|Flickr and Getty images join forces|
$250-$500 to image rights holder
|Team Flickr has long wanted to create a way to make it easier for those who use photos as a part of their daily business to do so in a way that respects the talent and rights of our members. |
The great folks at Getty Images and Flickr are joining forces to create a collection of royalty free, rights ready and rights managed photographs.
This might be a good business move by Flickr, and has potential to make few bucks for gazillion of people who post images there. Not every author will be offered Getty contract, but it's said that typically picture's rights holder will get around $250-$500 per image
|but it's said that typically picture's rights holder will get around $250-$500 per image |
I would think that this is unlikely. Getty's stock has collapsed during the last two or three years and they are moving downmarket. They are trying all sorts of measures to improve their performance.
(These measures include trying to legally? extort money from people who have inadvertently used their images.)
Hmm, let's not get too excited. From the 2nd link...
|Given that, at least initially, this Getty Collection will only include 2,500 images I seriously wonder how meaningful or significant an effort this will be. It would seem to me that 2,500 images would hardly represent a meaningful economic effort to Getty, Yahoo or the photographers involved. |
I agree, the number of images amounts to nothing but a drop in the ocean.
I also agree that, for those snappers chosen, $250-500 per image is unlikely. Likely a small commission rate would be paid per sale.
Do bear in mind that one can buy images from Getty - and any other photo library - in different file sizes, from super-hi to lo-res, web only. The smaller the file size, the less the cost (think iStock).
Sounds like a good marketing gimmick, but I do see the advantages for Getty, the key one being that they get a whole new stream of potential images, likely at a lower price than they pay professional photographers.
Good luck to those whose work is considered good enough.
I have a question, of all the images purchased, what percentage of those are "royalty free" vs. "rights managed"?
I haven't purchased a rights managed image since the early 90s. What a nightmare that was and it left such a bad taste in our mouths that we made a pact from that point forward; NO MORE RIGHTS MANAGED IMAGES!
Long story short, the client found an image that "he really liked" for a new Brand Campaign. We purchased that "rights managed image" for an initial test run to get a feel for things. The response was overwhelming. Okay, back to the image provider for rates based on our requirements. $50,000.00 < Can you believe that?
In the end, I brought in my photographer, we purchased a hand made model that was perfect for the shoot. We ended up with a portfolio of images to use for just under $2,000.00.
I don't know, from my perspective, "rights managed" seems to be a dying business model, yes, no, maybe?
Yes, I think so.
The advent of digital photography during the last few years (while not good for photographers) has made it too easy for most of us to find alternative and much cheaper solutions.
For my own purposes I often carry a camera or use the one on my mobile phone (good enough for the web). I snap away at whatever and build up a siezeable stock image collection of my own. It's just too easy nowadays. Now, when taking a pictures of something we need we can take as many shots as is necessary to find the one we need.
Rights-managed is good if you want an image for something commercial and need to ensure that none of your competitors is using the same one already.
Obvious usages would be advertisements, publicity and branding materials.
You stick a royalty-free image in your ad, release it to the public and you'll find it mighty embarrassing if you see another company using the very same picture as you. Worse, they could be using it to promote an unrelated product that you really do not want to be associated with.