Imagery Throughout the World

[Bryant]

So today in my photography class, we brought up the thought of how approximately 75% of all published images are owned by Getty Images, or a sub-business that is owned by them. I'd assume you realize that pretty much every image you see from magazines to the front page of the New York Times is edited in some way. Although they are normally for the better of the image, there are also times that they changed to completely alter the meaning and background of the photograph.

With the ability to alter images with ease to become almost unnoticeable to the trained eye, how do you feel about all of these images being owned by one large corporation? I personally believe that this could lead to their abuse of this ownership and create a bias on all images, in turn altering their meanings.

How do all of you feel about this?

 

[prodigy2k7]

So today in my photography class, we brought up the thought of how approximately 75% of all published images are owned by Getty Images, or a sub-business that is owned by them. I'd assume you realize that pretty much every image you see from magazines to the front page of the New York Times is edited in some way. Although they are normally for the better of the image, there are also times that they changed to completely alter the meaning and background of the photograph.

With the ability to alter images with ease to become almost unnoticeable to the trained eye, how do you feel about all of these images being owned by one large corporation? I personally believe that this could lead to their abuse of this ownership and create a bias on all images, in turn altering their meanings.

How do all of you feel about this?

That's interesting, how does Getty own that many images?

 

[craig]

I love Getty, Magnum, Corbis and all those clowns only because I have been in photography my whole life. It's the "don't bite the hand that feeds" deal. I do have strong issues against media being owned by fewer and fewer companies. Soon all media will be owned by Time Warner, Disney and Viacom. That is something we all need to be concerned with.

Love & Bass

 

[Harmony]

That's interesting, how does Getty own that many images?

I'd like to see the figures for this, too.

 

[tsaraleksi]

More importantly, why does Getty owning the images indicate that they have been altered in some way that changes the meaning? Also, given that the AP produces probably a majority of wire photographs run in newspapers, that figure seems somewhat suspect.

 

[ThePup]

More importantly, why does Getty owning the images indicate that they have been altered in some way that changes the meaning?

I Don't think the OP was saying that it indicates they HAVE been altered, they were saying that the potential is there for them to alter them to fit their needs at the time. I think you'll find this sort of manipulation does happen, even before the digital era - I can't remember the title, but I remember flicking through a book of media imagery, lots of photographs, a bit of a tale about the story they were published with, and then the real story behind the image, and sometimes the original image, which tells a very different story. Not every photo in the book was treated like this, many were used and quoted correctly, within the original context, but there were a few that were quite blatently misused.

Just saying it happens however, doesn't mean it's prolific, and happens with every image we see. It can be done, but I don't believe it's widespread, at least not in the western world. If it does become more widespread, I think the counter to it is at sites like this, flickr, deviantart - places where photographers hang out, and can post their own real images of what's happening.

"When they own the information, they can bend it all they want"