|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
ASMP to Getty Photographers: Time to Bail
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP- … 2608.shtml I wonder if this backfires on Getty as it will force some photographers to find new outlets and maybe even lead to growth in competitors. Depending on the subject material, photos come in and out of Vogue like fashion. Having your work revert to royal free does certainly puts an expire by date on your work. May 12 11 11:35 pm Link The stock market is in such a decline. Pictures that haven't sold in 3 years , well you really have to wonder if they are still sellable at all. I didn't like the way Getty worded the ultimatum for signing the new contract, but it is necessary for them and their contributors to go forward. Hanging on to the old stuff done in the old way is no longer an option. Bailing and doing your own is though. Exactly what the article says. May 12 11 11:45 pm Link I understand them not wanting to promote the images after three years, but it looks like you don't have the option to withdraw your images and find another outlet or just take back the publication rights. It looks like they automatically become royal free, which means Getty gets some benefit by packaging them in collections, but the photographer gets no further compensation. If it is a generic lifestyle image or a still life I can understand accepting those terms. Even fashion images become passe very quickly, but what if it was a picture of some minor celebrity that becomes famous for something else later. The image that might have been worth a lot is basically worthless to the photographer. I agree that for most photographers it is an academic debate, but for those few that have something that might be worth something in the future, the principle of the terms seem unreasonable. It will be interesting to see if Getty can make the terms stick and whether other stock agency follow suit. As you said, you can go your own way. Getty is no longer the only large player in the game anymore. May 13 11 12:02 am Link Specific images can be asked for special considerations, yet those are to be done in writing before the 20th of May. Which if a person cannot meet the deadline will not have any choice. As I said , I find the voice of Getty to be very aggressive and disrespectful. It wasn't that way when they needed images! May 13 11 12:13 am Link I had a huge pile of Michael Jackson pics with a smaller agency...probably hadn't sold any for 5 years...then for some reason I got a huge money transfer. Funny business.If you are shooting celebs you would have to be crazy to sign this. May 13 11 12:18 am Link That new free royalty is gonna hurt their business severely if they do make it stick. A great number of people will wind up leaving, as there are plenty of stock sites that don't have that restriction. Like the person above me, a celebrity shot may not sell after a while, but if they pass away or involved in some legal troubles or have a second comback, the photos sell again. Photographers would be very pissed about not making the money off the renewed interest. May 13 11 12:26 am Link ICJ wrote: Problem is if you don't sign, Getty make it clear that at the end of the current contract, by not signing it ( according to them) shows you're not interested in working with them any longer, so you'll not be able to submit, and your images eventually will be returned where you can do what you like. May 13 11 12:30 am Link Neil Snape wrote: Yes they have you over a barrel. May 13 11 12:46 am Link Getty's new contract is quite typical of an overall trend in the industry ... simply put to demand more from photographers and give less, far less in return. This happens because we allow it to happen. It is up to us to learn to say no and change it. As for the stock photo industry, it is in very sad shape. Getty should be working to prop up the industry and work to preserve the value of the photographs they license, both for their own sake and that of their contributors for the simple reason that if they don't, neither will be able to afford to make the content their clients depend on for their livelihoods available. Instead, Getty seems to be doing all it can to encourage the race to the bottom in stock photography prices and in the destruction of copyright (for contributors, not for Getty). Examples of this are their purchase of iStock photo, the microstock site that pioneered the bargain basement, royalty free for less than a buck stock photo license. Instead of getting the fees there up to what Getty was licensing images for, they cut the already pitiful percentage paid to contributors to even less, and cut the license fees at Getty to start mirroring those at iStock. So yes, it is time to give Getty the heave ho! And for the time being it looks like the best way to license stock is to do it yourself. May 13 11 12:51 am Link With the influx of 'Dime a Dozen' stock houses opening up every day, Getty has to start doing business differently. Is it fair? Some will say yes others will say no. Personally I think Getty is flexing it's market muscles because they are still the biggest boys on the block. Will it hurt their business? Most likely not. Digital Photography has increased the number of Photographers exponentially as the cost to shoot for stock is greatly decreased from the days of using film. This enables upstarts to start on the cheap because new 'Digital' Photographers can sell their images cheaper because of their end cost being lower. In the end, if you sell cheap you fuck yourself... May 13 11 01:04 am Link Mark Stout Photography wrote: We as Photographers have to say no to our copyrights being trampled on and to extremely low rates for our work. If you lower your rates below everyone else, the person you are fucking over the most is yourself... May 13 11 01:11 am Link If an image hasn't sold in 3 years, why would you care? The market has set that photos value at zero. Duh. May 13 11 02:58 am Link Lumigraphics wrote: Actually that's far from truth. Getty has so many images that it might not have sold as it's been in the library so long that the image is buried. I have hundreds of images with Getty, some since 1993, you couldn't find those images by keyword so for all intent, they're unsalable although perfectly good images. May 13 11 08:41 am Link |
