Be Careful if you use Flickr - SCARY!

chrisvl wrote in post #11731337
WTF!!? 1 Year? Thats it? for just throwing away 3 years of hard work for nothing? What to do, what to do...

Drop the Flickr url into google and see if any of the pages have been cached. Try to get back the contacts list at least and add 'account un-deleted by flickr' (or similar) at the end of the Nickname. Reupload all the most popular content and wish your friend good luck.

Better still, if everything was uploaded thru the plugins in Aperture and Lightroom your friend would be able to recreate the whole account with a few clicks. Although the comment, groups and friends will still be gone.

ThomasOwenM wrote in post #11734607
...Flickr is fine for casual family photos just for fun, but I would never trust it for business purposes.

And Flicker feels the same way.

chakalakasp wrote in post #11733306
Why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Why do I get the feeling that you've never compared the rates Getty pays for stuff they find on flickr to the rates they pay for images submitted through their normal channels?

It isn't much help now, but if you really put such a large investment in a social network, especially when your business depends on it you really need to protect yourself.

There are services that can provide this protection like Backupify that supports Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, and all those networks.

http://www.backupify.c​om/

I refuse to trust a provider to protect or care about my data. Even with premium hosting services I use for my business, I still backup my data on a daily basis off-site.

oh man, bummer.

chrisvl wrote in post #11731835
Then why is Getty making money of images?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11731877
Because they found a ready supply of dupes who are willing to sell themselves well short for a few pennies...

chakalakasp wrote in post #11733306
Why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what you are talking about?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11734597
How would you describe the arrangement Chief?

Do you deny that Getty bought in because they can have access to millions of images for relative pennies?

I think you're the one who's delusional if you think the deal is anything but heavily weighted in Getty's favor.

This is correct. In forums I run across a lot of people calling Flickr, Getty, whomever scum because they take advantage or victimize photogs.

Not the case. In fact, if you put things in perspective you might praise them for their excellent business tactics.

No? Consider this: you're the owner of a produce store. You run across some totally clueless farmer who grows cabbage "as a hobby" - millions of heads per season. And he is willing to give them to you either free or at pennies on the dollar because you offered to "tell everyone where the cabbage came from."

Would YOU not do it? Would YOU not maximize your business profits?

Neither Getty nor Flickr nor any other publisher or whomever is at fault. It is the "dupes" who are. And believe it - there is an endless supply of them out there. Fields upon fields of endless cabbage - free for the picking.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #11736380
... It is the "dupes" who are. And believe it - there is an endless supply of them out there....

There is another point of view, one not so harsh to dupe photographers. I would think that there is a large segment of photographic community who enjoy taking pictures just for sheer joy of the activity and have absolutely no interest what so ever in the business aspects.

To them if someone finds a way to make a few dollars selling their photo, so be it. They were never going to do anything with it anyway. I'm sure it upsets those photogs that are in the business but calling non-professional photographers dupes is a bit harsh.

krb wrote in post #11734877
Why do I get the feeling that you've never compared the rates Getty pays for stuff they find on flickr to the rates they pay for images submitted through their normal channels?

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The Flickr collection on Getty is actually priced HIGHER than most of the rest of their collection. Getty prices Flickr like they price Stone. My highest sale so far via Getty has been for around $3,800 for a single RM image. That's a lot of pennies.

Feel free to keep educating me and everyone else about the issue, though. I'll keep cashing the monthly royalty checks.

chrisvl wrote in post #11731337
WTF!!? 1 Year? Thats it? for just throwing away 3 years of hard work for nothing? What to do, what to do...

Given the admission and compensation offered I would turn the entire matter over to my attorney and push for a decent out of court settlement.

One free year thats an insult but an damming admisssion of guilt.

Wayne

You might want to read, what you must click on as an acknowledgment, before you can use Flickr.

In a nutshell you agree that they are not responsible for anything that happens.

It wouldn't even make it to the first stage of thinking about it, let alone finding it's way into a court.

Done is done. Failure to provide adequate backup for such valuable material is the fault of only one person.

Since you are an attorney then you surely understand such single ended contracts are quite often tossed out, and as for making it to court please note I stated an “out of court settlement” which on a slam suit is often offered by the defendant simply to avoid the costs of litigating a case before twelve brain dead people.

They admitted wrong doing as such their fanny is now hanging bare in the winds and that is not a good position for them to be in.


Wayne

Lmao read what you will and will not hold them liable for, if you chose to use there site.

Done! Is Done!

TopHatMoments wrote in post #11743172
Lmao read what you will and will not hold them liable for, if you chose to use there site.

Done! Is Done!

Having been sued and done the same to others many times I can assure you that statement is quite incorrect.

No contract is air-tight and contractual laws are never black and white.

By the way have you ever heard of the term negligence?

Wayne

chakalakasp wrote in post #11740738
The Flickr collection on Getty is actually priced HIGHER than most of the rest of their collection. Getty prices Flickr like they price Stone. My highest sale so far via Getty has been for around $3,800 for a single RM image. That's a lot of pennies.

You submitted that image via Flickr? Can you point me to the Flickr Collection rates and the rates for the rest of their collection?

moose10101 wrote in post #11748153
You submitted that image via Flickr? Can you point me to the Flickr Collection rates and the rates for the rest of their collection?

Yes, it was submitted via Flickr.

Let's say for a moment you wanted to license this image of mine for an ad campaign. Using the price calculator, let's assume that we're running a 3 month ad buy in several magazines, adding up to 2 million copies of the ad distributed. The image will take up the entire page of the advertisement. This price quoted is $3,705. Unlike most agencies, Getty doesn't do too much discounting off of RM sales of this nature. After Getty takes their cut, my in-pocket amount is $1,111.

Now say you wanted to license this image (not mine) for the same use. This is an image in the "Stone" collection, which is Getty's highest priced premium collection. The price calculator for this image is $3,940.00 So the Flickr collection is now priced at roughly 94% of the price of the most premium collection that Getty has.

No, Flickr photographers are not getting "ripped off". They're making "lots of money". Getty sells the heck out of everything they have. Getty's net revenue to me easily outperforms, by an order of magnitude, the two other agencies I've worked with (AGE, Alamy).