| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2008 01:15:01 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 02:07:05 PM · #2 |
I was just about to post the same story. You beat me to it, but here is the N.Y. Times article on the subject.
I'm curious what the pros who sell stock think about it. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 02:27:55 PM · #3 |
it would be a gamble. because
The two firms agreed yesterday that high-quality images posted on Yahoo!’s Flickr service could be cherry-picked by Getty editors searching for interesting photographs.
from this, i understand that you would have to post high quality images first, before you can have a 'chance' of being picked.. that would also mean that your high quality photo can be downloaded by anyone other than getty images.. or flickr themselves, which means flickr would have more access to high quality photos that they can use for whatever reason they want.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 03:07:26 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by rhommel:
it would be a gamble. because
The two firms agreed yesterday that high-quality images posted on Yahoo!’s Flickr service could be cherry-picked by Getty editors searching for interesting photographs.
from this, i understand that you would have to post high quality images first, before you can have a 'chance' of being picked.. that would also mean that your high quality photo can be downloaded by anyone other than getty images.. or flickr themselves, which means flickr would have more access to high quality photos that they can use for whatever reason they want. |
That depends on the definition of "high quality" - is it based on the technical merits of the photo (number of pixels, dots per inch) or the artistic merits of the photo (form and content)?
I wouldn't be surprised if they're talking about artistic quality. I, for one, don't post high-res versions of my shots onto Flickr (not the edited ones, anyway) - they're all "saved for web" in Photoshop at 100kB or smaller. I bet that when Getty finds a shot they like, they'll tell the photographer in the requesting email that Getty will need a high-res version of the shot to sell it.
Everybody can already download your Flickr shots, regardless of resolution. Lord knows there are a few dozen threads on DPC alone finding stolen shots. But if a company wants to use one for print, they'll want to go through a legitimate source like Getty. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 03:37:09 PM · #5 |
| I don't think the are necessarily looking at artistic merit, but commercial usefulness. The two can be quite different. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 03:50:12 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
I don't think the are necessarily looking at artistic merit, but commercial usefulness. The two can be quite different. |
Fair enough. Just substitute "commercial" for "artistic" and my point is still valid, though. Getty can always ask for the high-res version; if you don't have one, they'll simply say "no thanks." |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:31:04 PM · #7 |
| So why would Getty go to Flickr? I wonder if they approached other sites with the same idea and only Flickr bit. I mean, there are some nice shots on Flickr, but there are equally good shots on numerous sites. I do hope Getty doesn't have a few questionable plans. I actually signed up with them about a year ago. Never got the courage to approach them. I guess that the buzz will be everywhere on Flickr once the deal starts and folks are actually approached with the proposition. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 06:22:41 PM · #8 |
It seems to me more just of an avenue for a sale.
If a buyer wants and image, and see's it on flickr. They can then approach the photographer and the sale can go through getty... sounds like quite a few middle men though!
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 09:16:26 PM · #9 |
| So all of Flickr now becomes Getty's stock site? They can say to a client "Go find what you like and we'll make the deal"? They can cut out the process of quality review and leave it to the client? Or will they have a SET of Getty approved images to show to the client? Why? They need more images? Or they have heard of advertisers approaching Flickr photographers directly and want a cut? Doesnt this deal redefine a stock agency? |
|
|
|
07/29/2008 04:33:45 PM · #10 |
| My brother has sold several images via exposure on Flickr. |
|
|
|
12/27/2008 11:16:33 AM · #11 |
| I just joined Flickr, but it seems like when you upload a high resolution photo that the Flickr app resizes/compresses the photo to under 300k anyhow, doesn't it? This resolution is basically useless for print so I don't see the need to save for web before uploading. |
|
|
|
12/27/2008 11:27:35 AM · #12 |
| Nevermind, it seems that if you have a pro account you can indeed get the 'original size' photos. Problematic, but I'm still not sure how it works. In global settings there seems to be a way to discourage taking files via right-click (although we all know there are ways around that), but if there were a setting that wouldn't even allow someone to choose 'original size' as an option then it would be okay because only the owner of the photo would have access to the original file. If anyone knows more about this I would appreciate it. |
|
|
|
12/27/2008 11:32:07 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by ugleee:
Nevermind, it seems that if you have a pro account you can indeed get the 'original size' photos. Problematic, but I'm still not sure how it works. In global settings there seems to be a way to discourage taking files via right-click (although we all know there are ways around that), but if there were a setting that wouldn't even allow someone to choose 'original size' as an option then it would be okay because only the owner of the photo would have access to the original file. If anyone knows more about this I would appreciate it. |
There is a way to do that in the settings, its under privacy and permissions, and just set it to Only you.
Although there is obviously a work around as I have found several sites who using the API are allowing(illegally) your photos to be downloaded unless you opt out of the API search by third parties. Which would then kill your chances at the Getty thing if you are interested.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/27/2008 11:54:40 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by MattO:
There is a way to do that in the settings, its under privacy and permissions, and just set it to Only you.
Although there is obviously a work around as I have found several sites who using the API are allowing(illegally) your photos to be downloaded unless you opt out of the API search by third parties. Which would then kill your chances at the Getty thing if you are interested. |
I could care less about the Getty thing at this point. As shortsighted as it might be I would rather sell less photos than have one stolen from me and used commercially (or otherwise) without my permission. I will just resize and reup. Hopefully Flickr will have a more secure method of protecting original sizes in the future, although I'm not sure if the technology exists. Maybe encapsulating the display photos in a swf. That seems like it would work.
Thanks for the quick response Matt. |
|
|
|
12/27/2008 09:34:10 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by JunieMoon:
So why would Getty go to Flickr? I wonder if they approached other sites with the same idea and only Flickr bit. I mean, there are some nice shots on Flickr, but there are equally good shots on numerous sites. I do hope Getty doesn't have a few questionable plans. I actually signed up with them about a year ago. Never got the courage to approach them. I guess that the buzz will be everywhere on Flickr once the deal starts and folks are actually approached with the proposition. |
I can't speak for Getty, but my guess is that they will work their relationship with Flickr members the same way the AP does. Last year I happened to be in an area where a building had blown up. I got a picture and within an hour had them posted on Flickr.
Five minutes later I had an email from the AP photo desk asking for three of the photos, if I had a high res copy of them.
Thirty minutes after that we exchanged photos for promise of cash.
Again, my guess is that Getty would work like that, though not necessarily as hastily. |
|
|
|
01/22/2009 06:10:10 AM · #16 |
Anyone here get an invite from Getty? I got one today and I was curious if anyone else got one...
They picked 14 of my pictures but I will only be able to submit some of them, I was clearing out some hard drive space a while back and accidentally deleted my full-sized originals... oops!. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 04:22:16 PM · #17 |
ok, newbie question here, but would Getty and Flikr have any problems with model releases? It seems to me that every stock site I have looked at requires model releases.
Message edited by author 2009-01-29 16:35:20. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 06:05:44 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by reddscots:
ok, newbie question here, but would Getty and Flikr have any problems with model releases? It seems to me that every stock site I have looked at requires model releases. |
Yes, their contract with photographers requires model releases
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:34:37 AM · #19 |
Anybody else get a Flickr/Getty request? I got a request for eight of my images today. I dont see an option to sell rights managed though, only RF. I like the fact that I dont have to keyword, they say they have staff for that WTH :) I'll give it a shot, hope I can get into the real Getty.
Also! is Getty as big as Alamy? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:43:37 AM · #20 |
| Getty is (or bought -- can't remember the history right now) one of the largest traditional stock libraries. Actually, I'd never heard of Alamy until the thread about it started here ... AFAIK it is digital only. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:45:32 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Getty is (or bought -- can't remember the history right now) one of the largest traditional stock libraries. Actually, I'd never heard of Alamy until the thread about it started here ... AFAIK it is digital only. |
Same here, I knew about Getty before i got into photography. Never heard of Alamy till DPC. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:49:02 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by mobster:
Anyone here get an invite from Getty? I got one today and I was curious if anyone else got one...
They picked 14 of my pictures but I will only be able to submit some of them, I was clearing out some hard drive space a while back and accidentally deleted my full-sized originals... oops!. |
Congratulations! A few questions ...
What are they offering to pay, and for what type of license?
How big a file do they want?
Do they require any exclusivity? (If not, I could post my existing stock library to a Flickr account, which I don't have right now.) |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:08:06 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mobster:
Anyone here get an invite from Getty? I got one today and I was curious if anyone else got one...
They picked 14 of my pictures but I will only be able to submit some of them, I was clearing out some hard drive space a while back and accidentally deleted my full-sized originals... oops!. |
Congratulations! A few questions ...
What are they offering to pay, and for what type of license?
How big a file do they want?
Do they require any exclusivity? (If not, I could post my existing stock library to a Flickr account, which I don't have right now.) |
As far as I can see
Only royalty Free available.
Their paying about 20 percent for RF.
Floor limit on file size is 3mp
No exclusivity required |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:07:30 PM · #24 |
Thanks -- that sounds about typical for micro-stock.
Interestingly, my royalty rate at Shutterstock finally hit the upper level ($0.33) yesterday ... :-)
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 14:08:01. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 07:54:50 PM EDT.
