While I was out of town last week, Flickr/Getty launched the latest new twist to their stock photography arrangement, “Request to License.” Already Getty images is representing more than 100,000 flickr images on Getty for Getty’s customers to purchase. I’ve participated in this stock offering since it launched, and Getty currently represents 190 of my images (that you can see here).
The new twist is smart from Flickr/Getty’s standpoint. As many, many, many of the photos that buyers are finding online are being privately negotiated between buyer and seller, Flickr/Getty are looking to get a piece of this action. With this new “request to license” feature, Flickr/Getty is allowing you to post a link directly to Getty images on all 100% of your Flickr photos. If a potential buyer sees this link and wants to license your image, they can click the link and license the image through Getty. Getty/Flickr keep 80% of the money and you get 20% of the money.
So why am I declining to participate in this new venture? Simple. I don’t think I’ll sell 5x as many photos through Getty this way as I’d sell myself from private inquiries. I get inquiries about my photos all the time. Every week at least I get someone wanting to purchase one of my photos. These buyers have been magazines, text books, newspapers, websites, advertisers of every shape and form. I’ve been offered money for Holiday cards, billboards, television commercials, whatever. In fact the single largest source of my photography related income comes from people contacting me directly after finding my images on Google Image Search, my blog, Flickr etc.
Most of the time when people want to license one of my images it’s for a very specific photo, for a very specific reason. Last month Outdoor Magazine contacted me about using this image of the Iron Door Saloon in Groveland for $250. The photo’s not particularly great, but I suspect that they are running an issue on Groveland or something and it’s a very specific image that they wanted to buy. Now, as it stands, I simply sold them a license to the image and emailed them a simple invoice for $250. Pretty easy. Had they seen the same image of mine and chosen to license it through Getty for the same amount, I would only have gotten $50. So why would I want to get $50 instead of $250?
You might be able to argue that people will feel more comfortable negotiating directly with Getty, a known and established provider of images who has a strong reputation in clearing images. You might even be able to argue that this comfort factor would allow you to sell twice as many images through Getty as you would directly. But 5x more image sells? I seriously doubt it. Other than me advertising for Getty on over 40,000 images of mine on Flickr, what are they doing exactly to earn their 80%? Are they promoting these images in search on their website? No.
Images that I presently license to Getty are indexed in their search engine and promoted by them. Even then I think the 20% payout is too small. But to simply redirect commercial inquiries on my images from me to Getty for an 80% cut? This doesn’t make sense to me at all.
I’ve also found that people respond very differently to images when I post them online non-commercially vs. offering them for sale. Many of the images in my stream never would be able to be licensed by Getty. They are of people without model releases etc. So why advertise for Getty on images that I will never be able to sell that also might send the wrong message to a subject who is in a non-commercial photograph that I’ve taken?
I can see where this deal might seem great for Getty/Flickr. I suspect that there is a big pot of money that they both are missing out on right now in terms of privately negotiated licensing between buyers and photographers directly and they’d like to get their hands on this money. But I think it’s a bad deal for photographers and I personally won’t be participating in it. My advice to Flickr/Getty would be to bump the payout up on these images to 50/50.
Here’s a link to a discussion from Flickr members on this new offering from the Flickr Help Forum (where I’m permanently banned). It seems that most photographers representing an opinion on this new offering there are also negative about it. Oh, and Google? If you’re listening, I think there’s a great opportunity in all this for you. Eliminating the middle man is one of the things that you do best. I like the 68% payouts I get on my Adsense ads with you a lot more than the 20% payout I get from Getty.
Great post. I agree, 100%
I am in two minds about this “offer”. I dislike Getty’s exclusivity, its appalling low commission rate for the Photographer and the lack of choice between RM and RF. I assume that if and when the photographer is contacted via Request a Licence that he/she will have leverage as to what licence (RM or RF) which option is not open to Getty photographers at present. Most of the rumblings on the forum is really the anomaly of Flickr not allowing the photographer’s own “commercialisation” in a link directing clients to the photographer with a Request to licence but allowing the link to Getty’s Request. They have yet to justify this somewhat “little big pregnant” aspect. I sell my work via PBase.com which doesn’t care if you sell via their site. I have set up e-commerce (with Photodeck) gallery with a link under each of my images which gives the client a fee for usage and upon payment via PayPal (and later credit cards), the image is downloaded from Photodeck. They take no commission from the photographers. Photodeck is financed by monthly payments of $9.95 from the photographer.
Sorry, forgot the link http://www.pbase.com/sheila/stock_with_rm_pricing
Sheila
Some more thoughts here : http://www.alexhibbert.com/blog/2010/6/22/getty-stock-photography-crowd-sourcing-and-the-end-of-the-wo.html
Problem is, a lot (maybe even the majority) of people who get offers to use their photos from Flickr get offered virtually nothing. The best offer I’ve had if £10 for a print that would have been displayed in a pub. No thanks! The rest are all “we can’t afford to pay you, but we can give you a credit” rubbish.
Part of me thinks that when it comes to Flickr it may be a good thing if it help amateurs to value their photos more when they see they can actually get money rather than give their photos away.
However, I can see the small percentage is pretty poor for professionals.
Almost every one has charms, this charms can be everything that can bring us lucky. I have a lucky charm, that is thomas sabo. I received this present from my friend when i am 15 years old. When i was young, i often got ill, and i am very thin at that time, a friend of mine give me a present when my birthday came. She told me that this charm can bring me good luck, and she said she has a thomas sabo bracelets. Maybe this chaim give her some sense of security, so she always regards this charm as her most important thing. Good friend can share good things with each other, so she not only give me one, but also recommand thomas sabo jewellery to me, i was attracted by the thomas sabo jewelry when i first see the jewelry.
From then on, my friend and i are the fans of thomas sabo charms, we pay close attention to thomas sabo’s latest development. That’s really incredible, i think these charms really bring me good luck. My body get strong day by day, and i also get some good chance during i find the job.
The post about leisure is quiet good. Reduce our work pressure, improve our life mood . I like it very much.I will support it often. These days I want to buy something from these websites but I dont know how to do.I hope you can help me.Thank you very much
I’ve been here before, or so charming
Darn it. I’m not sending a HUGE. I’m sending a HUG. Maybe a huge hug. It’s early.
Looking forward for the next information technology you have. I really think this is incredible.
Merci pour votre message. Il me donne plus de bonnes informations