Comments on: Getty Images vs. Flickr

By: patrick evens

patrick evens — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:38:00 +0000

You’ve kinda missing one major difference. Images on Getty all have the required legal releases which allow these images to be used for commercial purposes. Flikr for the most part does not. File size and technical quality is another very important consideration too. So, in today’s litigious society perhaps its wise to again to ask which is better for marketers…Getty Images or Flickr?

By: Gerard

Gerard — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:23:00 +0000

[I work for Getty Images]

To compare Getty to Flickr is surely missing the point and not doing either justice.

Flickr is a site to share photos, Getty is a site to buy photos. And both do that very, very well. When you buy photos from Getty, you are buying editorial integrity, proper clearance and the knowledge you can use the photo you have purchased in the way you decide.

Also comparing just one area of photography is deliberately misleading. How about you compare Flickr's coverage of the 2006 FIFA World Cup to that of Getty? Or the coverage of any major sports or entertainment event?

Amateur photographers are great but they are just that; amateurs. They can decide what and where they shoot. We at Getty have to cover 1000s of events each year, all with the same quality.

I don't doubt there are some photos on Flickr that are better than some of Getty. If that's the case use our site, istockphoto, and sell your photos. People will buy them.

Flickr is great. Better than Getty? Not in my opinion. Different to Getty? Most certainly and I for one am very happy Flickr exists.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 May 2007 19:16:00 +0000

I’m an editorial photographer for a major pub….you’re wrong the Getty images are more authentic because they have the weight and journalistic integrity that the others don’t. For editorial usage you need authenticity provided by a major provider, with editors who review the work to make sure images havn’t been photoshoped and manipulated for artistic reasons.

By: Augustine

Augustine — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:33:00 +0000

awesome analysis Thomas, re: the niche searches that the massive repository of Flickr can deliver while "old world" stock houses won't have. Flickr is so large that it becomes my go to place to check first, before checking the other microstock sites because their repositories are like 1 million or or so. So the odds are against me.

PictureSandbox.com

By: James

James — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:08:00 +0000

The difference is Thomas, that your so-called “pro-am” photographers are just that. Unfortunately, your cavalier attitude to this is removing business from those of us who photograph as a profession, and have no other source of income. The idea that publications will use photos from Flickr or other microstock sites makes good business sense to them, it saves them money, so if you ask for your $200, they simply won’t use your photos, they’ll find someone else. That’s what’s happening to us, we ask for our normal fee, and we’re told “no, not interested, we’ll look elsewhere”. For pro-am’s thats just annoying, no publication, no glory etc. For PRO’s thats no money. End of story.

By: Jim Goldstein

Jim Goldstein — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:57:00 +0000

Not to sound like a broken record, but this is a great comparison of subject material, but not quality. An agency provides the overhead of screening images to make sure that the quality is what it should be for the buyer. As mentioned previously web use has far greater latitude in the area of quality than print. When I wear the hat of web strategist during my day job and am helping a client or my company select imagery I don't have time to tweak images or worry that the images will have dust spots or needs fine tuning with color correction. It's not just about subject matter. It's about resolution, file prep, photographer professionalism keywords and managing image availability to demand.

Of greater impact to this all is how an agency/photo sharing firm reaches clients. Hosting images is one thing pulling in buyers and quality buyers at that is the key to this all. Given my recent experiences on Flickr those interested in scouring the pool of images are more interested in free images versus the traditional route of licensing them. Perhaps that is just a string of bad luck, but I'm getting the feeling that is not the case particularly when Yahoo is as guilty of this practice as well.

With that being said this photo phisher behavior poses an even greater challenge to the model you're pursuing. Personally I'm excited at the prospect of what you're implementing at Zooomr, but there are a lot of questions left that I'd need answered (security, licensing %'s, etc.) before I upload high resolution images to a photo sharing site.

By: QT Luong

QT Luong — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:53:00 +0000

In photography, the most financially successful is in general not the one with the better images.

The reasons for Getty success is not the superiority of their images. On the other hand, Getty has built a brand that is extremely well marketed to high-end photo buyers. They provide a one-stop shop with reliable services, with competent images, right clearances and technical quality.

By: jonny

jonny — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:40:00 +0000

great piece… i was trying to persuade someone the other day that this was bound to be the way it went….

By: Andrew Schmitt

Andrew Schmitt — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:29:00 +0000

There is an article in todays WSJ on exactly this subject. Thomas, if you don’t have access contact me and I will email it to you.

By: Karoli

Karoli — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:02:00 +0000

- gary,

The searches that Tom posted are pretty good ways to locate the top images by tag. The key is to sort them by 'interestingness' instead of date. On the other hand if you're looking for recent images of some general tag, keep them date-sorted.

I didn't think the Getty images compared at all to the Flickr images as a whole, which convinces me that there can be a very real market for those of us who are considered amateurs. This was the most encouraging blog post I've read in weeks.

Also, sfbuckaroo is right -- the captcha isn't working in Firefox for some reason.