Getty to snap up Flickr users' pics
Thanks to a licensing deal between stock photo agency Getty Images and popular photo sharing site Flickr, you could soon cash in on those vacation snapshots. Jeremy Hobson reports.
The logos of Flickr and Getty Images (Flickr, Getty Images)
More on Internet
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Alright, all you amateur photographers out there listen up, because this one's for you and it might eventually mean a couple of bucks in your pocket.
The popular photo-sharing website Flickr has made a deal with Getty Images. Getty's going to be able to go on Flickr, find pictures it likes and thinks it can sell and then start paying photographers for their work.
Jeremy Hobson has more.
Jeremy Hobson: Getty makes almost $900 million a year distributing photos to companies like ad agencies and media outlets. CEO Jonathan Klein says the Flickr deal helps Getty tap into the next generation of talented photographers.
Jonathan Klein: We have a partnership with a very strong brand which has a tremendous amount of traffic where our customers are already playing and looking for images but they cannot license them.
About 27 million members share their photos on Flickr and 54 million visitors stop by to see them every month.
Now, Klein says, not all the members are going to get a Getty contract.
Klein: From a quality perspective, I would say it's varied. There are two billion images.
Now Getty won't buy individual images. It'll put willing photographers on contract.
Flickr's General Manager Kakul Srivastava says Getty offers Flickr users credibility in the commercial photography world.
Kakul Srivastava: The premium sort of traditional licensing models that are generally associated with professional photography.
Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Brian Smith thinks the deal could stop a freefall of photo prices industry-wide.
Brian Smith: There has been a big push in the industry for lower and lower and lower and I think with Getty's knowledge of the industry, hopefully photographers that contribute to Flickr can get what their work is worth.
Getty says that'll likely be between 250 and 500 bucks a photo.
I'm Jeremy Hobson for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Honolulu, HI, 07/15/2008
Hello Don. I think you got me wrong no a couple things. I'm not complaining about anything here--just having a conversation with those commending in this forum and trying to bring up different perspectives. I'm not working for big companies and am not quickly jumping on any ban wagon to bash corporate America either, for i believe there's a good and bad side to everything depending what angle you are looking at.
Just so you know where i'm coming from. I'm in the creative business, do design and take commercial photos occasionally, and have worked with professional photographers as well as purchased stock images for my clients. I run a small business myself. And my wife is a photographer. So, I can see from different angles on this conundrum and not taking any camp.
I think this deal is about introducing "amateurs" to the world of pro photography. I don't think Flickr users are that naive and about to be in some major scam by big companies. Everyone knows how much Getty is selling photos on their site. If you can get a few hundred bucks for an image you took on a weekend or on vacation trip--not a bad deal for an amateurs without spending years of formal training.
It's obvious that Getty and Flickr are capitalizing on this new market--good for them. On the other hands, the amateurs are getting their "small" share of the pie as well. I brought up the cost issue for starting a business in the context that these amateurs don't have to spend a dime to market their photos and be able to sell their photos on a professional platform, which can cost millions to build and market.
Since the beginning of capitalism, there's always been a struggle between the working class and business owners. The good part of Capitalism is everyone has a chance to make it big if you have the dream and vision. I come from a Communist society where there's no class struggle supposedly--idealistic right? But who wants to live there? Some people are happy they can make a living and put food on table for their family, and some could never be happy what they can earn. At least in a free society, everyone has a chance.
From Boston, MA, 07/15/2008
The gentleman from Honolulu seems to think artists, musicians, graphic artists, image creators are just a bunch of whiners who don't understand business. Quite the contrary, the commenters are trying to educate the unwary that the Getty/Flickr deal will take unfair advantage of Flickr users. This advice comes from people who ARE in business, some for many years.
If the gentleman from Honolulu has problems with the costs involved in launching his own business, this is not the forum to broadcast those personal woes. After all, it is free market. He doesn't have to participate if he doesn't like it, to paraphrase him.
From Honolulu, 07/14/2008
It seems there are two central points from the last few comments. Some think the Getty/Flickr deal is something fishy and the artists are the losers because of this deal. Well, Flickr is a FREE site i believe. So you do have an option--take your artwork off the site and start your own gig and set your pricing. It's a free market. No one is forcing you to sell your work for cheap.
Also, i don't think expecting to use someone's photo for free or at an unfair price is the issue. Serious professional photographers DO command high price--$5,000 day. Many of my small business clients simply can't afford to pay this kind of price. Some amateur photographers (or even some pros) iare more than happy to sell me an image i like for less than $50. Go to Dreamstime.com to see it yourself.
If you are starting a photography business, do you want to pay $10,000 or more for a marketing campaign for an agency to do it for you? Many simply do it themselves to save cost.
The market always balance itself between supply and demand. If you are a regular lister to the show, this is economic 101 stuff.
From Easthampton, MI, 07/12/2008
This is public relations at it's best. Remember the "weapons of mass destruction". This puff piece is along the same lines. It's WHAT they're not saying about this deal, we should be questioning.
The great credibility of APM is being used to sell the war; oops! I mean stock.
I gotta bridge for sale. Anyone interested?
From Cinnaminson, NJ, 07/11/2008
Yes, let's encourgae every amateur to hope their 'lucky shot' is picked up by Getty to earn them a few dollars from image sales - just warn them first that they are cutting the financial throats of any of their children hoping to start a future career in photography.
Why do people expect to pay little or nothing when wanting to use good, well crafted images produced by hard working and experienced professional photographers who have spent years learning their trade? Do we expect a restaurant to give us a free well cooked meal? Or be given free gas for our cars?
Most professional users of photographs are publishers, designers, ad agencies etc - do they work for nothing?
No way!! so why should photographers when they produce beautiful images we want to see and use?
From Honolulu, HI, 07/10/2008
I do feel sorry for the hard working artists trying to make a decent living. As mentioned in my earlier note, this is an old problem as far has history goes. It's time for the school system to require in their curriculum for all artists to take business and marketing classes before handing them a fine art degree. Besides being good at your craft, being savvy about business and marketing can give you powerful tools dealing the corporate America and get you the deal you want.
After all, we are in a free market economy and the issues we have are the by-products of the system. The ones who are business savvy win in the end. I'm a designer/photographer myself, and my learning in business only helps to protect my work, it also helps me to succeed in the business world.
From wading river, NY, 07/10/2008
I have been reading about the direction much of the imaging industry has been going on the Pro-Imaging.org site and have warned many of my friends to stop using supposedly "family-friendly" imaging sites to post their photos.
I have told young parents and grandparents alike to send pdf files when sharing photos to avoid the greed that was inevitable on commercial photo sites.
07/10/2008
Good to see corporate America is busy destroying working artists and photographers. Funny when you think how Much J. P. Getty loved art, sculpture and photography. Do not be fooled, this is yet another nail in the coffin of good legit photographers getting paid their fair share. And no, I'm not a photographer.
From BC, 07/10/2008
Steve T wrote
"Also i'm tired of paying ridiculously high price for photos i need to used for my creative projects."
I too am tired of paying for creative work, I hear I can now even get graphic design done for peanuts on some microstock sites, would that save me commissioning your Steve?
You could always steal them Steve, why pay anything?
Do you charge what youre worth steve or the bare minimum?
wake up and smell the coffee guys, people are so short sighted in their rush to impress their friends and see their shots in print or on the net.
They should realise that they are killing the industry and they will never ever make any money from photography. Infact they probably wont even cover the cost of their kit!
From Friendsville, MD, 07/10/2008
Do not be scammed fellow pro-ams! This is just another way to steal your images and if they succeed in the the even bigger scam of "Orphan Works" you will be lucky to ever see a cent. Just read what Ed Greenberg has to say, don't believe the vested interests!
From Washington, DC, 07/10/2008
It is always the photographers that get the rough end of any of these deals...trust me! History has shown this to be the case time after time.
I've just been reading the Ed Greenberg stuff over on the pro-imaging.org site and am horrified! BTW what an eye opener their campaign on Photo Competitions is. What with the Orphan Works bill what photographer needs enemies?
Regards
Richard
From Honolulu, HI, 07/10/2008
To those who are complaining about photographers are about to be screwed over because of the Flickr deal and Orphan legislation, take your work off these public sites and lock it in safe box so no one the steal it. And if you don't think you are getting a fair deal with Getty, your other option is setup your own store and set your own deals.
I think if someone wants to take a picture of your work and sell it, they'll do it anyway and this happens all the time--nothing new. Brand-name products are being knocked off with cheaper versions all the time.
I work in the creative field and believe the Flickr deal is positive because it gives many amateurs a chance to profit their hard work. Also i'm tired of paying ridiculously high price for photos i need to used for my creative projects.
From East Windsor, NJ, 07/09/2008
I exhibit my artwork at a variety of shows. Often images of my work appears on Flickr with a note like, "I went to this show and liked this one." While many do add my name to the work, many times I find it without any attribution. While I'm generally fine with someone displaying my work with my name, learning that the Getty could lure a photographer to sell such an image gives me cause for concern on a number of levels. Add to this the pending Orphan Works legislation. If you're not familiar with it, visit the Orphan Works Opposition Headquarters website at owoh.org. It explains how this legislation can, if passed, further hurt our economy by putting many working in art and creative fields out of a livelihood. Interestingly enough, it's the Getty that is putting big dollars behind the legislation. Why? Because many of the images on Flickr (such an an image of my artwork without a mention that I made the work) could be considered orphans with little effort. Ripe for the picking. A couple bucks in the pockets of photographers? Maybe. But it's far more likely this will result in incredible profit making for both the Getty and Flickr (And what about Flickr currently stripping metadata from resized images? That's a whole other can of worms.)
From boston, MA, 07/09/2008
I am almost always pleased with the reporting done by Marketplace. However; this was a completely one-sided account of the story. It does not discuss the current practices of meta-data stripping by Flickr nor the huge implications this will have to the artistic community.
I hope to hear a follow up story in the next few days addressing the artists' rights and issues.
From Berkeley, CA, 07/09/2008
Marketplace, as a long time listener and struggling freelance photographer I am extremely disappointed that you've presented this Getty/Flickr piece in such a one-sided manner.
It's comes off as mere "spin" for Getty. The fact of the matter is that Stock Photo Agencies are making it harder and harder for freelance photographers to survive - period. Most especially for those of us who specialize in concert coverage. 9 out of 10 of my colleagues are barley making ends meet - earning pennies on the dollar from agencies such as Getty.
Please redeem yourself and do a follow-up piece with interviews from those of us in the trenches.
~ Hali
From Manchester, CT, 07/09/2008
• Your child’s picture winds up on the cover of a pornographic DVD.
• A snapshot of your dog appears on billboards and buses nationwide.
• A photo of yourself is used to endorse a cigarette brand.
And there is practically nothing you can do to stop it.
These scenarios could be a reality if the pending “Orphan Works” legislation is enacted.
Remember how Napster shook music industry giants with a barrage of infringements in 2002? The same thing is about to happen with visual works if the bills on the “rocket docket” are not stopped. The law that protects you may be turned on its head.
The copyright reform bills S. 2913 in the Senate and H.R. 5889 in the House of Representatives, if enacted, would effectively allow anyone to steal copyrighted works for any purpose without fear of penalty. They strip legal protections from creators and other copyright holders.
Any image, including the photos your child shares on Facebook and Flickr, would be fair game, too. Unscrupulous profiteers will rest assured there will be little chance they’d be prosecuted. They would find stealing your intellectual property; pictures, artwork and photography a lucrative business model.
How can this be? The proposed bills would strip theft deterrents from current copyright law, which passively protects everyone including artists and photographers. Without the ability to receive appropriate compensation or recoup damages for an infringement, most people just could not afford to pursue such a case.
Industry leaders along with a coalition of over 60 renowned associations support maintaining current copyright laws and protections as the Senate secretly “hotlines” the deceiving bill, avoiding public debate, with hopes of swift passage this week.
If the deceptive bills, sympathetically entitled, “Orphan Works”, pass in Congress, countless small businesses would be devastated – with a force like that of hurricane Katrina. Departing from the current free and passive copyright protection all Americans enjoy, these bills require all private creative work in the world to be registered at the copyright holder’s expense, with countless, yet-to-be-created, visual recognition databases to be operated by as yet unnamed corporate entities. Those creative works not “found” in the databases would be considered legal “orphans” and free for anyone to exploit.
If the “Orphan Works Acts” are enacted and you don’t pay and register those photos your child posted on the Internet, someone else can claim them as “orphans” and use them to make a buck. In fact, others could claim ownership to them and register them for themselves and there would be little you could do except drive to every adult entertainment shop in town and snap up those DVDs with you child’s photo on them.
Having to pay, register and submit each work and all its derivatives one has ever or will ever create is- in effect- an additional tax and inordinate burden on artists, photographers, and anyone else who wants to protect their intellectual property.
To learn more about the bills or join the coalition to preserve the copyright laws under attack by this critical bill that affects us all go to illustratorspartnership(dot)org and owoh (dot) org.
From Baton Rouge, AL, 07/09/2008
Listen up amateurs, don't believe all this stuff about Getty/Flickr being good for you.
If you want to understand how stock agencies operate you need to read Ed Greenbergs Newsletters, they are very easy to find on the net. Ed Greenberg is a highly regarded attorney who has defended photographers from the practices of the corporate world for long long years.
Go read his stuff and be enlightened. Please realise that agencies are NOT your friend, they are their shareholders friends, that where the loyalty lies, a photographer is just a disposable commodity.
Gordon C Harrison
From Boston, MA, 07/09/2008
>…the deal could stop a freefall of photo prices industry-wide.
Please, Jeremy. I don't go along with this puff piece for Getty. Getty makes plenty, yet cuts its commissions to pro photographers. They contribute to the down trend in pricing with Royalty Free license models, which this deal will certainly be. What they will pay to Flickr photographers will be peanuts compared to what they'll make over the life of the images. The Flickr people will only be their innocent victims.
What you don't know is that Getty is one of the parties behind the recent Orphan Works legislation before Congress that, if passed, will make a lot of those Flickr images "orphaned" and liable for Getty or Corbis to harvest them for nothing, then package them as Royalty Free. Really. Please see . OWOH is a coalition of artists and professional image makers about to lose their livelihoods because of this legislation.
Please give us time to air our side of the story.
Don Schaefer
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.