Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In response to this, I’ve switched some images, particularly of my cats and dog, to royalty free. It sticks in my throat a bit, as I’d always been advised against RF, but I’m trying to adapt to industry changes. I’ll re-evaluate in a few months.

 

I have a feeling Getty’s move is going to spill over everywhere for all but the most unique images. 

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

Getty Editorial, which is non-exclusive, continues to be 100% RM.

Only inasmuch as their RF Editorial, which is exclusive, is bizarrely called "Creative Unreleased".

AFAIK, that does not include 'Hot News'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Only inasmuch as their RF Editorial, which is exclusive, is bizarrely called "Creative Unreleased".

AFAIK, that does not include 'Hot News'.

 

Perhaps you are talking about iStock or another branch of Getty's Creative offering. 

 

I am talking about ones marked 'ED' within Getty Editorial proper - mainly News, Sport, Red Carpets, Archival

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a business news story about crunch time at Getty. It seems that over the years Getty has been only servicing massive debt of billions, but not paying it off.

 

There is also a definition of what type of image constitutes Getty stock, and what constitutes Getty editorial. Getty has Getty owned editorial/news photography shot by Getty photographer employees. Could it be that this material will remain RM and the rest, submitted by unwashed stock photographers to Getty stock, will be made RF? If so 50% of Getty sales volume is stock photography and will become RF. Will unwashed stock photographers be able to submit to Getty editorial RM?

 

It also has a lot of business information that pertains to the entire stock photo business, not just Getty.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/its-crunchtime-for-seattle-based-photo-giant-getty-images-and-for-photographers/
 

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

Here is a business news story about crunch time at Getty. It seems that over the years Getty has been only servicing massive debt of billions, but not paying it off.

 

There is also a definition of what type of image constitutes Getty stock, and what constitutes Getty editorial. Getty has Getty owned editorial/news photography shot by Getty photographer employees. Could it be that this material will remain RM and the rest, submitted by unwashed stock photographers to Getty stock, will be made RF? If so 50% of Getty sales volume is stock photography and will become RF. Will unwashed stock photographers be able to submit to Getty editorial RM?

 

It also has a lot of business information that pertains to the entire stock photo business, not just Getty.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/its-crunchtime-for-seattle-based-photo-giant-getty-images-and-for-photographers/
 

 

 

Thanks for the link. That is all very interesting both about Getty and the wider industry. Also quite depressing, but at least it tells us where we are.

 

I thought that this quote at the end was worth copying.

 

“Everybody wants pretty pictures — as long as they don’t cost anything,” he says. “And that’s not a very solid business model.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting (and depressing) article. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the never-ending flood of easily available images has created a culture of middlemen who have fallen prey to one of the Seven Deadly Sins, the one that ironically begins with "G". Photographers are also partially to blame for allowing themselves to be taken advantage of by exploitative business models. I used to do a lot of freelance writing for newspapers and magazines, and I watched a similar scenario play out in that world as well. 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having been very informed on this licensing topic, I now find it quite depressing and unsettling that Getty has chosen that direction. I had RF on all my images (except for a handful of family ones where I had disabled PU), but just now changed all to RM. I've only had one sale so far anyway, so I don't think this will hurt me additionally. =(

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

 

Perhaps you are talking about iStock or another branch of Getty's Creative offering. 

 

I am talking about ones marked 'ED' within Getty Editorial proper - mainly News, Sport, Red Carpets, Archival

Perhaps I know what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, the way this forum cuts posts, the conversation wasn't recorded as a whole.

You said:

"Getty Editorial, which is non-exclusive, continues to be 100% RM."

To which I replied:

Only inasmuch as their RF Editorial, which is exclusive, is bizarrely called "Creative Unreleased".

AFAIK, that does not include 'Hot News'.

 

What you said might easily have implied that all editorials sold at Getty are RM.

"Inasmuch" means I agree with you, but only to the extent that Getty disingenuously calls its RF Editorials 'Creative Unreleased' - largely the same sort of images which would be in Alamy RF Editorial, except that with G it has to be exclusive. It's semantics and a way of them paying us plebs less.

I could link you to my own examples, but that would be inappropriate here, as would an exposition of the history of this collection and the bizarre name.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Perhaps I know what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, the way this forum cuts posts, the conversation wasn't recorded as a whole.

You said:

"Getty Editorial, which is non-exclusive, continues to be 100% RM."

To which I replied:

Only inasmuch as their RF Editorial, which is exclusive, is bizarrely called "Creative Unreleased".

AFAIK, that does not include 'Hot News'.

 

What you said might easily have implied that all editorials sold at Getty are RM.

"Inasmuch" means I agree with you, but only to the extent that Getty disingenuously calls its RF Editorials 'Creative Unreleased' - largely the same sort of images which would be in Alamy RF Editorial, except that with G it has to be exclusive. It's semantics and a way of them paying us plebs less.

I could link you to my own examples, but that would be inappropriate here, as would an exposition of the history of this collection and the bizarre name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Away from Getty Creative there is an entire Getty section called Getty Editorial where the image licence is marked not as RF, or indeed as RM, but as ED. They offer standard and custom licences. Getty have their own photographers so presumably those images are exclusive - really have no idea but they must be. Many of the others come from partner agencies and, at least as far as I know, are non-exclusive.

 

I have never found a way to get a direct contract with Getty Editorial - they are not, it seems interested in general secondary stock from individual contributors - but I have close to 20,000 non-exclusive images on Getty Editorial via a partner agency. All of those images are on Alamy as RM. The partner agency does the editing, checks the metadata, and takes a commission.

 

 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
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.