Earlier today Flickr announced on their blog they’ve kicked off Phase 2 of their effort to build the Flickr Collection on Getty Images by sending out invitations to various Flickr photographers. (See Building the Flickr Collection on Getty Images) I was one of the many photographers who received an invitation and decided to check it out. To cut to the chase for now I’m going to be passing on the opportunity and below are the reasons why, but first how the Flickr-Getty arrangement works.
How it Works
Getty representatives through Flickr are sending out email invitations with an initial list of images with in your photostream that have been selected for inclusion into the Flickr Collection on Getty Images. A link is provided in the invitation to enroll in the program, fill out paperwork (contributors agreement, tax docs, etc.) and submit high resolution images to be evaluated for acceptance.
The Flickr Collection is going to be a branded pool of images that Getty markets similar to their Stone, Taxi, Photonica, Photodisc, etc. collections. For now it would seem they’re looking to launch the Flickr Collection on Getty in March.
The big caveat… when you get an invitation you’re not being asked to take part as a photographer like a normal Getty contributor. Only invited images at this time are eligible for addition to the Flickr Collection. This means to have an image considered it has to be on Flickr. Have other images from the same shoot that you’d like to submit for acceptance? You can’t. All images to be considered for review have to be on Flickr and have to be found by Getty photo editors choosing images. This is substantial departure from how images are normally submitted, reviewed and accepted by Getty and other stock agencies. Typically photographers are chosen to be contributors and sets of photographs are submitted for review, acceptance and ultimate submission to a stock agency’s collection.
The between the line on this is that Getty sees opportunity with individual Flickr images not Flickr photographers. This is Getty’s way of picking up good one-off images with out committing to photographers who might be inconsistent or below the standard they’d hold normal Getty contributors to. This isn’t just conjecture, such interpretation is made from off-line communication in my inquiry to this program.
What You Need to Know Before Accepting Your Flickr Collection Invitation
When I evaluate stock agencies to work with I first check three things: Exclusivity, Royalties and Rights to Control Claims. These three things will tell you how you’re valued by the agency and give you a window to the overhead the company is carrying to stay in business.
Exclusivity
Is the agreement I’m being asked to sign going to restrict my ability to market and sell my work through other outlets?
In the case of the Flickr-Getty offer… it is an exclusive agreement. There is a limitation on selling images that are similar or “sister images” for commercial purposes. Use of photographs selected by Getty to sell on your behalf are OK to use for personal or self promotion. How convenient that they also include the acceptability of “Photo Sharing” in these terms. Per the terms its also OK to sell prints or books as long as they are limited edition and/or signed. Note if a Getty selected image has been previously sold through a prior licensing agreement either individually or through another agency it is then ineligible for submission.
For those that are new to stock photography “exclusivity” should be approached very carefully. Many old timers recommend avoiding exclusivity like the plague due to the limiting nature of it. It’s tough enough to make a buck these days with photography, but signing an exclusive deal is a sure fire way to cut off other income opportunities. What I find most troubling about the Getty agreement it is that they don’t permit the sale of your work on your own web site. Granted for some this may be a non-factor as not everyone wants to deal with the headache of licensing their own work directly. I suppose my outlook on this is that if you’re serious enough to sell your photography through an agency you should be capable of selling your own work individually and reserve the option to do so.
These days its tough to get any stock representation without “exclusivity” and the justification is always that the agency can secure higher prices for each license. I have photographs with agencies that don’t require “exclusivity” and I have photographs at another agency that does. If you enter into an exclusive agreement with an agency you better be dead certain that you think the limitations imposed on you are well worth it.
In my case since I have an exclusive agreement with one agency I’m not keen on entering into another. Managing images so that you send images to one and not another can be a real headache both organizationally and in choosing what image goes where. I also plan on selling and licensing my photography through my web site so having the limitation imposed by Getty in their agreement is a non-starter.
Royalties
How much of an image license do I get to keep?
The amount offered to photographers by Getty is low. Rights Managed / Rights Ready images get the most 30%. That’s right 70% of every Getty sale goes to Getty. If you opt in to sell images as Royalty Free you get 20% of each sale and Getty keeps 80%. The justification for this is the reach that Getty has to image buyers and the overall performance of their platform. No doubt it is the case that Getty has the reach and traffic to pull in buyers, but they also have a lot of overhead as a business. Clearly keeping 70-80% of a sale is to pay for their large organization.
The question you need to ask yourself is, “Can you do better?” and “Can you find an agency that is more photographer friendly?”. I doubt there are many agencies out there that can pull in the volume of traffic that Getty can, but stock sales are about relationships with buyers. While the number of boutique agencies out there are far fewer than in days past there are some solid agencies out there run by solid people very knowledgeable of this industry. To find them it takes work and a bit of research.
Note: I’ll warn you now I won’t field questions asking me which agencies to pursue. I just don’t have the bandwidth to do this, but use Google and ask around. I’m sure people commenting to this post will chime in with agencies they use or recommend.
Rights to Control Claims
If someone infringes my work sold by Getty and there is a settlement how much do I keep?
As with most stock agency agreements, it will detail your agreement to let the stock agency pursue infringement cases on your behalf for images that you allow them to sell. What is less clear is that most agreements will very subtly inform you that the amount of any reward will be paid to you at the same royalty rate of a normal sale. Keep in mind copyrighted photographs can yield penalties up to $150,000 per infringement if the infringement is found to be willfully committed (See Copyrights: Protecting My Photography). Assuming $100,000 were granted to you and Getty, you’d see $20-30,000 of that judgement likely less legal fees incurred by Getty.
Here’s where I have a problem. I agree that the lawyers should get their pay and an agency fighting for you should get a cut of a judgement, but if infringement happens and you’ve taken the efforts to copyright your work with the Library of Congress I don’t see why a 3rd party should get the bulk of a settlement.
The huge red flag for me with this is that since your image has to be on Flickr and Flickr has done nothing to address security holes and tighten up their system to avoid infringement; it would seem to me Getty’s greatest means of income will be going after infringers taking advantage of Flickr’s lackadaisical security. Perhaps this is overly cynical, but at the rate I’ve had images infringed on Flickr I can’t help but feel that I’d be signing over numerous infringement cases to Getty by taking part.
Never Punch A Gift Horse In The Mouth
To be very clear I’m not telling anyone not to take part if invited by Getty to contribute to the Flickr Collection. Everyone needs to evaluate their situation individually. It’s a great opportunity for many, but I also remind you to do your research to see if it is truly the best opportunity for you to pursue. To be honest I’m never one to turn away from an income opportunity. Even if I feel the terms provided are not the most favorable I still have to admit I’m tempted to get my foot in the door, but in the end I’ll be staying resolute and passing on my invitation until the terms are more favorable. To that thought if one really wants to be a Getty contributor (mind you the terms are no different) with out the Flickr strings you can apply to take part in their normal collection. The Flickr collection is but their newest sub-brand that they’re developing and not the only way to take part. For those whose invitation to the Flickr collection is their first stock photography experience do your research and then make the decision.
[tags]Getty, Flickr Collection, Stock, Photography, Flickr[/tags]
Let me offer a different perspective on this as a keen amateur who is interested in monetising his photography but has very little time to spend on marketing efforts.
I received an invitation yesterday and had similar reservations about the terms and conditions but, looking at the few dozen photos selected, realised that I really had no plans to market about half of them. My photographs fall into 4 groups:
1. Stuff I wouldn’t post to Flickr.
2. Images that I am happy with and which I post to Flickr.
3. Images that I am very happy with and sell art prints of. These go to ImageKind and Flickr.
4. Images I am delighted with. These go on my main web site and my portfolio and are also available on ImageKind.
About 50% of the images Getty expressed an interest in are from group 2 – good enough for Flickr but not something I would consider adding to my gallery or ImageKind. For these images, Getty gives me an opportunity to offer them for sale and potentially make something from them (though, obviously, I have absolutely no idea at this point what kind of sales are likely). Regardless, the potential is pure upside for me – I don’t have these pictures anywhere else for sale so they are not making me anything just now.
Knowing that these images are potentially sellable, I could spend time researching other agencies and approach them but, a I mentioned, my time is extremely limited (full time job, young family). As a result, I’ve decided to take Getty up on the invitation and have submitted the first batch of (group 2) images for review.
That said, I have yet to submit any of my group 3 or 4 images. I think I’ll wait to see what happens with the first few before submitting the “crown jewels”.
Hi Jim,
Good post. I would have joined Getty a few years ago, but could never get past the image exclusive clause, especially with it limiting my ability to market my own images – I just can’t give up the control.
Those percentages are really low – I believe regular RM contributors receive 40%, but maybe that has changed. Even 40% is low. Sure they can really sell, but as they add images to their collection, it is bound to dilute individual images sales.
Ron
@Dave I appreciate your comment. I think no one can argue with the argument of testing the water, but don’t underestimate the value of your work. While it may take a little extra effort to evaluate other options the value i doing so is exponential. Best of luck with your efforts and keep me posted on how it works out.
–
@Ron I had interest in Getty several years ago as well. The lack of ability to market oneself is a huge problem. I just cannot fathom handing over that level of control. As to the royalties paid I think its fair to say that the rate is extremely low and you’re dead on about the dilution of individual images. It’s not as though Getty is putting a ceiling on the number of images of a particular subject in their collection. Thanks for adding to the conversation!
Pingback: Flickr Collection on Getty: Why I’m Not Taking Part | JMG-Galleries : Chuqui 3.0
I received an invite yesterday as well and kind of doubt I will be taking part. I don’t like that they chose specific images, but will not allow me to submit others. Most of the images they chose are ones I do not have releases for, and probably half of those I cannot get releases for. So rather than trying to build relationships with photographers whose work regularly meets their standards, they are just grabbing what they can get willy nilly.
Pingback: Poll: Flickr/Getty Images - Would you accept the invitation? | PhotoNetCast
I’d consider it for certain images but much of my marketable work is already tied up. Plus, I wouldn’t want my name associated with Flickr.
Great analysis of the pros and cons here, Jim.
Pingback: Photography Links - January 23, 2009 « Photo Notes: Photography by Patty Hankins and Bill Lawrence
Thanks for this post. You made all really clear. I wasn’t sure yet, more hanging towards no participation and now I am sure, I will not participate.
“it would seem to me Getty’s greatest means of income will be going after infringers taking advantage of Flickr’s lackadaisical security”
Take a peek at this site: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/
Try to look past the alarmist tone of the domain name, it actually has some interesting info on it regarding Getty and their legal wranglings with infringement. They seem to be very aggressive with their infringement team.
The whole thing with Getty just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Good, thoughtful post by the way!
Pingback: Saturday Links Fever [2009-01-24] | All Day I Dream About Photography
Great post Jim, at first when they announced this I saw a great opportunity to perhaps sell some of my photography, but now I’m not sure about that, since other microstock could be better deal.
Anyway probably I would take the self marketing road.
@Lane As we’ve discussed I agree. In the programs current form it does seem like a poorly veiled attempt to grab images versus develop relationships with productive photographers.
–
@Richard I’m in the same boat. I’d test the water with select images, but thats not how they’re operating. They’re picking images as one-off’s with out the ability of photographers to submit other work for consideration. As a result the model just doesn’t fit my needs.
–
@Rebecca Thanks. I hope the information helps.
–
@*eSThER* & @Alvaro I hope the information is of use. Do your research and make the best decision for you.
–
@Ryan It’s tough not to think that is what they’ll be doing, but they didn’t go into business to sue people. They went into business to license photography. That being said with out a doubt I’m sure they’ll be pursuing infringement quite aggressively!.
getty chose 130 of mine in mid january. i passed for all the reasons mentioned above.
as a side note:
for pricing my own stock, i send my clients to getty to use their their pricing system which lets customers make their own license. i just create the license they want for the price getty gave them for a similar (not) image and license. — haha — i don’t have to split with them. i get the best of both worlds.
getty is trying to lock down content and eliminate competition, not expand your income.
Pingback: PhotoNetCast #21 - The Flickr/Getty Partnership | PhotoNetCast - Photography podcast
good post ! thanks !
Thanks Jim,
A great post. It is really good to bring all this up.
The nature of selling photography is changing very fast, so it can be hard to know what to do. At least we can go out and shoot more photos if a few old ones are “locked up”.
– Alan
Pingback: PhotoNetCast Podcast #21: | JMG-Galleries - Jim M. Goldstein Photography: travel, landscape, and nature pictures - stock photos and fine art prints
Pingback: More on the Flickr Collection on Getty in the Latest PhotoNetCast Podcast | JMG-Galleries - Jim M. Goldstein Photography: travel, landscape, and nature pictures - stock photos and fine art prints
only thing i can say is that i’m thankful i’m not a full-time photographer. I welcome nearly any and all avenues of exploiting my work, as long as they’re not ridiculously ridiculous.
This getty deal is not. it’s not great, that’s for sure. and i thank you for sharing your thoughts to help clear some things up.
for many of you with an established base (think merkley), alternatives are easier–you have clients you can serve, and even without the possible volume of Getty will still do nicely (this is reminding me a bit of the music industry and indie vs. major label artists). for those who aren’t constantly on the hustle concerning their images (because it’s only a facet of what they do for a living), this has an opportunity to get some extra income.
I don’t suppose any of your commenters who took part are in a position to post a follow-up as to their experiences with Getty…
Great post. You’ve made some very good points, and I agree that everyone should read all the fine print and decide for themselves. I’ve been on the fence, but I will likely go ahead and submit some of the images they have selected. I’ve only been marketing my photography professionally for a year or two, and a lot of the photography I get paid for is client driven and doesn’t even get posted to flickr. In the few instances someone has found an image on my flickr stream they chose to license, I’ve generally made it friends and family or taken it off depending on the use. I think there is a real benefit to the international exposure Getty offers, at least initially, and if I’m not satisfied at the end of the two year contract I can pull the images.
Great analysis.
Getty’s buying up everything. One thing to remember photographers… they ‘Getty’ are in it to make money for themselves. They really don’t care much about the photographer, their rights and what WE go through to create the image that they make lots of $$ from.
The ‘Exclusivity’ clause should make all photographers leary.
PHOTOGRAPHERS! YOU SHOULD ALWAYS READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND FINE PRINT. I just helped my intern in an issue where they were going to pay her $21 for shooting 5 different shots and it was to be under a ‘work for hire’ agreement YET! they put at the top of the contract “Independent Contractor Agreement”. Heck, what they were asking for and how they were wording the contract in Calif. meant they met 5 of the 12 criteria to be an Employee. She was being hosed.
This Getty thing hoses all photographers in the long-run. Also note that Getty’s been going to all their customers and strong-arming them to contract for ALL assignment work to be done through them and by doing so they’re ‘discounting’ all stock purchases 30%. Who does that hurt ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS; those that use to do the assignments for those magazines and the net income to of the contracted stock shooters. They’re loosing 30% of their income. BUT, Getty’s making money for nothing and gaining the additional income from the assignment work too. They are the only one’s really profiting.
But if any photographer is ok with getting $.50 for something they can really sell and make $20 for then sign-up for Getty.
If you really want to make some $$ for your photography and retain your rights join iStock or some of the other online stock sites.
-jeff
Great article Jim. I also listened to the full podcast show which was fascinating. I came across this post as I was just in the process of applying to Getty myself (not through Flickr — just the “usual” way) and when I saw the terms, I had to google them to see if what I was reading was right. You’ve definitely confirmed what I thought, especially with regard to the exclusivity, which is of course the biggest challenge to moving forward. (FYI, the application process becomes more difficult as well, because if I understand correctly, the on-line portfolio you provide as a demo of your work most also include only exclusive images that have never been licensed before.)
Regarding one of the challenges facing photographers using the Getty / Flickr relationship (the issue that Flickr photographers cannot proactively submit their other work to Getty — only images selected by Getty can be included), would another option be for those photographers to decline the Flickr agreement and then just apply straight through Getty? Provided there are enough images for the photographer to provide, I would think that they would pass the application process seeing as Getty has already showed interest in the photographer’s work. Also, regarding the “submission fee” that was mentioned on the podcast, I think I can help clarify: The $50 submission fee per image only applies to images that are specific to one collection designed for that — there are no submission fees for any of the standard collections. From what I heard, Getty introduced the fee-based collection to allow photographers to submit images that were rejected by the other collections because they did not meet the “creative vision” of that collection — of course the technical components of the image still need to meet Getty’s standards. So ultimately, it allows photographers who have some more “out there” images to leverage Getty to sell those as well, provided they think the sales will outweigh the $50 cost. FYI, I’m not saying I would do it, just sharing some information.
Thanks again for such an informative article and for introducing me to those podcasts. I’m going to listen to some of the others as well!
Best regards,
Paul
Pingback: FLICKR and then? « www.kevo.biz
Really interesting article, I’ve had some of my images invited so I’ve been interested to know a little more about the Getty Flickr pros and cons. 🙂
I realize the attention span of the internet is 1 week, but on Flickr, Jim, I note your images are now available to license through Getty. I’m assuming something made you change your mind. What was it.
Thanks,
Ryan
There’s also another side to this story .. what about those people, like bloggers, who might have downloaded and correctly attributed one of your non-rights-reserved photos? Now Getty gets the exclusive rights! Believe me when I say that they will send bots out on the net to find those images and extort money from people who had no intention of infringing. They make peoples’ lives miserable.