Getty Licensing

I know Getty Image licensing is a hot button for many working photographers. They make money hand over fist while bleeding photographer's of a working wage. I've pulled up threads from Helene and Browncoat and read through them and will do so again. I get it - Getty can be the devil.

That said, is there any reason I should actually consider accepting an invitation to license some specific photos through them? Apparently my being included in Flickr Explore on Tuesday caused someone to review my online submissions and I got an email to day asking me to consider it. So, is there any reason I should consider making a deal with the devil?

BackdoorHippie said:

I know Getty Image licensing is a hot button for many working photographers. They make money hand over fist while bleeding photographer's of a working wage. I've pulled up threads from Helene and Browncoat and read through them and will do so again. I get it - Getty can be the devil.

That said, is there any reason I should actually consider accepting an invitation to license some specific photos through them? Apparently my being included in Flickr Explore on Tuesday caused someone to review my online submissions and I got an email to day asking me to consider it. So, is there any reason I should consider making a deal with the devil?

Click to expand...

That would be between you and your conscience. How bad do you need the money?

fotojack said:

That would be between you and your conscience. How bad do you need the money?

Click to expand...

"Need"? Not really. But I planned on getting serious about making this a hobby that feeds itself this year, so having this drop in my lap on day 2 seems a little too coincidental. I've got emails out to others who I know well, but while I can find lots of rants from people about how "evil" they are I don't find a lot of firsthand advice from people working with them. I suspect it's a lot of people loading up millions of photos hoping a couple make some money, but I don't know - so I'm asking.

BackdoorHippie said:

I know Getty Image licensing is a hot button for many working photographers. They make money hand over fist while bleeding photographer's of a working wage. I've pulled up threads from Helene and Browncoat and read through them and will do so again. I get it - Getty can be the devil.

That said, is there any reason I should actually consider accepting an invitation to license some specific photos through them? Apparently my being included in Flickr Explore on Tuesday caused someone to review my online submissions and I got an email to day asking me to consider it. So, is there any reason I should consider making a deal with the devil?

Click to expand...

Like Jack said, only you can decide if it feels right. I'll just give you my thoughts:

1. This is what Getty counts on . . . an "invitation" from a big name to make the photographer feel "special" . . .

2. Unless I can earn thousands through Getty (which is not the case), I see no value. They're like this big grinder that just gobbles up photos for the sake of having a vast assortment for clients to select through and give the photographer pittance. And their reputation is declining so there's little value to saying "My work was picked up by Getty" . . . EVERYBODY's work is picked up by Getty . . . they deal in quantity. I choose not to support such an enterprise.

3. Once you license your photos through Getty, if after some time they don't sell, Getty puts it in the "free pool" and you get nothing. Talk about devaluing your work!

4. I work very hard at my photography and don't want my work in some pool with millions of others. Because of that I do NOT post to Flickr (Yahoo is connected to Flickr . . . I think they own it (???) . . . big photo monopoly Yahoo/Flickr/Getty, and remember that it was the CEO of Yahoo who said that there's no such thing as a "professional photographer.") . . . plus outright theft.

5. If you do go that route, you need to read that license very carefully. They "share" your copyright . . . this is why you see "their" images copyright "Getty/photographer name" . . . and notice whose name is first. How much "future Licensing rights are you giving up? e.g. if a local magazine wants to license your photo (that is now licensed through Getty) to use in a promotional ad, what kind of hoops do you have to jump through with them to get that to happen? They have the big bucks to hire copyright attorneys . . . remember that.

6. To me, any kind of deal that is a "shared" copyright is a red flag. It's MY photo, I did the work, it's my vision. Getty's name does not deserve to be on it.

So, that's my opinion . . . and why I think Getty is still the devil.

BackdoorHippie said:

"Need"? Not really. But I planned on getting serious about making this a hobby that feeds itself this year, so having this drop in my lap on day 2 seems a little too coincidental. . . ..

Click to expand...

I'm just going to throw this out there . . . with SO much photography out there and so much of it just being given away, it almost behooves the photographer to go in the opposite direction . . . make your work a little less accessible and available. Consider offering Limited Edition prints for a limited time only . . . then retire the image and make it available for viewing online only. You know the feeling . . . when you can't have something, you suddenly want it.

Remember that people buy images based on emotions. I had one of my Bosque prints (matted and framed) hanging in the lobby of a posh hair salon/spa . . . a woman visited regularly and would always just stare at the photo while she was waiting. Then one day she announced, "I don't know what it is about that picture, but I've got to have it." . . . a nice $300 profit for me.

You've got to get creative about how you can make money with your images . . . going along with the masses is not going to do it.

BackdoorHippie said:

I know Getty Image licensing is a hot button for many working photographers. They make money hand over fist while bleeding photographer's of a working wage. I've pulled up threads from Helene and Browncoat and read through them and will do so again. I get it - Getty can be the devil.

That said, is there any reason I should actually consider accepting an invitation to license some specific photos through them? Apparently my being included in Flickr Explore on Tuesday caused someone to review my online submissions and I got an email to day asking me to consider it. So, is there any reason I should consider making a deal with the devil?

Click to expand...

Jake, thanks for starting this thread as I was about to myself as I also got an invite a couple of days ago. I think I'll watch the comments here before deciding.

We are also planning to dabble in paid work this year as it would be nice if the hobby went some way to funding itself. I'm also thinking of how it may let me retire earlier in a few years.

Out of curiosity, how much does Getty pay for images?

Interesting that invites seem to be going out, Geoff. Helene's comments ring very true to me - thanks for those. My understanding from speaking with my brother is that outside of some contracted photographers he knows everyone else says working with them is a nightmare. I've always been one to side with the little guy and try to keep my business from the giants when I can, so none of it felt right, but I just wanted to float this out there if for no reason other than to get it on record for anyone else who might be wondering but not willing to ask.

As for Flickr, it became an alternative to FB for sharing photos with family and friends. As I get more serious I am want to move away from it, particularly for more serious photography. It's another thing on my list of things to explore and nail down this month.

Rick M said:

Out of curiosity, how much does Getty pay for images?

Click to expand...

Rick, here's a link to the Getty/Flickr deal . . . anyone who has their photos on Flickr needs to be aware. If you take out the "fluff" in all of this, there's some scary stuff in terms of licensing and even Flickr use. http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/

From what I remember reading about Getty, the photographer gets 30%. So if someone wants to license your photo through Getty, and is willing to pay $100 if you're lucky (most stock photos sell for less than $20), Getty gets $70 and you get $30. Ha! . . . and credit to you for your photo is not even a guarantee.

Read and re-read the threads here about Getty. They're the puppy mills of photography.

Helene is 100% right. Getty deals in volume, so don't look for anything to sell over $20 (of which you'll get about $5). If you're a stock photog who also deals in volume, or a big name who has other money outlets such as galleries, then a deal with the devil just isn't worth it.

The biggest cluster f of all is that you have zero control of who buys your work and zero knowledge of what it will be used for.

ohkphoto said:

Rick, here's a link to the Getty/Flickr deal . . . anyone who has their photos on Flickr needs to be aware. If you take out the "fluff" in all of this, there's some scary stuff in terms of licensing and even Flickr use. Flickr: Help: Getty Images

From what I remember reading about Getty, the photographer gets 30%. So if someone wants to license your photo through Getty, and is willing to pay $100 if you're lucky (most stock photos sell for less than $20), Getty gets $70 and you get $30. Ha! . . . and credit to you for your photo is not even a guarantee.

Click to expand...

Helene, if I ever reach those dizzy heights (read "never") I shall not sell to the devil. I have come across the Getty collection, and buying power, in the art world and it is not a caring entity.

I'm glad I used the search feature and found this thread. I also got the invite. They identified 6 images that they wanted of mine to start with, but I was/am very leery of them. Are there better alternatives for stock photography then them? They probably own everything behind the scenes for all I know.

Silven said:

Are there better alternatives for stock photography then them?

Click to expand...

Yes. You.

All stock agencies are cut from the same cloth. They're just a middleman who takes most of your profit. Unless you have a volume of stock photography to sell (10,000+ images), it's just not worth it.

And now Getty is telling photographers that they overpaid them and are going to take the money back from them over a 6 month period.

Getty Claims to Have Overpaid 9,000 iStock Photogs, Requires Repayment | Popular Photography

LOL...I just logged on to post that story. Poor Getty.

Honestly, at this point, I don't even blame Getty anymore. There is enough info out there that anyone dumb enough to sign up with them deserves what they get.

Browncoat said:

LOL...I just logged on to post that story. Poor Getty.

Honestly, at this point, I don't even blame Getty anymore. There is enough info out there that anyone dumb enough to sign up with them deserves what they get.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many of these people are going to drop the service because of this?

While this certainly isn't unheard of, it's way out of the norm for any kind of service provider. Imagine your cable co. trying a stunt like this. No freaking way. It would be a PR nightmare.

And therein is Getty's arrogance. They'll get away with it because they're Getty...and because the photogs will let them. They will probably lose some people, but not enough to matter.

>>So, is there any reason I should consider making a deal with the devil?

Oh, and your snowflake image is great--can't believe you captured one that nice on your first try!