PhotoShelter announced last week that it had decided to pull the plug on its stock photography business - the PhotoShelter Collection - blaming it on the supremacy of a few companies such as Getty Images.

'Stock photography is a slow growing market dominated by a single player,' the founders said. 'There was a single moment for a company to capitalize in stock photography, and Getty took it. The use of stock imagery isn't growing fast enough to create a displacement opportunity, and Getty is far too aggressive (and smart) to allow secondary players to displace them in any fashion'.

In the same heartbeat, Corbis announced it would slash 175 jobs worldwide. And last month, Jupiter announced a net loss of $3.286 million. The series of bad news from stock photography companies seems to draw the same conclusion online: Getty has won the war.

Ever since its launch in 1995, Getty has been seen as the big bad wolf, eating up smaller competitors while driving prices, and consequently the photographers' revenues, down. Getty reminded the market of its leading position when it acquired, in 2006, the micro-stock image company iStockphoto.

Speaking to BJP in March, Getty's CEO Jonathan Klein said that Getty is always looking for new business models. 'We want to bring new customers to the market or we want our customers to buy more of our products. But, you need to have the right picture or have a lot of traffic to make it work. It is difficult for new entrants to have both.'

And photos don't seem to be enough for Getty. it has also moved into the video and audio stock business. However, this diversification is also proof that being a stock photography player is now not enough. In its 2008 estimated revenue report, Getty said that the creative stills division was expected to bring in 51% of Getty's revenues. By 2012, that number will fall to 29%, according to the report.

So has Getty won? Or is the latest round of criticism normal for a company that has achieved the status of leader? As Jean-Francois Leroy told BJP during the Visa Pour l'Image photojournalism festival, 'Getty is a great marketer by showing that they can make money, but they still do have a pretty damn good editorial division'.

Thoughts?