Jump to content
geogphotos

Getty Creative to retire RM completely

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, David Pimborough said:

 

 

The BBC would have to look elsewhere for images for sure maybe go back to Alamy and other agencies.

 

 

Fairly sure that BBC purchase from Getty Editorial. After two lots of commissions ( Getty and partner agency) I get 13p ( latest statement)

 

https://blog.geographyphotos.com/2019/06/26/bbc-use-again-how-subscription-works/

 

 

and also

 

 

https://blog.geographyphotos.com/2019/01/17/another-15-cents/

Edited by geogphotos
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

You don't think that Getty will last? I agree that this latest move doesn't inspire confidence. They seem to be always shuffling the debt mountain into the future.

 

It is an interesting prospect to imagine the stock industry without Getty - overall I think the consequences would lead to renewal and new energy.

 

As far as I know, they have been hugely promoting their microstock (iStock by Getty) scheme.

And within a few weeks, the main agency (Getty images) will start licensing RF images exclusively…

I would not be surprised if they soon come out with a single scheme (iStock by Getty images? 😉) licensing images from the whole collection for pennies.

Actually, it is already a bit what they do by "inviting" their contributors to sign the iStock agreement in order to "maximise their sales potential", as I can read on their website.

I believe they just make more money licensing a "pack" of 100 images at $4 each leaving the photographer with a generous 15%, which means $0.60 per image, than licensing 4 individual images at $100 each with 20% royalties for the photographer.

Edited by Olivier Parent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/11/2019 at 10:53, geogphotos said:

 

 

Fairly sure that BBC purchase from Getty Editorial. After two lots of commissions ( Getty and partner agency) I get 13p ( latest statement)

 

https://blog.geographyphotos.com/2019/06/26/bbc-use-again-how-subscription-works/

 

 

and also

 

 

https://blog.geographyphotos.com/2019/01/17/another-15-cents/

 

 

Makes you wonder what all these news outlets will do for news photos when they've driven every contributor out of the market :(

 

Its a joke considering news readers are on 6 figure salaries

Edited by David Pimborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to worry about David! Over the past ten years, revenue potential from stock photography has dropped drastically and submissions have vastly increased. I used to joke that all agencies had to do in order to get more images was lower prices - that turned out to be more true than I ever could have imagined.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great to have the Huffington post back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/11/2019 at 19:50, Radim said:

I'm afraid it might inspire Alamy

If it does then they will lose most of my work - possibly all 40% of RM is bad enough. Will not be worth the bother any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shergar said:

It would be great to have the Huffington post back. 

 

Yes, but as I remember they didn't pay much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Nothing to worry about David! Over the past ten years, revenue potential from stock photography has dropped drastically and submissions have vastly increased. I used to joke that all agencies had to do in order to get more images was lower prices - that turned out to be more true than I ever could have imagined.

 

When I was doing freelance writing, I used to joke that all magazines and newspapers needed to do to attract more writers was to lower their pay and grab more rights. This proved to be prophetic as well.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Yes, but as I remember they didn't pay much.

Yep $29 and you can bet that 1 month deal would be history. but they did buy a few.  Edit. Huh! looking back that image sold for 3 consecutive months.  

 

Country: United States
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Placement: Secondary screen
Image Size: up to 1/4 screen
Start: 01 July 2012
End: 01 August 2012

Edited by Shergar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shergar said:

Yep $29 and you can bet that 1 month deal would be history. but they did buy a few.  Edit. Huh! looking back that image sold for 3 consecutive months.  

 

Country: United States
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Placement: Secondary screen
Image Size: up to 1/4 screen
Start: 01 July 2012
End: 01 August 2012

 

That number sort of rings a bell. The Canadian version of the HP often used Alamy images as well. I knew people who wrote articles for them and didn't get paid anything at all. Hopefully that has changed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad that $$ sales are looking so good now. I started in photography when the micros were strong, so after the "good old  days," who knew that what you more experienced old-timers saw as a time of decline would now look like the "good old days." 

 

I follow the micros on another forum and iStock has been sinking for a long time. They chased away a lot of their best people. Getty must be dropping their regular prices by even more though as they have grabbed a lot of places that used to purchase from Alamy.

 

Here's one example that makes me unsure whether these clients will be lured (back) by RM. I regularly license work to  a publisher that I would have thought wanted only RM but years ago they told me that even though they purchase images from me with a nonexclusive RM license, they have no issues if I"m licensing the same images elsewhere as RF. I used to see that they would fill in gaps with images from Alamy, but the last two years that has switched to G, and they seem to be getting at least half their work from G, rather than just filling in gaps. They have also dropped their prices. They still pay $$$ but low $$$. 

 

A friend of my daughters used to work at the largest publishing house in NYC and he spent lots of time searching for free photos! My husband is with a large financial services firm and they source all their images from S. 

 

The only hope is for magazines that hire photographers to shoot articles and need to fill in gaps, hopefully they want RM. I am encouraged to see that Alamy is no licensing to NatGeo - they've licensed at least one of mine to them for a book, so hopefully they will be attracting that type of high end prestigious clientele. I still get the occasional inquiry on PS from magazines, and they generally pay $200-300 for RM images, so hopefully that market will remain, and Alamy will be able to grab more of it.  

 

Of course, if top photographers from G upload their RM images here, we will face much stiffer competition with so much top work coming in at once. 

Edited by Marianne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Marianne said:

Sad that $$ sales are looking so good now. I started in photography when the micros were strong, so after the "good old  days," who knew that what you more experienced old-timers saw as a time of decline would now look like the "good old days." 

 

I follow the micros on another forum and iStock has been sinking for a long time. They chased away a lot of their best people. Getty must be dropping their regular prices by even more though as they have grabbed a lot of places that used to purchase from Alamy.

 

Here's one example that makes me unsure whether these clients will be lured (back) by RM. I regularly license work to  a publisher that I would have thought wanted only RM but years ago they told me that even though they purchase images from me with a nonexclusive RM license, they have no issues if I"m licensing the same images elsewhere as RF. I used to see that they would fill in gaps with images from Alamy, but the last two years that has switched to G, and they seem to be getting at least half their work from G, rather than just filling in gaps. They have also dropped their prices. They still pay $$$ but low $$$. 

 

A friend of my daughters used to work at the largest publishing house in NYC and he spent lots of time searching for free photos! My husband is with a large financial services firm and they source all their images from S. 

 

The only hope is for magazines that hire photographers to shoot articles and need to fill in gaps, hopefully they want RM. I am encouraged to see that Alamy is no licensing to NatGeo - they've licensed at least one of mine to them for a book, so hopefully they will be attracting that type of high end prestigious clientele. I still get the occasional inquiry on PS from magazines, and they generally pay $200-300 for RM images, so hopefully that market will remain, and Alamy will be able to grab more of it.  

 

Of course, if top photographers from G upload their RM images here, we will face much stiffer competition with so much top work coming in at once. 

 

I guess the solution, or one possible solution, is to work harder at producing more images -- be they RM or RF -- that photo-buyers will have trouble finding anywhere else and make them exclusive to Alamy. I used to get the types of inquiries for RM images that you mention through my PS website, but they have all dried up now. My PS site used to easily pay for itself every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

 I used to get the types of inquiries for RM images that you mention through my PS website, but they have all dried up now. My PS site used to easily pay for itself every year.


Ditto, its like a tumbleweed strewn abandoned town for me now, has been for about 3 years. The sherif moved on and the bad guys have found richer towns and I am stood in the middle of Main Street trying to figure out what I am doing there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panthera tigris said:


Ditto, its like a tumbleweed strewn abandoned town for me now, has been for about 3 years. The sherif moved on and the bad guys have found richer towns and I am stood in the middle of Main Street trying to figure out what I am doing there.

 

That's about right. Funny because a lot of my PS galleries still do surprisingly well in Google search results. I now have links to my Alamy collection from my PS site. Perhaps that has resulted in some sales here, but who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That's about right. Funny because a lot of my PS galleries still do surprisingly well in Google search results.

 

 

That surprises me because I see absolutely nothing on Google - my Photoshelter site seems totally invisible and SEO completely non-existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

That surprises me because I see absolutely nothing on Google - my Photoshelter site seems totally invisible and SEO completely non-existent.

 

It surprises me too. However, it's somewhat moot as I don't get any legit image inquiries any longer.

 

As mentioned, I think that gallery descriptions are very important when it comes to SEO. I also have a lot of small galleries with specific subjects/locales, which might (?) help as well.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Alamy has hybridized their RM licence to resemble rights granted under RF and Alamy seem aware of the market shift towards RF as by the Alamy Image Manager having RF option as recommended, but for those publishers that have systems set up for RM but are eyeing RF, Alamy seems to have covered that by having RM resemble key elements of the RF licence or having a growing library of RF content. Either way I think Alamy is well paced visa vie the G decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I closed my Getty Creative account as soon as this was announced and they certainly haven't wasted any time removing my images. Just had a confirmation that they have all been taken down.

 

I feel strangely relieved and now will be re-working the captions and keywords ( getting rid of all the gettyesque 'Beauty in Nature' type of thing) and sending them in batches to Alamy. 

 

So that particular dead end has been navigated! Phew.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was three days for them to take down my images after terminating the contract.  My contract says I have to wait 3 months before submitting elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing positive ( 0 ) to say about G and I was contract with them for years.  I am also sorry to see this extensive thread

about them on this Alamy forum.  As of 11/18/2019 I do have images on G from another agency that I have contributed

to for decades.  When G took over their distribution it was a very sad day for photographers as well as a long standing

pinnacle of "Photojournalism" (Edo has written about several of their photographers).

 

Keeping in mind that I have 'Photojournalism' in my blood, I started working for a medium sized daily newspaper when I

was 15,  Alamy is the best outlet I have seen for my work in 2019, even though sometimes it would appear that Alamy is licensing my RM images for RF prices? 

I have bet that Alamy will continue to be the "Only" outlet for real photographers, Photojournalists,  I "Pray that Alamy does not "screw up."  James and all are you listening? 

It is not about balance sheets, It Is About Images, the ones created by "hard working photographers" and that make an important contribution to history.

 

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Nacke
claity
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Olsen said:

It was three days for them to take down my images after terminating the contract.  My contract says I have to wait 3 months before submitting elsewhere.

 

I bailed over a year ago and it was same for me, almost instantaneous removal of images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I closed my Getty Creative account as soon as this was announced and they certainly haven't wasted any time removing my images. Just had a confirmation that they have all been taken down.

 

I feel strangely relieved and now will be re-working the captions and keywords ( getting rid of all the gettyesque 'Beauty in Nature' type of thing) and sending them in batches to Alamy. 

 

So that particular dead end has been navigated! Phew.

 

I always wonder why agencies (not only G.) add vague phrases like "beauty in nature" to keywords. I'm pretty sure that clients don't use them in their searches. Or do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I always wonder why agencies (not only G.) add vague phrases like "beauty in nature" to keywords. I'm pretty sure that clients don't use them in their searches. Or do they?

 

I can't claim to really understand it all but it is about using a Controlled Vocabulary.  The other ordinary keywords that you might submit with an image are not visible but may still be searchable. I think that where I went wrong is by dropping my normal key-wording and attempting to adopt just the Controlled Vocabulary words - so I now need to rework and undo all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/11/2019 at 12:58, John Mitchell said:

 

That number sort of rings a bell. The Canadian version of the HP often used Alamy images as well. I knew people who wrote articles for them and didn't get paid anything at all. Hopefully that has changed.

 

Any number of people will write free articles to promote their consulting business, events, or products.   HP never paid writers, understanding that the puff pieces on various things were a deal for people who didn't have to pay for advertising space.  I recognized some of the offenders promoting travel and retirement in Nicaragua.   If they've started paying, that would be news to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

Any number of people will write free articles to promote their consulting business, events, or products.   HP never paid writers, understanding that the puff pieces on various things were a deal for people who didn't have to pay for advertising space.  I recognized some of the offenders promoting travel and retirement in Nicaragua.   If they've started paying, that would be news to me. 

 

Yes, that's right, the people I met wrote travel pieces for free for the HP in order to get invited on press and fam trips. Some of the articles were good, others were, as you say, puff pieces. My guess is that, like a lot of publications these days, they still don't pay most freelance writers simply because they don't have to in the age of crowdsourcing. However, it's nice work if you can get it. Sponsored trips can be a lot of fun and worth a lot of money.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.