Jump to content
geogphotos

Getty Creative to retire RM completely

Recommended Posts

John, may I gently remind you that while you might not consider those "free" trips a form of income, the tax authorities in many countries will disagree with you.

Share this post


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

John, may I gently remind you that while you might not consider those "free" trips a form of income, the tax authorities in many countries will disagree with you.

 

Fortunately I don't live in one of those countries, plus I don't participate in such trips any longer.

 

You aren't moonlighting for the IRS are you? 🧐

 

P.S. If you reread my last post, you'll see that I didn't call the trips "free", plus I didn't say that they were not a source of income. Those are your words. Income generated after the fact -- e.g. from the sale of articles and photos -- is always taxable.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


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

John, may I gently remind you that while you might not consider those "free" trips a form of income, the tax authorities in many countries will disagree with you.

 

not only the tax authority, immigration also.  I'm always surprised how many people don't realise that working in exchange for something other than money can still be viewed as "employment", I've met a few who had issues and had it affect their entry into a country.   

 

 

Share this post


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

 

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.


Nobody is going to be honest if they're promoting a tourist destination.  I've seen articles that said that one coffee shop and restaurant in Granada represented local coffee culture with Aeropress preparations (can't buy an Aeropress in Nicaragua and it's non-trivial to find a vendor who will ship them here).  On Trip Advisor, the owner said 96% of his customers were tourists.  The dinners were twice the price of gringo gourmet organic meals in Managua: $60 vs. $30 US.

 

One man I know tried writing for International Living, which does pay some, but they fixed his article to change "shacks on the hillside" to "cabins on the hillside."  He quit writing for them after that.  They had paid him around $70 US. 

 

I've been able to manage my life and my exposure to possible problems here, but I wouldn't tell anyone from middle class parts of the US that it was safer than the US. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hers another example of a strange implementation of RM ....

 

"Rights granted for the life of the product for supplementary educational publications and materials"

 

My reading says that they can create  supplementary products (RM period is 30 years). What is RM and what is RF continues to get greyer.

 

I find Alamy's recent advertising of "support" for RM a little disingenuous as - what is RM/RF is getting a little grey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious to see if RM sales increase here with Getty's move. Hopefully the RM clients will think to go to Alamy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cksisson said:

.. for all but the most unique images. 

 

Whatever a unique image means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder that this change only affects Getty Creative.

 

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

Share this post


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'.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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/
 

Share this post


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.”

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. =(

Share this post


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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

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.