Getty/Flickr deal

So, who has sold some of their images to Getty?

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_299348.html

Did I read it correctly, that the photographer gets only 30% (or even 20%) of the fee Getty arranges with the final buyer?

If so, isn't that rather low?

Remco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revi

Did I read it correctly, that the photographer gets only 30% (or even 20%) of the fee Getty arranges with the final buyer?

If so, isn't that rather low?

---

"Unfortunately", they exist for their benefit, not ours :(

Another reason to get the h*!" off Flickr and join those guys on pbase, smugsmug, Clickpic etc, etc. Must get on with it.

It's a resource. Billions of shots on Flickr, most of which are awful shots of cats, drunken students, and dare I say it... sheep. But if there are some good shots that can be used for commercial or journalistic purposes, and they can get them cheapish, then I'm sure they will do so. Times are hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

and dare I say it... sheep.

---

... and tractors!

That rate seems upside down, to me. Even the Art Center here takes (only) 30% for their cut. Most places take 15% to 20%.

Pops

There has to be more to the deal than just a straight out 70% cut for Getty Images. Assuming the majority of photos on Flickr are of people with their faces displaced prominently and also a multitude of photos of commercial property, Getty Images must be assuming the liability for obtaining releases. If they are not (Getty that is) then any photo used without the permission of the person photographed could result in a lawsuit if used for commercial gain by Getty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

There has to be more to the deal than just a straight out 70% cut for Getty Images. Assuming the majority of photos on Flickr are of people with their faces displaced prominently and also a multitude of photos of commercial property, Getty Images must be assuming the liability for obtaining releases. If they are not (Getty that is) then any photo used without the permission of the person photographed could result in a lawsuit if used for commercial gain by Getty.

---

I suspect that they wouldn't accept an image unless the photographer produces or certifies that he has a release (if needed). I also suspect that the remaining 70% goes to overheads like equipment / bandwidth / developers / managers / Lear Jets etc

I've never uploaded any photos to Flickr, do you or any of the other members know if it is a requirement to at least certify that all releases are in order before the image can be uploaded? I have seen these notifications in some photography contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I suspect that they wouldn't accept an image unless the photographer produces or certifies that he has a release (if needed). I also suspect that the remaining 70% goes to overheads like equipment / bandwidth / developers / managers / Lear Jets etc

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I've never uploaded any photos to Flickr, do you or any of the other members know if it is a requirement to at least certify that all releases are in order before the image can be uploaded? I have seen these notifications in some photography contest.

---

here are the details on Flickr http://blog.flickr.net/en/2010/06/17...mages-is-here/

Well this rules out that Getty Images will use part of their 70% to obtain model releases for the photographer.

From the Getty Images FAQ page.
I heard you need model releases? What does that mean?

A model release is a legal document signed by the person(s) depicted in a photo, granting permission for his or her image to be used for commercial purposes.

Getty Images editors will let you know when you need to provide releases. You can review examples and download a Getty Images Model Release, and a Getty Images Property Release form here.


Permalink | Top

What if I can’t get a model release?

If there are recognizable people in your work, you will need their explicit permission to license the image for commercial or promotional purposes. Sometimes you will need a property release too, if a building or other private property in your photo requires permission from the property owner.

If an image is designated for Editorial use, in certain cases you may not need a release. Again, Getty Images editors will let you know when you need to provide releases. Photos for which you can’t supply the necessary releases for are unsuitable for this program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

here are the details on Flickr http://blog.flickr.net/en/2010/06/17...mages-is-here/

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I've never uploaded any photos to Flickr, do you or any of the other members know if it is a requirement to at least certify that all releases are in order before the image can be uploaded? I have seen these notifications in some photography contest.

---

If you are talking about simply having a Flickr account to show your photos, then no, you don't need releases. If you did, then virtually every Flickr member would be liable for prosecution, I'd think.

Kit,

Perhaps I should have been more specific, I was referring to images that Getty Images could market, not all images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klickit

If you are talking about simply having a Flickr account to show your photos, then no, you don't need releases. If you did, then virtually every Flickr member would be liable for prosecution, I'd think.

---

Did anyone know that you cannot use an image of the Eiffel tower at night unless you receive permission?

The tower and its representations have long been in the public domain; however, a French court ruled, in March 1992, that the night-time light display is protected under copyright, except in a panoramic view. SNTE (Société nouvelle d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel) installed a special lighting display on the tower in 1989, for the tower's 100th anniversary. The Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, decided that the display was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright.[48] Since then, the SNTE considers any night-time image of the lighting display under copyright. As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries.[49][50]

A question from someone who has never sold a photo. If, say, Getty Images licenses a photo, is the photo still yours to sell via SmugMug etc, or has the photographer relinquished the right to the photo?

Myra

Check out the following link.

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/...greements.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritimer1

A question from someone who has never sold a photo. If, say, Getty Images licenses a photo, is the photo still yours to sell via SmugMug etc, or has the photographer relinquished the right to the photo?

Myra

---

That site is quite the onion, Shadowman. So many layers!

Thanks!
Myra

Myra,

I first became aware of Dan Heller when I read his book and he included his website in the text asking readers to contact him if they had any further questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritimer1

That site is quite the onion, Shadowman. So many layers!

Thanks!
Myra

---