David Kilpatrick Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Let's supposed Getty, instead of just opening 35m images to all and sundry, had imposed a small paywall - even something as minimal as a $10 fee to register for access, or maybe a $10 a year subscription for renewed annual access to the entire lot. Given the size of the market they claim, this would have produced a decent income to share between all those with images placed in the free scheme. Would a very low cost paywall have been acceptable where an outright free-for-all probably is not? If so, why didn't they do this? The paywall also gathers user information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.