Getty being sued for $1Billion

In a capitalistic world where business and services are created where profits can be made a dishonest player is getting a unfair advantage and kills his rivals. A dishonest company reduces the freedom of choice. Give everybody the same fair changes and the best service will win - but that also requires to take care of the bad apples.
(A little simplistic world view - I know - but in essences it still works in many places....).

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18100551
Don't see why that would be a positive thing for photographers, no outlets for your work is worse than dishonest ones.

If Getty gets what they deserve, closed down, bankrupt, it doesn't mean it will permanently hurt photographers. With Getty as an example to others of what can and will happen if you choose to do business the same way, new honest businesses will emerge. My opinion you do not coddle a criminal just because it might affect other "victims".

You can achieve that with a strong sanction, which is hardly coddling, I still fail to see how putting them out of business altogether is desirable, or a help to photographers. It would years for someone to fill their shoes, it's massive firm, in the meantime the photographers who paid their bills via Getty get by on reduced earnings, those will be actual victims along with the staff, the senior officers of Getty will have just moved on to some other well paid corporate gig, they won't give two hoots.

Them going away is hardly happening, so arguing about such possibility is quite moot. A thousand millions won't bankrupt them.

Alveric wrote in post #18100888
Them going away is hardly happening, so arguing about such possibility is quite moot. A thousand millions won't bankrupt them.

I don't think anyone is too big to fail anymore. Remember 2008?

With enough meritorious statutory claims against Getty, I could see them having to sell off one or more subsidiaries, with competitor media buyers ready to chomp at the bit. And I doubt its parent company would waste money propping it up. I'm not saying this is the case to do it, but if it happens that is how it could play out. IMO, A failed Getty wouldn't create a vacuum in the image supplying industry leaving photographers without an outlet. The assets would be assumed by other players in the market.

[EDIT: Alveric, this response is directed mostly to the broader conversation, not just you. ]

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18100551
Don't see why that would be a positive thing for photographers, no outlets for your work is worse than dishonest ones.

No Getty does not mean no outlet. Not that I'm advocating for closing Getty, nor do I think it's likely, but it's practices have reduced the value of photo imagery, not boosted IMHO. It's disapearance I would think would only hurt it's share holders.

drmaxx wrote in post #18100596
In a capitalistic world where business and services are created where profits can be made a dishonest player is getting a unfair advantage and kills his rivals. A dishonest company reduces the freedom of choice. Give everybody the same fair changes and the best service will win - but that also requires to take care of the bad apples.
(A little simplistic world view - I know - but in essences it still works in many places....).

Simplistic maybe, but also spot on.

It's not about taking Getty out of business, but making illicit business practice not profitable. This seems to be the language that the top brass MBAs of large companies understand.

Alveric wrote in post #18100888
Them going away is hardly happening, so arguing about such possibility is quite moot. A thousand millions won't bankrupt them.

Enron?

Getty going bust wouldn't harm photographers in any way. There are plenty more stock photo companies and seeing Getty get **** slapped would be a timely reminder to those other companies not to do dumb stuff.

Getty provided all the photographers for the Olympics I believe, happy to be corrected, if they'd gone bust 4 weeks ago, you'd be looking at no photographers at the Olympics and stills from TV cameras. These contracts are negotiated years in advance, at huge sponsorship rates, there's no way a bunch of smaller independents would have been able to resource organise and respond in time. So, I can't accept the premise that Getty disappearing would have no effect at all on photographers, long term yes, maybe even a positive effect, but not affecting photographers at all, no, just can't see how that could be realistic.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18101877
Getty provided all the photographers for the Olympics I believe, happy to be corrected,

OK, you stand corrected.

Getty is "one of many agencies" covering the Games. Why would there be a grandstand filled with 30 photographers if all of them are Getty?

As for size of agencies, AP is right there. Reuters,. to name a few.

certainly in your hypothetical where Getty would cease to exist days before the Olympics with no warning there would be trouble, but no one is talking about that kind of amazingly catastrophic destruction of Getty but you.


I am sure that many would lose work right off the bat, and yes, that would be a problem.
The way I see it though, as long as there is a giant that can and will provide images world wide, it in the end reduces the number of employed photogs.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18101920
[..]
The way I see it though, as long as there is a giant that can and will provide images world wide, it in the end reduces the number of employed photogs.

This.

We need to define 'employed photographer'. Stock agencies benefit from sales of images they will never pay the photographer a dime for. I explain: most stock agencies have earning thresholds, say $50 below which they will not issue a cheque or send a bank or PayPal payment. I've sold a number of images through an agency that I'm not naming. But said sales have been sporadical and I am yet to make $50 in total sales, so I have never gotten a dime from them. How many more are in the same situation? Once you add up the sales of images made by contributors who have failed –and will probably perennially fail– to reach the threshold you come up with a not small number, they totality of which the agency keeps.

While there are a number of contributors who are making good money from stock sales, there are very many who have yet to see a penny. Agencies don't lose. They get to make tons of money all the time risking very little.

Gungnir wrote in post #18101611
If this is true why do we see so many products on the market marked as 'patent pending'?

The vast majority - and I mean VAST majority, of stock agency sales come from contributors who are well established and exceed their threshold every month.

.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18101920
OK, you stand corrected.

Getty is "one of many agencies" covering the Games. Why would there be a grandstand filled with 30 photographers if all of them are Getty?

As for size of agencies, AP is right there. Reuters,. to name a few.

certainly in your hypothetical where Getty would cease to exist days before the Olympics with no warning there would be trouble, but no one is talking about that kind of amazingly catastrophic destruction of Getty but you.

I am sure that many would lose work right off the bat, and yes, that would be a problem.
The way I see it though, as long as there is a giant that can and will provide images world wide, it in the end reduces the number of employed photogs.

How could anyone be talking about it but me, it's clearly a hypothetical situation I just made up to illustrate my point? A point you've now agreed with I'm glad to see, so a hypothetical situation that obviously worked.

I don't know why there would only be one agency covering the games, I'm not the olympic organising committee nor am I privy to how they organise things, but I can say the other agencies didn't seem to get a look in here in the UK, it was Getty all the way from the coverage I saw, hence my point, and my 'happy to be corrected' comment as it was purely based on observation, yet it seemed unlikely hence the caveat.