Flickr teaming up with Getty

[Wsman2]

http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_9836709?nclick_check=1

[TheHoff]

The link looks private, unfortunately.

Here it is on the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070802332.html

[Wsman2]

Cool...thanks for the alternate link. My initial link is via the San Jose Mercury (http://www.mercurynews.com) (free to subscribe online).

[amfoto1]

One more good reason to not put my images up on Flickr!

[cory1848]

I dont know the ins and outs of this, but why is it a bad thing?

[Tumeg]

I dont know the ins and outs of this, but why is it a bad thing?



I don't see it as a bad thing at all!
Getty images editors will be hand selecting photos that are posted on flickr. They will then notify the photographers of the photographs they have chosen and offer them anywhere from 30-50% of $300-$500 per photo. (Same amount as their hired photographers get) You can accept or deny.

I am not TOO sure on who gets what rights, that will be something to look into before doing any of this.

I am also not too sure on what Getty will be doing with the photos, I THINK they said they will be selling them as stock photos?? I am not positive on this aspect.

But from the looks of it, it looks like a good idea! You have the choice to deny Getty from buying\using your photo(s) if they ever ask you.

[blackshadow]

I don't see this as a bad thing.

As I understand it:

The photographer maintains ownership
Getty sells the images as either rights managed or royalty free
Photographer gets a commission and so does flickr


Obviously it's more advantageous to both Getty and flickr than the photographer but I can see a lot of photographers being paid for photos they wouldn't have been paid for before.

The down side I see is that Getty may be tempted to go to flickr and look for images at the expense of their contributors.

[c71clark]

I think it could be a good thing, as long as "worthy" photo's are not treated as freebies. Getting established with a stock company usually requires a fairly extensive collection to make any money. It would be nice to get a toe in the door with a small number of images. Not that I expect ever to make a living off stock...

[skywalkerbeth]

I don't see it as a bad thing at all!
Getty images editors will be hand selecting photos that are posted on flickr. They will then notify the photographers of the photographs they have chosen and offer them anywhere from 30-50% of $300-$500 per photo. (Same amount as their hired photographers get) You can accept or deny.

I am not TOO sure on who gets what rights, that will be something to look into before doing any of this.

I am also not too sure on what Getty will be doing with the photos, I THINK they said they will be selling them as stock photos?? I am not positive on this aspect.

But from the looks of it, it looks like a good idea! You have the choice to deny Getty from buying\using your photo(s) if they ever ask you.


I think it is more like 20-30%, and who knows how much per photo. 300-500 bucks? I keep reading about 2-5 bucks...

[amfoto1]

Talk about resurrecting ancient history!

It's most likely Getty's micro stock side... so probably a few dollars per image per sale, at best. Might be less than $1.

[Karl Johnston]

Interesting, who's to tell what this will bring..though there's no fighting microstock, it's too prevalent..though the way I look at it it's like shopping at walmart - you can't buy a rolex there..but you can get something that tells you the time for 10 bucks (but it's not a rolex, and for those that want class and functionality - there's a rolex)

I'm a firm believer in adaption rather than resilience; when presented with an unfortunate scenario then figure out how to turn it into a (profitable?) and useful one. So let's see what happens.