Flickr extends deal with Getty Images (update)
Upon clicking on a "Request to license" link, image buyers can automatically get a license for use, if approved by the owner and Flickr member.
Flickr members now have more chances of seeing their images end up in Getty Images' collections after the two firms announced an extension of their two-year-old deal. However, the deal could have severe repercussions on the professional market
Author: Olivier Laurent
18 Jun 2010 Tags: CopyrightFlickrGetty images
Two years after first announcing its deal with the social photo sharing site Flickr, Getty Images has now announced that it is now allowing any member to submit their images for potential use within Getty's collections.
When the deal was first announced, in 2008, Getty said that it would only welcome to its Flickr Collection, images it deemed suitable. For months, Getty editors trawled the site looking for the best stock images, contacting their owners with an offer to see their images sold by Getty. In two years, it has added more than 100,000 images to its collection
Now, any Flickr members can choose to include a "Request to License" link next to any of their images. If visitors like a Flickr member's images and want to buy them, by clicking the link they will be put in touch with a Getty representative, who will negotiate a license.
Flickr members have to opt-in to benefit from the scheme.
"When a prospective licensee sees an image marked for license, they can click on the link and be put in touch with a representative from Getty Images who will help handle details like permissions, releases and pricing," says Flickr. "Once reviewed, the Getty Images editors will send you a FlickrMail to request to license your work, either for commercial or editorial usage. The decision to license is always yours."
Images can be sold in a variety of sizes at price points ranging from $5 to $400. However, it remains unclear how much Flickr photographers receive for each sale. Last year, when asked by BJP, Getty declined to provide a breakdown of commission charged. However, according to Flickr members who spoke to BJP and were selected for the collection, photographers receive 30% of each rights-managed sale and 20% for royalty-free stills. Andy Saunders, vice-president of creative imagery at Getty, confirmed the numbers to BJP later on.
Already, a debate is raging on Flickr about the impact this will have both on the site's community, but also for photographers. Currently, users only have the option to add the "Request to license" link to all of their images. They can't opt out some of their images. Flickr says that these users can decline any license when contacted by a Getty editor.
It also remains unclear whether a successful sale automatically adds the image to Getty's Flickr Collection.
This new deal could also have severe repercussions on professional photographers, who has seen increasing competition from amateur photographers.
John Toner, freelance organiser at the National Union of Journalists, warns amateur photographers of the dangers such deals could have on the value of their images: "We would be seriously concerned that this could be an attempt to exploit amateur photographers. Amateurs are not necessarily au fait with the value of their images, and could be persuaded to license them to Getty for low rates, thereby undermining the rates that professionals work so hard to achieve."
He adds: "We would advise amateurs to become informed of what their images are potentially worth before they discuss a licence with Getty."
But, Allen Murabayashi, CEO and founder of PhotoShelter, a provider of online websites and portfolios for photographers, says the move could benefit amateur photographers without impacting the professional market."[Gett's 80% of revenues] is obviously not great for the photographer, but if I'm an amateur, and all of a sudden I get a check for $50, I'm not going to complain," he says. "I think the fact of the matter is that it takes real man power to comb through the images (even if they are using the interestingness algorithm or some variant to cull the 'best' images) and then do the back-and-forth to get clearances and high quality files. I don't think professional photographers are in denial about the fact that there are a lot of talented amateurs out there and that the economies of photography have changed for good. No one is going to get rich off of this deal, but it's a great way to reward the community."
He adds: "It's a continued democratization of photography, which could be bad news for pros, but in truth, these images aren't being sold as microstock, so it's not contributing to price deflation. It's merely introducing different types of images into their collection, and I think that's good for image buyers."
BJP has contacted Getty Images, asking the multimedia and digital agency to clarify some parts of this new deal. Here is our Q&A.
BJP: If an image is successfully licensed, will that picture automatically be included in Getty’s Flickr Collection for further sales?
Getty: After the image has been approved, it may become eligible to be part of the Flickr Collection on Getty Images. There is no obligation to become part of the Flickr Collection on Getty Images, though it is a wonderful opportunity to participate in the world of stock photography. Nothing happens automatically over on Getty Images just because you have a Flickr account. The editing team at Getty Images is actively looking for suitable public imagery here on flickr.com, and when they find suitable work, they’ll contact the photographer to see if he or she is interested to join in the fun. Likewise, there is no obligation to license your photos when a user makes a request through Getty Images. If you’re not interested, you can just ignore the invitation, and/or opt out of the programme altogether.
BJP: Why does the “Request to license” link directly send a potential buyer to the Getty site instead of letting the buyer choose between contacting the photographer directly and the Getty site?
Getty: Flickr community guidelines do not allow for commercial transactions on the site. However, image buyers can always work directly with the Flickr members and vice versa, if they choose to do so. Flickr partnered with Getty images because of Getty Images’ experience in licensing imagery. The Request to License service was designed to simplify the process for both the buyer and seller. Plus, once an image has been approved through the process, it may become eligible to be part of the Flickr Collection on Getty Images to get even more exposure.
BJP: Why can’t photographers choose to license only some of their images instead of the entire collection?
Getty: Photographer’s can choose to license what they like. Even though 'Request to license' highlights the entire collection, Getty Images may only choose to license a couple of these images. Again, it is up to the Flickr contributor to decide whether to proceed with some or all of the images we’re interested in.
BJP: This deal is an extension of the previous deal between Flickr and Getty. Does that mean that it has additional financial aspects?
Getty: As a privately owned company, we are unable to disclose this information.
BJP: What percentage of a sale will the photographers receive?
Getty: This depends on whether they are Rights-managed (RM) or Royalty-free (RF).
RM images are licensed with restriction on usage such as limitations on size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution. Price of the license may take size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution into account. Flickr contributors will receive 30% of the fee and the average price for RM is ~$500.
RF images are licensed at set prices based upon the file-size the customer purchases. Flickr contributors will receive 20% of the fee and the average price for RF is ~$200.
BJP: What was the thinking behind this deal? Is Getty trying to drastically increase the size of its Flickr collection or alter the way the collection was build (i.e. this could prevent Getty’s editors from having to trawl the Flickrverse for pictures)?
Getty: Flickr partnered with Getty images because of Getty Images’ experience in licensing imagery. The Request to License service was designed to simplify the process for both the buyer and seller. The Request to License feature benefits both photographers and customers. Through the program, Flickr members now have another potential entry into the world of stock photography while image buyers now have a process to legally license and use the fresh imagery created by Flickr’s diverse and prolific community.
Related Articles
BJP Daily
Most Popular Articles
Updating your subscription status 
About us
BJP is the world’s longest running photography magazine, established in 1854, and online since 1997. A high-quality monthly printed edition is available as a subscription or from selected newsagents in the UK and around the world. Take a preview of the September issue.
Jobs
Curriculum Manager, Blackpool & Fylde College
exciting opportunity to join one of the top colleges in the country
Cruise Ship Photo & Video Careers!
looking for energetic, engaging, and service-oriented individuals to join our on board Photography department
Wedding Photographers, Shoot The Day Weddings
looking for experienced reportage wedding photographers who have their own pro digital kit.
Popular Topics
Comments
GEE.. THANKS GETTY AND FLICKR. now i can throw the $50000 worth of camera gear i bought into the toilet
this has clrealy taken it too far.
for the past 4 years i have been fighting my rear end off. just to secure decent jobs in photography
and now thanks to getty and flickr's actions my job is truly ruined now.
Posted by: annonymous on 18 Jun 2010 at 13:47
Why?
Why couldn't the person requesting the licence just get in touch with the photographer and allow them to negotiate their own fee for use? Are photographers really so stupid as to give Getty the control of their images?
Cue loads of insane comments of pleasure and gratitude from the lemming amateur contributors.
Posted by: Tim on 18 Jun 2010 at 14:07
Raise the bar
It may be a worrying time for professional photographers, but that is the way photography is going I'm afraid.
If your pictures aren't good enough to sell, then maybe you're in the wrong job. You'll just have to up your game and prove your value along with the rest of us.
If you truely can't take better photographs than amateurs on Flickr (not to say there aren't some fantastic artists on Flickr) then you'll just have to get better at what you do.
I do think that many people on Flickr won't really understand the value of their photos though and perhaps be convinced to sell at way under their actual value. That is the worrying trend here.
As long as the photographers are fairly compensated for their work, I think this is quite a good idea.
Posted by: Smudgechris on 18 Jun 2010 at 14:08
To add
I don't think the photos are automatically sold through Getty, the photographer has to agree to the sale. Getty is merely the vehicle to do that.
So if someone likes a photos, they click to license it, then Getty get in touch with the photographer and they can say yes or no.
But I agree, if the photograph wasn't good enough to be licensed before the image was put on Getty why would it suddenly be good enough?
I figure the photos on Getty will get more views as they'll be in the Getty library.
Posted by: Smudgechris on 18 Jun 2010 at 14:11
wow bye bye job
it doesn't matter how much experience you have. or how good your photographs are.
getty DOES NOT CARE.
if you show signs of knowledge regarding copyright. etc they will ignore you immediately.
if you have a decent photograph and no clue on image rights. they will immediately ask you.
also. i know many photographers whom have well over 20 years experience and they too are still being undercut by actions like this.
i've been shooting for several years and after 2008 my yearly income has dramatically increased thanks to several key factors.
one of them being DSLR's decreasing in price and requiring less skill to us
this must stop
take photos for all i care.
just leave selling images to professionals and advanced amateurs
Posted by: annony on 18 Jun 2010 at 14:27
raising the bar won't make a difference
raising the standard will not make any difference to this.
the bar is already at the highest it can be yet companies like getty are taking advantage of the clueless amateurs and encouraging them to sell sell sell..
regardless of how high the standard is.
getty does not care for quality in a sense as certain companies would.
they care more about profit and cheap images.
hence the requested photographer recieves only 20-30% of the selling price.
professionals signed to agencies already have troubles since their agents take roughly 55% of their income. which is NOT MORAL.
thanks to this action professional photographers will all go bankrupt
Posted by: annonymous on 18 Jun 2010 at 14:33
Pro vs Am is not the issue here
The issue here is not a pro vs amateur one. There are many great amateur photographers out there quite happy with there current jobs.
The issue is firstly, amateurs are unlikely to know the true value of their work.
Secondly, Getty generously give you a whole 30% of the fee.... Sorry, but I thought it was MY image, so shouldn't that be the other way around?
Finally, why use Getty? Mny photo buyers trawl Flickr anyway, so why not add a pricing module such as the Photoshelter system and let Flickr become a great big marketplace, dealing direct?
Posted by: Neill Watson on 18 Jun 2010 at 15:10
Ripoff
I've had people approach me via flickr and my own websites asking for the rights to use images beyond the scope of the Creative Commons license I apply.
Let's not forget the current terms of using Getty via flickr involve giving them *exclusive* rights to sell a given image. As in, thou shalt not also present an image for sale on RedBubble or any other stock site.
All for 20-30% of an "average" $500 (a meaningless statistic: show me the price distribution and chance that any one image of mine will be bought). I value my photographs more highly than that, even if it's just me that views them!
Posted by: Tim on 18 Jun 2010 at 16:03
Why is Getty doing this?
One has to wonder why Getty is doing this. Are they that worried about the strength of their core business that they are scrabbling for any crumbs that they can find? Or is it that they realise publishers are already trawling the networking and file sharing sites already (recent reports about the Mail would seem to confirm this) and they simply want to control the action?
Either way the one thing we are all sure of is that Getty are not philanthropists and are only doing this because they perceive there is profit to be had (for Getty that is).
Many professional editorial (and other) photographers already use Flickr as part of their marketing strategy - indeed I do so myself, but I am not sure that I would want to include Getty in my way of working. The prices talked about $5 -$400 are hardly inspiring, and combined with the Getty supplier percentage of 20%-30% (compared say to Alamy's 60%), frankly doesn't make me want to leap up and get involved.
If a client say a publisher wants to use your image (from Flickr) they will contact you anyway and you can negotiate a good deal - I do so regularly. As soon as Getty get involved, and as they don't seem to be marketing this, just inserting themselves into the process, the price negotiated goes down and the photographers gets a tiny proportion of the sale. Doesn't seem like a great deal to me.
Why would anyone want that?
As it has been laid out this is Getty getting something for nothing, inserting themselves into places they are not needed, and to the advantage of no one other than, well, Getty.
Those not aware of the market might get some kind of kick out of donating money to the Getty machine, but I honestly can't see this being a long term problem, that is unless there is something else to this scheme that we haven't been told.
www.petejenkinsphotothoughts.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Pete Jenkins on 18 Jun 2010 at 16:57
Unfair contracts
I denied several years ago the Getty contract when they bought the agency I had a conrtact with. They offered a 25% share and that is an unfair contract to my eyes. Why now 30% to Flickr members? I think they run out of photographs. No professional will deliver at that rate. Getty was and still is doing an unfair business and people should know that.
Posted by: anonymous on 18 Jun 2010 at 17:24
Have fun with the deluge of infringment ligitation.
Nobody's job is in jeopardy.
It will prove an insurmountable obstacle to verify the copyrights and authenticity of images. And many future lawsuits await.
Any goober can trawl Flickr for images and put them up on their page as their own. With 4 billion+ images, vetting them is more hassle and grief than using established photographers and stock agencies.
Posted by: Tallenger on 18 Jun 2010 at 22:30
Photographers deserve better
Just because it's the industry rate, doesn't mean it's right. I think all skilled photographers, amateur or professional, deserve better than 20-30% of an already pitiful price. I'm a bit concerned about Getty's motives, and will not be adding my Flickr photos to this program anytime soon.
Posted by: Jess on 19 Jun 2010 at 02:56
P.S. - Kudos to BJP
By the way, I'd like to express my thanks to BJP for excellent coverage on this topic. I'm a fan, and wish the print subscriptions were available in the U.S. (At last check, they weren't.)
Posted by: Jess on 19 Jun 2010 at 03:00
Getty Monopoly
Getty seem to be trying to create a monopoly (Rex, Wireimage etc. all now owned by them). They have lowered the market value of all pictures and the sooner The Monopolies Commission starts to investigate them and their undercutting practises the better.
Posted by: Anon on 21 Jun 2010 at 09:57
I Don't think so!
"Flickr contributors will receive 30% of the fee and the average price for RM is ~$500.
RF images are licensed at set prices based upon the file-size the customer purchases. Flickr contributors will receive 20% of the fee and the average price for RF is ~$200. "
Don't believe the hype...I have been a contributor for many years with a significant number of images and the gross license fees they suggest have not been achieved for a few years.
Posted by: berty on 22 Jun 2010 at 07:50
My take
I am a member of various stock libraries (Alamy, Gekko, FotoLibra, Agefotostock et al) and joined Flickr two years ago as it came up in my StatCounter of images found on Google). At the end of last year, I joined Getty via Flickr (with great reservations regarding exclusivity, no choice of RM or RF and their appallingly high commission) but within a month, they sold an image (RM) for US$770 and they sold the same image for $165 two months later. While I have allowed Request to Licence, I still have great reservations. As Getty is really acting as a conduit between the client and the photographer, how can it justify charging the 70 or 80% commission? Probably the one advantage is that the photographer does get the choice of selling the image and may have some leverage to sell the image as RM (I dislike RF) whether Getty likes it or not. The Flickr/Getty forum is generally irritated as to why Flickr will not allow "commercialisation" of the site (ie adding a second link to negotiate directly with the photographer) but is in bed with Getty regarding licensing images. Its like being a little bit pregnant! Getty must have paid a lot of dough to Yahoo!
Posted by: Sheila Smart Photography on 23 Jun 2010 at 06:57