Anybody ever worked directly for Getty Images

No and I wouldn't, not with their terms and conditions.
 
No, not interested in a full time job. I've retired 4 times already so just do brief gigs now for fun.
They want me to do a 2 hour gig next week and it sounds like fun so I will.
 
They have pages and pages of Terms and Conditions on their various website pages. I read some of them some time ago but they were not favorable to photographers and I would not be willing to agree to what I read.

Here's an example - under Contributor Community/Work With Us -
'The photographer cannot submit any images that we accept, or any Similars , to any other Third Party for licensing until after the Agreement with Getty Images has terminated.'

'The photographer retains the right to use any images that we accept for self promotional uses...' '... but cannot license them themselves.'

(What's in bold lettering is my highlighting.)



But my Leica isn't the Leica on their approved list of cameras, so darn, I wouldn't be able to anyway! lol
 
The terms noted about don't sound too different from how you would sell a photograph as a piece of artwork where the limited availably is a main factor in the price.
If it sounds fun then it could well be worth it.
 
If you were employed as a photographer for a paper or magazine or forensics/security company or some such, these are pretty close to the environment you'd work in. I've done all of it and photographer as a JOB is a lot less stressful but not as fulfilling in my opinion.
 
What concerns me is saying the photographer can't license similar images, and I'm not sure what that involves, but I don't think I would sign a contract with this as written. I should be able to license usage of a photo for say, use in a brochure for a specific period of time, and still be able to license usage for other purposes. It would be different working for a company full time doing work for hire, which doesn't seem to be happening much.

I follow what's happening in photography thru PDN, ASMP, Sportsshooter, etc. and there have been many issues with Getty and their contracts with photographers for a number of years now.
 
What concerns me is saying the photographer can't license similar images, and I'm not sure what that involves, QUOTE]

What this typically entails is they choose photo #1234 of athlete running down the field. They don't want you to license photo #1235 taken 1/10th of a second later to a competing company. I run across similar terms in the stock agencies I use and it seems industry standard, not malicious but its just keeping certain people from abusing technicalities.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top