Forums - chillout lounge
Messages in this topic - RSS Home > Photography > Free Images from Getty for selected clients
Poster Post
8/03/2014 10:42:35 a.m.

mychillybin team

Posts 637 		Many have probably noticed news about the Getty decision to allow selected customers to use selected images in selected applications free of charge but with more secure attribution.

Here is one here, that mentions briefly some merits and demerits of this strategy.

The chillys will give some consideration to this development soon, and to what changes (if any) are recommended to ensure that mychillybin continues to serve both photographers and designers competitively going forward, in this continually changing market.

In the interim we would love to hear any reasoned views you may have on this development ...

cheers for now
the chillys
8/03/2014 11:22:03 a.m.

gprentice

Posts 72 		If we go back to basics and ask 3 simple questions, it may focus our thinking..

1. Why does such a site exist in the first place?
2. How does the site attract images - i.e. from whom?
3. How does the site attract purchasers?

1. If the evolution of digital images and the internet search tools have done away with the need for a brokerage site to assemble images for sale to those who otherwise find it too hard to get the image.. then such site are doomed. This is based upon the premise that quality images are available for free by simple search engines and willing photographers.

If the brokerage sites offer something that is not otherwise available, then there is a future.

2. The business of such sites (mychillybin) relies on high quality images being submitted by many photographers - in this case with photos not available for sale elsewhere. The only reason the photographers do this is for payment.. if they wanted to share their images freely.. they do not require a broker.

3. The sites require people (designers) to buy the right to use the image for whatever their own purpose. If the quality images can be gained for free elsewhere and simply found.. they will not to pay to use such a site.

The significant realisation that once bought, they can be shared (sure, against the license use...) and maybe at a lesser quality.. but shared.. takes away the need to source via purchase .. for the next designer.

I have no idea what the long term strategy of Getty is.. but suspect that unless there is a return to the photographer, the photographers will simply take their images back.. i.e. will no longer be available to the broker... thus drying up the supply of new images to them and indeed existing images.

Answer.. have a site that continues to produce fresh new images of high quality (i.e. inspected).. and also lets prospective customers know the value (i.e. marketing).. a niche collection is good. Maybe also offer a "request" option to designers (i.e. bespoke commissioning) to better meet the designer needs.

Graham
9/03/2014 11:15:53 a.m.

The Last Frame NZ

Posts 26
gprentice wrote:

If we go back to basics and ask 3 simple questions, it may focus our thinking..

1. Why does such a site exist in the first place?
2. How does the site attract images - i.e. from whom?
3. How does the site attract purchasers?

1. If the evolution of digital images and the internet search tools have done away with the need for a brokerage site to assemble images for sale to those who otherwise find it too hard to get the image.. then such site are doomed. This is based upon the premise that quality images are available for free by simple search engines and willing photographers.

If the brokerage sites offer something that is not otherwise available, then there is a future.

2. The business of such sites (mychillybin) relies on high quality images being submitted by many photographers - in this case with photos not available for sale elsewhere. The only reason the photographers do this is for payment.. if they wanted to share their images freely.. they do not require a broker.

3. The sites require people (designers) to buy the right to use the image for whatever their own purpose. If the quality images can be gained for free elsewhere and simply found.. they will not to pay to use such a site.

The significant realisation that once bought, they can be shared (sure, against the license use...) and maybe at a lesser quality.. but shared.. takes away the need to source via purchase .. for the next designer.

I have no idea what the long term strategy of Getty is.. but suspect that unless there is a return to the photographer, the photographers will simply take their images back.. i.e. will no longer be available to the broker... thus drying up the supply of new images to them and indeed existing images.

Answer.. have a site that continues to produce fresh new images of high quality (i.e. inspected).. and also lets prospective customers know the value (i.e. marketing).. a niche collection is good. Maybe also offer a "request" option to designers (i.e. bespoke commissioning) to better meet the designer needs.

Graham


I think Graham has really hit the nail on the head, especially in his last paragraph. I too would like to support Graham in his suggestion for a request option to the designers. This would I believe assist photographers to shoot images that are required for any given project nominated by a designer. This I feel is a 'win win' for photographers, knowing they are shooting a specific requested subject and the designer knowing they will be receiving a range of images suited to their own specific requirements.

Comments are now appearing on the web surrounding Getty's announcement, it's interesting reading.

Bruce
10/03/2014 7:49:14 a.m.

gprentice

Posts 72 		For those of us with no idea why they would do this... here is one commercial explanation of the logic...

http://thedambook.com/getty-did-what/

Graham
10/03/2014 5:38:57 p.m.

Canon_S.I.

Posts 283 		As most or if not all photographers on this site are Amateurs we don't rely on our photography to make a living,that said, i feel for those photographers that are having their images given away and i would also be p----d off if it were me.But it's not, and since we only supply N.Z. images how does it affect us here in our small market?Revert back to buy N.Z. Made mentality ?

Personally i don't think that whatever Getty has in mind for their business model will effect us to much down here in N.Z as whatever their charging for Commercial use - including newspapers, television channels and advertisers - will continue to be charged the premium Getty price during this 35 million image giveaway.

So,Don't Panic...until you need to
11/03/2014 7:46:05 a.m.

Mark Roberts

Posts 37 		I can't offer a reasoned view on this issue, except to say it might be a good exercise to watch how Getty fare before following suit. It's complicated to say the least.

I tried Getty via the Flickr route. Someone on a Flickr forum who'd become a curator persuaded me to give it a try. I have 23 images with Getty. The curators favoured images that had people in them. I gathered up 13 model releases, which involved a considerable effort. I've had three sales in about 18 months. The last was for the image below, for which I received US$4.57. People who know the 'model' say it appeared in the NZ Women's Weekly. I never saw it myself, but I believe it was part of a montage. It takes a long time to get images selected and accepted by Getty via the Flickr route. If you're a proper Getty shooter, the system is no doubt quicker. Getty did not make a single image of mine Rights Managed, despite all those model releases. None of my 3 sales were at the full-resolution prices. One image of three women (3 releases) wading into the sea to swim was sold to the Leo Burnett agency in New York and netted me about US$50. That's the closest I got to the big time. Interesting exercise for me. I gave up responding to their Curators several months ago, and they've since given up on me.

Just as I finished writing this, an e-mail arrived in my in box from Getty. They've announced the end of their relationship with Flickr. I haven't had time to read it.
MR282173.jpg
11/03/2014 9:58:59 a.m.

Canon_S.I.

Posts 283
Mark Roberts wrote:

I can't offer a reasoned view on this issue, except to say it might be a good exercise to watch how Getty fare before following suit. It's complicated to say the least.

I tried Getty via the Flickr route. Someone on a Flickr forum who'd become a curator persuaded me to give it a try. I have 23 images with Getty. The curators favoured images that had people in them. I gathered up 13 model releases, which involved a considerable effort. I've had three sales in about 18 months. The last was for the image below, for which I received US$4.57. People who know the 'model' say it appeared in the NZ Women's Weekly. I never saw it myself, but I believe it was part of a montage. It takes a long time to get images selected and accepted by Getty via the Flickr route. If you're a proper Getty shooter, the system is no doubt quicker. Getty did not make a single image of mine Rights Managed, despite all those model releases. None of my 3 sales were at the full-resolution prices. One image of three women (3 releases) wading into the sea to swim was sold to the Leo Burnett agency in New York and netted me about US$50. That's the closest I got to the big time. Interesting exercise for me. I gave up responding to their Curators several months ago, and they've since given up on me.

Just as I finished writing this, an e-mail arrived in my in box from Getty. They've announced the end of their relationship with Flickr. I haven't had time to read it.


Excellent image Mark,i reckon that would do well on here {if it's not already},and if that's all your getting from Getty i'd give them the flick and take my images with me and support the locals,cheers.
14/03/2014 8:14:33 p.m.

OpticalEarth

Posts 56 		mychillybin is not in the same league as Gettys. This is a much smaller website and business than the likes of Gettys. Just because they want to make photos free does not mean this website should consider it. If people need an image on this website and they can't find a similiar one elsewhere, then they will pay for it.
15/03/2014 9:05:39 p.m.

Canon_S.I.

Posts 283
OpticalEarth wrote:

mychillybin is not in the same league as Gettys. This is a much smaller website and business than the likes of Gettys. Just because they want to make photos free does not mean this website should consider it. If people need an image on this website and they can't find a similiar one elsewhere, then they will pay for it.


This site covers New-Zealand images only,Getty covers the planet,if your not satisfied then i suggest you move on.And as not in the same league,crap,this site is equal to any around as far as photographers and subjects go.

Their is some minor quality control issues i see but apart from that,the site is still doing what it did back in 2008 when i joined....selling images,and occasionally some of mine.
pages: 1

Home > Photography > Free Images from Getty for selected clients

Select General image use for all applications that are not purely editorial in nature.

General includes, for example;

Email any query to [email protected] for a rapid response.

This image is available for both General use, and also for Editorial use

General use, in short, includes;

Editorial use, in short, means material of genuine public interest and containing no commercial message, advertorial content, or similar, on blogs, on information signage, in magazines, in newspapers and in newsletters

Email any query to [email protected] for a rapid response.

Select Editorial image use for images for editorial use in:

Editorial use, in short, means material of genuine public interest and containing no commercial message, advertorial content, or similar.

Note that whilst these images will be suitable for Editorial Use, some of these images are not able to be used for General purposes as they contain brands, people, etc without needed legal releases.

Email any query to [email protected] for a rapid response.

This image is available only for editorial use.

In short, this means material of genuine public interest and containing no commercial message, advertorial content, or similar. Material such as;

These Editorial Use Only images are not available for General purposes as they may contain identifiable people, intellectual property, etc, without needed legal releases.

Email any query to [email protected] for a rapid response.

Select the Exclusive Use Licence Full or Forward for exclusive image use, for a specified period of time.


May be used in the following applications:

(i) Editorial content - material that is of genuine public interest and free of advertising and advertorial content.

Except when the actual image is shown to be for Editorial Use Only, then it can also be used for the specified period in the sames way as the Enhanced Licence, as follows

(ii)   Items not for resale (e.g. ads, marketing materials, websites, social media posts, unpaid apps, posters, flyers, reports, ...)

(iii)   Items for resale (e.g. use of image on coasters, paid apps, screensavers, or printed map books, reports, magazine covers etc that are sold on websites or through shops ...)

Specified Period - images may not be used beyond the specified period, without a further licence of some type being obtained.

For more including prohibited uses, see full Standard Licence, Enhanced Licence, Exclusive Licence, or email your query to [email protected] for rapid response.

Select the Enhanced Licence for any of the following:

(i) Items not for resale (e.g. ads, marketing materials, websites, social media posts, unpaid apps, posters, flyers, reports, ...)

(ii) Items for resale (e.g. use of image on coasters, paid apps, screensavers, or printed map books, reports, magazine covers etc that are sold on websites or through shops ...)

The Enhanced licence is not needed for Editorial Applications.

For more, including prohibited uses, see full Standard Licence, Enhanced Licence, Exclusive Licence, or email your query to [email protected] for rapid response.

Select the Standard Licence for any of the following:

(i) Editorial content of general public interest in blogs, social media, newspapers, magazines, newsletters

(ii)  Items not for resale, up to 100,000 copies

(iii) Items for resale - not coveredThe Enhanced Licence or the Exclusive Licence are needed for items for resale.  Items such as paid apps, coasters, place mats, sold books, greeting cards, etc.

For more, including prohibited uses, see full Standard Licence, Enhanced Licence, Exclusive Licence, or email your query to [email protected] for a rapid response.