| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
YOU pay Getty???
Cody Smart, Photographer
 |
Tarrytown | NY | USA | Posted: 9:54 PM on 11.16.06 |
| ->> wtf |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 10:22 PM on 11.16.06 |
| ->> It isn't "WTF" but F**k Them! |
|
Chris Williams, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Rancho Cucamonga | CA | USA | Posted: 10:47 PM on 11.16.06 |
| ->> Wow, $50 an image?! |
|
Nic Hume, Photographer
 |
Victoria | BC | Canada | Posted: 10:54 PM on 11.16.06 |
->> I'm confused...
"To submit pictures for consideration, new Getty contributors now must fork over a fee of $50 per image... These changes aim to make the company more appealing to new customers and new photographers."
PER IMAGE...
Riiiiight... *MORE* appealing to new photographers...
Maybe I'm just really REALLY dumb, but can someone explain the logic to me?
--N |
|
Gary Vasquez, Photographer
|
Covina | CA | USA | Posted: 10:58 PM on 11.16.06 |
->> "Oh Getty here....take my $50!"....haha riiiiiight.
What will they think of next? |
|
Jim Sykes, Photographer
 |
Montgomery Village | Md | | Posted: 11:13 PM on 11.16.06 |
->> "Maybe I'm just really REALLY dumb, but can someone explain the logic to me? "
Yeah Nic, now anyone can just fork it over and put Getty down as a client on their resume.
its just what a bunch of hobbyists have been waiting for. |
|
Jim Leary, Photographer
|
Island | NY | USA | Posted: 11:17 PM on 11.16.06 |
| ->> Seems to me that this fee setup is being done for two reasons. First, it will generate some extra revenue for those willing to pay and second, it may give Getty a lead or two to some unknown quality photographers. Let's face it, anyone willing to pay $50 per submission is either crazy or very good. This opens the door for some completely unknown photographers looking to get noticed. You get those diamonds in the rough once in a while and this might just find one or two for Getty. |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
 |
Madison | WI | USA | Posted: 11:33 PM on 11.16.06 |
| ->> I would also guess that it acts to ensure that the quality of the photography submitted remains high. At $50 an image the quality of the collection would likely be higher on the whole than if it was a total free-for-all. Getty could probably market it as such and editors would have a resource that they could always depend on as having high-quality work. |
|
James Escher, Photographer
 |
Garden City | NY | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 11.16.06 |
->> It's certainly a gamble. The flip side is that this plan could backfire, and quality photographers whose first choice would have been to have their images represented by Getty will turn to other stock agencies, thereby potentially providing a bit more parity for those agencies trying to compete with them.
James Escher |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:21 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> I would also guess that it acts to ensure that the quality of the photography submitted remains high. At $50 an image the quality of the collection would likely be higher on the whole than if it was a total free-for-all. Getty could probably market it as such and editors would have a resource that they could always depend on as having high-quality work.
Don't count on it. The same hobbyists that spend $5,000 for a "pro" camera rig wouldn't bat an eye at $50/image so they could call themselves a "Getty Photographer". |
|
Steve Russell, Photographer
 |
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 12:39 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> If you pay the 50 bucks and they decide not to place your picture on the wire,
Do you get your cash back?
Seems like you wouldn't.
Great Scam
I hope they at least print up a 8x10 for the sucker.....I mean photographer.
They are a smart organization, they are now seeking out the "citizen photojournalist", I have to agree a little with Jim, it will generate some revenue, someone gets a picture of Brittany burning K-Fed's gear on their front lawn would be a money maker.
But even if they do find a diamond in the rough, what will they do? At 50 bucks a picture not too many people can afford to work for Getty. |
|
Kevin Leas, Student/Intern
 |
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 12:57 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> Great trend...I can't wait until I'm paying five figures to be a staffer for someone!
Is it to late to jump ship and go back to video work? |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:21 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> "Maybe I'm just really REALLY dumb, but can someone explain the logic to me? "
The logic for Getty is that the $50 covers the costs such as labor, cataloging, archiving, and marketing an image and Getty, as in the traditional stock image business, no longer wants to bare all of those costs. The move, if successful will not only boost their collection, but also the company's bottom line; something the company really needs with the value of their stock drifting downward.
Imagine if just 30,000 of the probably 600,000 amatuer/part-time/student photographers buy into this concept and submit two images each. That would be $3 million in additional revenue plus whatever income they generate from the licensing of those images. Imagine that numer if on average wannabees submitted four images a year.
The concept gives "stock photos" a whole new meaning. Basically the shooter willing to pony up $50 is now an investor in his own work. Submitting an images with the $50 fee would like purchasing a share of stock hoping that the value of the share will increase. In this model the photographer now hopes that the photo will sell so that he/she can recoup their initial investment plus additional income.
May be a lottery concept is more accurate. You are buying a $50 lotto ticket when they submit a photo, in hopes they will license the image two or three times at $200-$300 each. The $50/image is a fee for newbies to dream just like a state or national lottery. The number of people who will enter will be big, the number who actually make back their annual submission cost will be very, very small.
What's the logic? Using this model, Getty will not have to rely on seasoned, full-time professionals to refresh their visual inventory in a few years who have high expectations for what their work could/should fetch. They can offer the images to clients at rates far below the $200-300 mentioned in the PDN article.
The plan is brilliant as it cost Getty absolutely nothing to implement and they stand to gain more than they would lose. Hand me another Guinness. . . BRILLIANT! |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:30 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> The next obvious question is how long before The Associate Press jumps on the idea? Submit your cellphone pic of a news event or sporting event with your non-refundable $50 fee and all of the rights, we'll send you a check for 25% of all revenue we generate from the image.
Dave Harpe wrote:
"Don't count on it. The same hobbyists that spend $5,000 for a "pro" camera rig wouldn't bat an eye at $50/image so they could call themselves a "Getty Photographer"."
That is what they are banking on! Dave is soooooo right.
They don't care if the seasoned folks jumps ship because they have absolutely nothing to loose under this plan and every submission is coming with a $50 check.
Those of us in the business aren't going to pay $50 upfront for someone to market our work and then give us only half of the fee it was licensed for. When all or most of the working pros are gone from their network - you'll see the licensing schedule lowered to compete with the new agencies the seasoned shooters moved to. |
|
Dave Yoder, Photographer
|
Milan | IT | Italy | Posted: 3:04 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> What a great deal! Pay through the nose for a 30% commission!
Ah well, as they say, what's good for business is good for society. |
|
Lucas Jackson, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 3:22 AM on 11.17.06 |
| ->> The sky is falling, The Sky is Falling! |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
New England | | USA | Posted: 5:52 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> WTF?
I prefer my 50/50 editorial split and 70/30 split with other agencies.
I get paid from an archive I have with Corbis and from another agency I moved to. There is no way I'd pay for the right to sell through an agency. |
|
Mark Scheuern, Photographer
 |
Grand Blanc | MI | USA | Posted: 7:05 AM on 11.17.06 |
->> I might be mistaken but I believe this is intended for commercial and not editorial photographers. The return per image for commercial stock work on Getty has traditionally been quite high. So *maybe* it makes some sense. There's been a lot of discussion of this on the stock photography forums.
Mark |
|
Christina Barany, Photographer
|
Arlington | TX | United States | Posted: 11:08 AM on 11.17.06 |
| ->> Now this wouldn't be too bad if all you had to pay was the $50 up front fee then you keep all your royalties. No 50/50 split. Is that the deal or do you have to split your profits too? |
|
William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 11:35 AM on 11.17.06 |
| ->> I tend to agree with those who says this is likely a filter put in by Getty to help make sure they are only getting quality images in the first place. The digital age has likely increased their submissions by a ton (anyone know if this assumption is true?) And if so they probably spend a lot of time and effort going through really bad photos. That's money poorly spent. So one way to filter out the bad is to have an upfront fee for submission. Keeps out the hobbists. |
|
Michael Clark, Photographer
 |
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 12:05 PM on 11.17.06 |
->> While this isn't good news from Getty this morning. It isn't a big surprise. Those in the know, who are full time stock shooters have been waiting for this one for some time.
In fact, this has been going on for years actually in Getty's "Photographer's Choice" collection where a photographer pays $75 per image (Max 180 per year) to have their images uploaded to the Getty Rights Managed site. I know of photographers who have submitted and paid many thousands of dollars under that model because it is so hard to get images into the Getty system. And photographers, even with the $75 per image, still stood to make some serious money off those images submitted via Photographer's Choice. In fact, Getty reported that the PC collection did better than many of the other collections showing that photographers could edit their own work quite well.
In that respect this $50/image may not be as bad as everyone thinks. Though the 30% cut to the photographer isn't all that great and these are Rights Ready stock images.
In the stock world, Getty is King. If you want to make some real money you need to have images with Getty and you need to have lots of them. Hence, 40 images a year isn't going to get you that far. And in reality, I don't think many amateurs will be submitting images - or that this qualifies as "working for Getty". This is for all of those pros out there who have tried two or three times to get in with Getty and have been rejected because Getty already had so many photographers. The really bad side effect is that this is going to water down the Getty collections even more and hence, lower everyone's income even more as has happened in the last two or more years.
This is Getty - what did you expect? The race to the bottom begins. Isn't capitalism great!????? |
|
William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 3:27 PM on 11.17.06 |
| ->> Yes, capitalism is great. But I fail to see why this will water down anything. Why would half-rate photographers pay $50 per image to be CONSIDERED to get into Getty stock images? Hobbyist photographers are not going to do that. If anything this should decrease the amount of images and raise the quality. Sorry, capitalism is great. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
New England | | USA | Posted: 3:53 PM on 11.17.06 |
->> I shot a number of stories on securities over the past few years. From these stories I have about 300 in for stock sales now ..... and they sell and generate income for me. I am pretty sure at least 200 of them have at one time of another been licensed back out for various purposes.
If I had to pony up $15,000 to submit the photos I would have just said screw it and they would have lived in darkness on my harddrive. |
|
Grover Sanschagrin, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 4:51 PM on 11.17.06 |
->> Allen just did a bit of blogging about this...
http://www.photoshelter.com/blog
This whole thing really has very little to do with "ensuring quality" and more to do with making as much money as possible from the thousands and thousands of people who want their images to be in Getty's system.
Getty is smart. What could be better than turning a costly problem (dealing with the endless submissions from below-average photographers) into a brand new revenue stream? |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
 |
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 6:56 PM on 11.17.06 |
->> And a PhotoShelter account costs how much, and what's the split?
I'll say no more. |
|
Eric Wynne, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 8:15 PM on 11.17.06 |
->> It sounds simple.
Avoid Getty because there are other options. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:42 PM on 11.20.06 |
->> Getty's management is getting desperate. The stock has tanked since the beginning of the year. They need to show their board something -- anything.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GYI&t=2y
--Mark |
|
Danny Gawlowski, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Hell | MI | USA | Posted: 2:51 AM on 11.21.06 |
->> One more reason to say:
Thanks, PhotoShelter! |
|
Kent Porter, Photographer
|
Santa Rosa | CA | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 11.21.06 |
->> Just think, now we can all sink deeper in to debt. Getty has great shooters and all, but I hope it doesn't dumb down the rest of the profession and our marketing leverage. It makes good business sense for Getty, but does not bode well for freelancers. Where one will go, others will follow.
Kent |
|
Nigel Kinrade, Photographer
|
Alpharetta | GA | USA | Posted: 12:44 PM on 11.21.06 |
| ->> Lets undercut them.....say $40.00 per submission and lets start our own SS digital sports agency... |
|
Ethan Janson, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 3:51 PM on 11.21.06 |
| ->> It looks to me like the Open system is now the ONLY way to submit my creative portfolio to Getty if I'm not already one of their photographers. Does this mean Getty is no longer interested in acquiring a constant stream of creative new artists? I would like to hear from anyone who has applied to Photographer's Choice or Open and been invited in to Gettydom! oooh ooooh, perhaps I can get a senior Getty member to sponser me, heh heh ;) |
|
Ethan Janson, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 4:59 PM on 11.21.06 |
| ->> I have all kinds of questions about/for Getty Images. Are there any good online forums for this? Emailing Getty directly is apparently not a viable option. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 11.21.06 |
| ->> You can still send an email to Getty. Just don't attach a photo, or you will be charged a $50 fee :) |
|
Mark Scheuern, Photographer
|
Grand Blanc | MI | USA | Posted: 6:49 PM on 11.21.06 |
->> Let's see, $5/month (PhotoShelter virtual agency), or $50/image (Getty). Hmmm... .
Ethan, this has been a hot topic on stockphoto.net. You can peruse it at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/
Mark |
|
Caleb Simpson, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Dallas | TX | USA | Posted: 5:26 PM on 11.22.06 |
->> Mark, thanks for this piece of info, "Getty's management is getting desperate. The stock has tanked since the beginning of the year. They need to show their board something -- anything."
My question though is why don't they pass on charges to the consumer. They could easily charge money for those stock photo books they give away. The two my monitor are currently resting on cost me a mere $16 for shipping but had to cost at least $20 a pop to print. It doesn't make sense to charge the photographer. They provide the images that drive the business. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:07 PM on 11.22.06 |
->> Caleb,
They've been too successful in categorizing photography as a commodity. Now it's all about price.
You can only pee in the pool for so long before the whole thing starts turning yellow.
--Mark |
|
Drew Broadley, Photographer
|
Palmerston North | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 6:21 PM on 11.22.06 |
| ->> .. and here I was thinking yellow was just the new generation chlorine colour. I was wondering why my eyes didn't hurt after a days swimming any more. |
|
Jock Fistick, Photographer
 |
Brussels | Belgium | | Posted: 12:33 PM on 11.23.06 |
->> I too reacted with indignation when I first heard about this move by Getty - but I just had a conversation with a friend of mine who is a London based stock photographer and is repped by Getty and he welcomes this move and wishes it would become common practice across the industry. Now, I don't necessarily agree with his view - but I did find what he had to say interesting and worth consideration...
Just to be clear this is not editorial stock - this is commercial stock - images that are model and property released.
This photographers take was that anything to increase the cost of entry into the market was good for professional photographers. He wouldn't mind if the fee was $100 per submission and added that PAYING for entry into the market is not uncommon in other types of businesses. He told me that he has about 350 images with Getty which are spread across a few of their commercial collections and he makes on average $5000 per month. I found that to be a very good return on 350 images - to which he said that others make much more than he does with fewer images. I guess this makes sense since Getty's commercial collections represent 79% of the company's revenue. The point being that if you work in this area of photography - having the best distribution channel is the key to making money - and at the moment Getty is king. And just as in the editorial world - this market of commercial stock photography is also being eroded by the well-to-do amateur who can afford decent equipment and can produce "decent" images. And my friend said he has no problem if they want to pony up their submission fee and are able to make money - but he feels that this submission fee will weed out the ones that can't afford to "pay to play" or whose work isn't good enough to make money in this area of photography - as the ones who pay but don't get any return on their investment will eventually stop. Just some food for thought.... |
|
Mark Scheuern, Photographer
|
Grand Blanc | MI | USA | Posted: 1:29 PM on 11.23.06 |
->> "...this market of commercial stock photography is also being eroded by the well-to-do amateur who can afford decent equipment and can produce "decent" images"
Getty now has that covered as well with their purchase of iStock, where people get twenty cents for a royalty-free licensing.
Mark |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
 |
Erie Denver Boulder | CO | USA | Posted: 7:16 PM on 11.23.06 |
| ->> According to PDN Getty has re written this section of the contract to be more clear. |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 2:14 AM on 11.24.06 |
->> Jock --
Be perfectly clear, Getty is NOT "repping" this photographer. Repping means representing, and Getty has been clear that they are not serving as an agency/artists representative. There are few -- very few -- businesses that are looking out for the best interests of those they represent, and they ARE agents/agencies/artists representatives.
John |
|
Jock Fistick, Photographer
|
Brussels | Belgium | | Posted: 2:12 PM on 11.24.06 |
| ->> OK John - call it what you want if it makes you happy - but I think my friend would differ with you - he is making a very good living by licensing his work via Getty - thus he feels that he is well "represented" ;-) |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 11.26.06 |
->> Jock,
It's very important to those who are not in a current relationship with a photo licensor such as Getty to be aware of the actual business realities and not buy into the archaic (and inaccurate) terms such as "agency." Such publically traded companies are, by law and by character, operated to serve their stockholders. Photographers are merely content providers whose costs need to be minimized. Photographer interests are only served only insofar as they serve corporate interests.
--Mark |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:06 PM on 11.26.06 |
| ->> I will second Mark's statement. Shareholder interest, specifically supplying dividends or increase share value is more important to large corporate structures. While it would benefit the company on focusing on those providing the product and their interests, it is more important to make sure the stock rating is at a level to receive outside financing when necessary, maintain investor confidence, and actively looking for ways to grow the bottomline to increase shareholder value. |
|
Jock Fistick, Photographer
|
Brussels | Belgium | | Posted: 2:49 PM on 11.27.06 |
->> Mark and Clark:
You are preaching to the choir where I am concerned - and in the interest of educating those unfamiliar with photo agencies such as Getty - I concur that they are not looking out for the photographers best interests. And as John stated above - there are very few photo agents out there today that are really fighting the good fight on behalf of their photographers.
That being said - I know that my friend is very happy with his relationship with Getty and wouldn't get his panties in a bunch if his relationship with Getty was referred to in this manner.
But I think we have gotten a bit off point here - you guys have all chosen to comment on a bit of industry slang that maybe I miss-used in this situation - instead of commenting on the real issue at hand - which is whether or not increasing the cost of entry into the market might have its upsides. And as I stated in my original post - I am not sold on this idea - but I thought it was a legitimate argument that should be explored.
I am here to learn as well and if any of you have thoughts on this - pro or con - I would like to read what you think - but not be chastised for the use of a common term used in our industry - all be it admittedly out of date in todays photo-business environment. So, lets end the semantic discussion and get on with the issue at hand ;-) |
|
JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
|
Waukesha | WI | USA | Posted: 4:09 PM on 11.27.06 |
->> Boy,...that's really disipointing... I was hopeing that I could get my feet wet in the stock trade sometime in the next year.. It's like getting ready to sail and the wind dies on you,...and you sit there in your boat with nothing to do,...and no where to go..
:-(
Sorry Getty,...I can't afford this, not knowing IF I can reclaim it, and IF I can, on which image/s.. I guess I would have been one of those new photographers too... go figure..
JP |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
 |
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 9:03 PM on 11.28.06 |
| ->> I can only submit 40 images per year??? What, is my money not good enough for them? |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM Autofocus
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $1999.95 |
Notes:
Incorporating Canon's second generation Image Stabilization technology, this telephoto zoom responds in as little at 0.5 seconds, while providing up to three stops of correction for camera shake. Its AF system has been refined for better response time and tracking speed.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
