Getty, beyond Evil, stay or go?

[kevs]

I came on board via Tony Stone years ago...  I only make a few hundred $ a year, with about 200 images on Getty. Some lifestyle, some celebs stuff.

Their vileness is so flagrant in their abusive ticket contact hall of mirror system; just surveying, would other stay or just bag it?

(I say that with understanding that most the is a basket case as well)

[KLaban]

I came on board via Tony Stone years ago...  I only make $300 to $500 a years, with about 200 images on Getty. Some lifestyle, some celebs stuff.

Their evilness is so flagrant in their abusive ticket contact hall of mirror system; just surveying, would other stay or just bag it?

(I say that with understanding that most the is a basket case as well)

There are those who would say that by placing 200 images with Getty and earning a pittance you are a part of the problem.

I'd say, please, don't feed the monster.

[kevs]

Thanks KL, that's why I'm posting, you are probably right...

[Rob C]

Thanks KL, that's why I'm posting, you are probably right...

I was with Stone from back in the late 70s. He invited me aboard due to a calendar printer down in England who did some bespoke calendar printing for me and used to use Stone for his stock calendars.

It was fine at first, but as Stone grew and grew I became increasingly relatively tiny. Then, all sorts of changes happened and it became hardly worth the bother and certainly not worth risking a model trip's cost.

We parted company. Then digital came in and fucked everything, just as I'd moved into 6x7 to make my stuff more marketable (I was told).

I know other stock shooters, and none that used to float trips does it anymore. Hell, magazines don't most of the time!

It was going to be my pension... instead, it's the egotripper's wet dream.

:-)

P.S.

In the good years, Stone was amazing.

[D White]

If you can post 20,000 good images there is still some income to be made.

[stamper]

 

If you can post 20,000 good images there is still some income to be made.

Most photographers can only take a few dozen images that are good in a lifetime.

[D Fuller]

Most photographers can only take a few dozen images that are good in a lifetime.

Good by stock photo standards and good by your standards may not be the same thing.

[luxborealis]

I’m going to stick with Getty. In fact, I’m going to increase my portfolio of images with them. I can decide not “to feed the Monster”, but what would that get me? Thousands more images sitting on hard drives, doing nothing for me.

As an experiment, I’m going to be sending images to Adobe Stock, Getty and three other stock agencies, just to see what happens with them over the next 12 months. See this post . . .

[SharonVL]

I’m going to stick with Getty. In fact, I’m going to increase my portfolio of images with them. I can decide not “to feed the Monster”, but what would that get me? Thousands more images sitting on hard drives, doing nothing for me.

As an experiment, I’m going to be sending images to Adobe Stock, Getty and three other stock agencies, just to see what happens with them over the next 12 months. See this post . . .

I can't agree. I know the industry is swirling down the drain now, but I won't help it get there.

[Rob C]

I can't agree. I know the industry is swirling down the drain now, but I won't help it get there.

Indeed. Was a time that good libraries demanded exclusivity. And for very valid contractual reasons both between photographer and library, and importantly - library and library clients! If they don't today, then it can only be because they feel images have no value anymore, and exclusivity is so rarely important for stock image users. Imagine two competing, major companies finding themselves using the same or almost the same "snap" for their advertising. Writs, once, would have flown.

Yep, that drain swirls away taking integrity and profitability for the individual photographer with it. Glad I'm out, considering what it is today.

[KLaban]

Getty Images is phasing out rights-managed 'creative images' in favour of royalty free content.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/0475276807/getty-is-phasing-out-rights-managed-photos-in-favor-of-royalty-free-content

[LesPalenik]

Indeed. Was a time that good libraries demanded exclusivity. And for very valid contractual reasons both between photographer and library, and importantly - library and library clients! If they don't today, then it can only be because they feel images have no value anymore, and exclusivity is so rarely important for stock image users. Imagine two competing, major companies finding themselves using the same or almost the same "snap" for their advertising. Writs, once, would have flown.

Yep, that drain swirls away taking integrity and profitability for the individual photographer with it. Glad I'm out, considering what it is today.

Switching to royalty-free way increases also image theft, since now the image usage can't be be tracked anymore. Especially for not exclusive images.

[luxborealis]

It’s certainly easy to sit and bash stock agencies and contributors. The market has changed considerably since I started in photography 40 years ago. It’s much easier today to submit images and I certainly have many more high quality images from a single day of shooting than I did years ago. But, there are times when I, too, pine for the ‘good ol’ days’ when my stock photos were worth tens to hundreds of $, rather than the pittance received today. But, supply and demand works in photography, too.

With all the backlash against Getty and other stock agencies, I’m curious about how posters make ‘productive’ (read monetary) use of their thousands of marketable images, ones that were not made under contract with a client. If not for stock, then for what: to sell as prints in art shows? to illustrate magazine articles? or is there a market for photographs I am missing? Or, are we hearing sour grapes here?

[SharonVL]

I sell prints and photograph architecture for clients.

Sharon

[LesPalenik]

It’s certainly easy to sit and bash stock agencies and contributors. The market has changed considerably since I started in photography 40 years ago. It’s much easier today to submit images and I certainly have many more high quality images from a single day of shooting than I did years ago. But, there are times when I, too, pine for the ‘good ol’ days’ when my stock photos were worth tens to hundreds of $, rather than the pittance received today. But, supply and demand works in photography, too.

With all the backlash against Getty and other stock agencies, I’m curious about how posters make ‘productive’ (read monetary) use of their thousands of marketable images, ones that were not made under contract with a client. If not for stock, then for what: to sell as prints in art shows? to illustrate magazine articles? or is there a market for photographs I am missing? Or, are we hearing sour grapes here?

It is still possible to sell images both with stock agencies and with galleries, or even at a craft/art show, but now the supply side is immense and the financial rewards are significantly lower than they used to be. Most magazines and book publishers buy their images nowadays from stock agencies. Some purchases by non-traditional buyers are triggered by Instagram or Twitter pages.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I make a living selling images commissioned by clients. That’s it. If I shoot outside of that, and I do, it’s purely for my own pleasure. I cannot imagine a worse way to spend my time with a camera than trying to come up with ideas that might sell for pennies with stock agencies. I would rather walk my dogs, read a book, cook a meal, meditate, watch something on Netflix or hang out with friends.

To each his own I guess but commissioned work needs to cover my living. If it stops doing that I will figure out something else but stock is not going to happen.

[D Fuller]

I make a living selling images commissioned by clients. That’s it. If I shoot outside of that, and I do, it’s purely for my own pleasure. I cannot imagine a worse way to spend my time with a camera than trying to come up with ideas that might sell for pennies with stock agencies. I would rather walk my dogs, read a book, cook a meal, meditate, watch something on Netflix or hang out with friends.

To each his own I guess but commissioned work needs to cover my living. If it stops doing that I will figure out something else but stock is not going to happen.

This about some it up for me, too.

[SharonVL]

I make a living selling images commissioned by clients. That’s it. If I shoot outside of that, and I do, it’s purely for my own pleasure. I cannot imagine a worse way to spend my time with a camera than trying to come up with ideas that might sell for pennies with stock agencies. I would rather walk my dogs, read a book, cook a meal, meditate, watch something on Netflix or hang out with friends.

To each his own I guess but commissioned work needs to cover my living. If it stops doing that I will figure out something else but stock is not going to happen.

+1

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I cannot imagine a worse way to spend my time with a camera than trying to come up with ideas that might sell for pennies with stock agencies...

But that's not what is under discussion here.

I presume that Terry is not a full-time professional photographer, but someone who has already amassed thousands of images that he shot for his own pleasure,  which might be of interest to potential clients via stock agencies.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Couple of years ago, I sold (licensed) a single image to Canon for $11.5K (I got 70%). That is probably once-in-a-lifetime occurrence (well, for me, anyway).

It was via a stock library, but of a different kind. It was known as ImageBrief, and as the name implies, that's their business model. A client comes with a brief, they post it to their members, members then submit what they have specifically for that brief. Unfortunately, the model didn't survive and they closed the shop after just a couple of years.