Flickr + Getty = $$?

I'm not sure what to make of this:

"Getty will make payments to Flickr, but detailed terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Mr. Klein said that financially the deal will be immaterial for both Yahoo and Getty Images. Over time, however, thousands of Flickr photographers may benefit."
 
My take is most people on this forum are a) not good enough to attract those who purchase fine-art prints b) not trying to take pictures that appeal to mass media sources. c) not in it for the money.

Otherwise, explain to me why everyone wouldn't jump on the opportunity to let your pictures sit somewhere on the web 24/7 and possibly receive a request for pricing or sale while lying in be counting sheep.
 
Carlitos said:
Otherwise, explain to me why everyone wouldn't jump on the opportunity to let your pictures sit somewhere on the web 24/7 and possibly receive a request for pricing or sale while lying in be counting sheep.
Click to expand...
Because everyone is waiting for hard solid numbers to be revealed? As it is spinned now, financial part of it is extremely vague.

One thing when an agency clearly says "OK we split it 40/60" or "flat rate $75 per image per use", another when you submit into something which turns out iStockPhoto equivalent for editorial material with penny rewards.
 
Just got an e-mail from Getty Images. They've seen my pictures on Flickr and wanna try to sell some of them. We'll see what happens... :)
 
I just love\hate complications. Now, I have to deal with all those emails from Flickr. But when your pictures are off by 3 sigmas from standard deviation normal, I guess that's the price you pay.

3084384047_15af4c74e1.jpg
 
A young friend of mine told me yesterday that he sold one image from his Flickr account to some university foundation for $300. I don't think Getty was involved -- but it might have been. Still makes me think I should move (and tag!) my library there...
 
I have my own website, which has about 1000 images on it (nowhere near my whole library, but everything I have scanned so far). I sell prints and i have licensed a number of them for ads, music CDs, etc. I have thought about Flickr, but resisted it so far because it seemed amatuerish, but i have been hearing more and more that buyers are looking there and paying for photos. The getty thing..who knows. My gut feeling is that it'll make them a ton of money and pay photographers pennies. I like selling direct, I can charge $300 and keep $300 that way. A lot of stock sites charge $2, give the photographer 10 cents. No thanks.
 
Here are the ones they've asked me to include but I haven't included all of them:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/405908098/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/2188391394/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/1008475779/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/1030575797/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/2202032120/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/424744139/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/517614566/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/1425658566/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/1031429018/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/367188785/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/2037528236/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/423622900/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/476904133/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/440542510/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/1053945657/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/2673876400/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/141245797/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/581386944/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/2803424070/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/222728300/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/410368133/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmarchi/2185249426/

One thing which is annoying is that they need a model release for persons or property releases for interior shots taken while on vacation etc. Models - I normally just ask people in the street if I may take a picture of them, so I have a verbal contract with them but apparently that doesn't count. So I can't use a lot of the pictures they've asked me to include in Getty Images' database. Which ofcourse is very disappointing, as I think they're great pictures. Oh well.
 
I have a friend who has sold a number of images via flickr and it was through discussions with him that made me investigate flickr in the first place. He didnt, as well as everyone else who has licensed material as a result of exposure from flickr, need some agreement between getty and flickr. In the end I see this as a way for getty to get cheap licensed photos cheap and is not particularly something I think photographers as a community should be excited about. As it stands now, your work sits on flickr. A rep at whatever company sees it and they contact you directly. What changes with a parntnership is likely the establishment of a lower rate in some kind of opt in program. Maybe Im being pessimistic, but I just cant see any other thing that would be different than the way things are set up currently.
 
People have e-mailed me wanting to buy pics off of me, after seing my work on Flickr and on my website too. But I just thought having some of them (not all of them) on Getty would expand the possability of selling some pics.. Even if I would get more selling them myself without the middle person (Getty), but perhaps I wouldn't get the same exposure if I didn't.
 
This is strange. I have a hard time with Flickr's interface and networking, but overall, I'm excited for this. I'm going to have to start scanning some shots to start getting some recognition on Flickr!
 
chambrenoire,

The editors at Getty will be picking and choosing very carefully those images that they want to market. They have to ask for releases or they may not want to market them at all. Without them, Getty probably won't take them unfortunately. I'm curious as to what the contract terms are? Flickr will get a cut as well as Getty. I wonder what will be left for the photographer? Curious, do you know what license model they want to market your images under - RM, RR, or RF?
 
chambrenoire said:
People have e-mailed me wanting to buy pics off of me, after seing my work on Flickr and on my website too. But I just thought having some of them (not all of them) on Getty would expand the possability of selling some pics.. Even if I would get more selling them myself without the middle person (Getty), but perhaps I wouldn't get the same exposure if I didn't.
Click to expand...

What kind of settings do you have, or what kind of pools do you often post to? I get a lot more of offline (via e-mail) than I do on the actual photos, and only once have I ever been asked via Flickr for a photo purchase (a print, actually, but nothing like selling the photo).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom