Flickr partners with Getty

[bahandi]

Anyone have any opinions or comments regarding their partnership? I was always interested in stock photography, but didn't think any of my photos would be considered eligible under the standards.

 

[Derrel]

It's similar to when leeches meet a swimmer in a remote swamp...

 

[Scatterbrained]

:lmao:

It's similar to when leeches meet a swimmer in a remote swamp...

 

[Josh66]

Stupid question: what's Getty????

Big stock agency.

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected


edit
lol
It say's unsupported browser because I have Flash off. I hope the link works. The new thing they got goin' on here won't let me edit it...

 

[Scatterbrained]

stock photography agency. They scour Flickr looking for photos they can sell to clients, then they contact the photographer about using the photo.
You should go to Flickr and check out their "Call for artists" group where people submit photos to be considered for inclusion into a stock photography portfolio. You quickly realize that most of the submitters have no idea what stock photography is.

 

[Josh66]

This is pretty old news though, and unless you opt into it, it's not even an issue.

 

[KmH]

www.gettyimages.com

Is the largest stock photography house on the planet. They have spent the last 10 years buying up every other stock house they could get their hands on. Getty Images - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bill gates started two quite successful businesses: Microsoft most people know about and the other was Corbis Images, another large stock photography house. Corbis Images ? Premium Quality Stock Photography and Illustrations

 

[bahandi]

So... the general consensus around here is that stock photography is the devil?

 

[KmH]

The business of stock photography has changed dramatically in recent years.

It used to be a viable way to make a living, but not anymore. The digital camera explosion and the Internet has changed it into a nickle and dime way to earn money from stock photographs.

 

[Azriel]

I don't think it personally affects me so I'm indifferent.

Stock photography isn't anything like it used to be.

 

[bahandi]

Thanks for the insight. It makes sense that the digital age has drastically changed stock photography.

I was curious though, would it hurt to allow one's photos to be licensed through Getty? Not so much for a profit, but to allow people to use your photo that you didn't intend to sell?

 

[Josh66]

Well, I guess it depends.

If they offered you to submit some of your pictures, I don't know how much you would get for them (probably not much). Not much is still more than nothing, but then again - you have no idea where/how it will be used.


Personally I opted out of that on Flickr. I don't have model releases for any of my pictures with people in them anyway. Which is something you would need for stock.

If you don't care about the money and just want to make them available to people - you could always just put them in the public domain.

I personally wouldn't do that either though, lol.

 

[KmH]

I was curious though, would it hurt to allow one's photos to be licensed through Getty? Not so much for a profit, but to allow people to use your photo that you didn't intend to sell?

Any images you have placed with Getty, or any other stock house, are then precluded from you being able to grant exclusive usage rights to anyone else, which diminishes a photos value.

You also lose the choice of who uses your licensed-to-a-stock-house photo.

 

[bahandi]

Thanks guys. Your input has really helped me understand stock photography much more.

 

[KmH]

Here is some more info:

Yuri Arcurs - Home of the world's top selling microstock photographer

http://www.arcurs.com/microstock-agencies-an-overview-for-beginners