In Defense Of Getty

Posted on 4/11/2019 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (3)

More and more photographers are expressing frustration with Getty Images and saying they are pulling their images. Many are looking for another distributor that will charge higher prices and offer a better royalty share. I hate to defend Getty, but to be fair today’s low prices are not all their fault. If we go back to the early 2000s Getty tried to keep prices at reasonable levels, but once iStock and Shutterstock came on the scene, and got some traction, there was no way for Getty to hold out forever.

Get the Full Article (2 Credits)

Have an Account?

Access to this site is an exclusive benefit for you. Enter your username and password in the form above. If you don't remember your password you can reset it at any time.

Keep me logged in

Forgot your password?

New to Selling Stock?

Selling Stock is an on-line newsletter that reports on developing trends in the stock photo industry. It is updated at least twice a month. On-line subscribers receive e-mail notification whenever new stories are posted. Archives containing stories going back to late 1995 are fully available to subscribers.

Buy Credits

Copyright © 2019 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-461-7627, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.

Comments

Thomas Wear Posted Apr 13, 2019
Thanks for this Jim -- it's the unvarnished truth. Getty, and the other established agencies, never would have lowered their prices if they weren't pushed into it -- why should they? But as you explained, technology and the law of supply and demand were outside their control. Nobody is going to turn back the clock in any significant way.
Video may command higher prices than stills for a while, since the barriers to entry are still higher, but the learning curve and costs may be prohibitive for many still shooters to make the transition.
In retrospect, I think the golden age of stock is turning out to be an aberration. For most of the history of photography some form of assignment shooting paid the bills for professional photographers, and I think we're simply seeing a return to that.
It's funny in a way, because you and I (and probably a lot of readers of your newsletter) have been in the business long enough to remember when stock was the villain, hated by assignment photographers for taking their jobs. Full circle!

Grant Faint Posted Apr 14, 2019
hello from morocco where i am shooting fresh stock images for OFFSET and GETTY. I started 1985 with The Image Bank, I was signed photographer #564... now you say Shutterstock has 650K contributors . Jim I agree with your piece completely. As they say dont be sad it's over be happy you had a good run. However raising prices across the board by the major outlets wouldnt make the cost of a photo out of reach for users and it nwould add to everyone's bottom line. OK I am a dreamer ha best to all trying to make it work grant faint

Sabine Pallaske Posted Apr 15, 2019
hi all... I agree with you. But we need to consider another change: Artbuying is no longer the task of creation or marketing, but that of "central purchasing". This is where photos, films, graphics are purchased as such as consumables like pencils or toilet paper : as a low cost as possible with a comparable appearance. The real "image quality" of a photograph, video or grafik is no longer important, the main thing is to show the "triggers" (matching the article, the ad, the blog etc.).

Post Comment