require.

New Software BlogSoftware DreamVery Good SoftwareReal Downloads