The Worth of a Web Image

In an interesting turn of events, Getty, one of the 8000-lb gorillas of the image licensing world, has recently announced the availability of pretty much all their material for website use under a license that costs $US 49.00 for 1-10 years, worldwide.

For details go straight to the horse's mouth

(you may need to wait a while for the horse to cycle through )

Naturally, this has caused quite some wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst professional stock photographers. Although given the availability of RF images by the million from microstock agencies, one has to wonder just how much this will further impact the pro stock market.

An interesting observation, though, made in the blog post linked above, is that this essentially defines the cost of a web-usage licence for the entire industry. Given that Getty provides (on a dollars spent metric) about 1/3 of the stock imagery licensed world wide each year, this move is going to have significant repercussions on other sectors of the industry.

So, throwing the floor open to all... what do you think of a $US49.00 web license fee?

An Image is the ultimate piece of information. Information and access to it is how we all become educated of events in the world and hence are able to make opinions of such events or take action to change things.

In order to change the world we must first let the world change us.

The world cannot change us until we get to see it. This is a good thing and is where the internet has been and should be heading towards. The internet was created for giving access to information, and it has now become worldwide. Well done Getty.

Also take into account that Getty pays their photographers very well and they pay pretty good for images they buy from people. These images are web res .. stock photographers who are worried about this obviously need to up their game and compete !

(when i click the Getty link it tells me £39 which is more like $80 so there is a big difference if you live in the UK apparently !)

Yes, I linked to the UK page, but here is the USA equivalent.

It seems that the poor people living in a third world country with an economy rocketing towards recession are unable to afford the full price as charged to those in old Blighty

Edit: this represents 1/2 of the price I got for a royalty free, 478x719 pixel web resolution image sale via Alamy. I return $51 via Alamy for a sale of that size. Getty pays ~50% of gross to the photographer, so now a photographer would be returning $24.50 for the same size sale. So I'm not all that in favour myself.

Here is ASMP's take on it...

Dear ASMP member,

Last week, Getty Images announced a new “web use†license that will be priced at $49. It appears that nearly all of Getty’s images will be offered this way, including all but one of the Rights Managed and Rights Ready collections. This is a drastic price cut, with implications for image licensing of all kinds, and it is a matter of grave concern for ASMP.

In addressing this issue, it is important that concerned photographers, and their organizations, make their voices heard. The Stock Artists Alliance is the organization that focuses specifically on issues relating to stock imagery, so it is taking the lead. The ASMP Executive Board has approved adding ASMP as a signatory on the open letter that SAA has drafted, and we will be working with SAA, and through all possible channels, to gain a better outcome.

Besides ASMP and SAA, the letter has been signed by the Association of Photographers (AOP), Advertising Photographers of America (APA), Editorial Photographers (EP) and Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communication (CAPIC). Collectively, these groups represent some 12,000 professional photographers, including a significant number of Getty’s contributors.

It’s pretty clear that Getty Images is within its legal rights to price images in accordance with its understanding of the current market. However, Getty is the market leader, and its decisions affect the entire industry. We believe that this latest pricing strategy will unnecessarily depress the market for all image licenses, including uses outside of the web space. We are therefore urging Getty to exempt all of its Rights Managed and Rights Ready collections from the web use license.

What you can do

If you license images as stock, Getty’s actions will affect you. Express your concerns to your stock distributors and representatives. Talk to your industry colleagues.

If you are a Getty contributor or prospective contributor, you may wish to raise the issue with Getty Images executives. The key people are:

Jonathan Klein, Getty Images CEO — jonathan.klein@gettyimages.com

Paul Banwell, Getty Images Artists Relations — paul.banwell@gettyimages.com

For more information

The ASMP web site has a more detailed examination of the new Getty pricing system in the Special Announcements section, at http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2007/Getty49.php. It includes links to additional resources, including Getty’s own statements and the opinions of well respected financial analysts who cover this industry.

Amigos,

While this makes me sad as one more rights grabbing, financial death grip on content creators (including writers, musicians, artists of all types) I can't say it isn't expected.

One of the best written dialogues on UW images and the web visibility was written by Walter Starck a couple years ago. I think it was on the UW Photo Digest when digital was really coming of age. He had an extremely well thought out calcualtion of how many images the world would be flooded with easier (and likely better!) in a very, very short time. And thus the devaluation of the worth of images would follow......

I applaud the photo organizations and their collective efforts Bonnie has listed, but wonder if it will really move the 800 lb. gorilla......When it sits, it sits. When it decides to move, not much is going to stop it from doing what it wants, and going anywhere it damn well pleases

As I've looked over UW images, MINE....Colleagues...Friends and UW gear customer's get better and better with digital technology I have questioned my own photographic direction. Dabbled in numerous ideas and tried different things never before possible. So it has made me stretch a bit....To get away from the "same old, same old"....

But Getty (and the stock industry) is all about us trying to actually get PAID for creativity and vision. So who knows how this will play out.

I don't think GOOD Not for photographers. But then it's already been a very few who are actually making a living from UW photography for quite a while now anyway.....

My best friend told me we should just camp outside Michael Jackson's house and get one photo of a kid, ANY kid entering Neverland with MJ. Invest the $$$$ from the tabloids and go dive and have fun with the interest

Then all we'd do is hope to get that Whale Shark giving birth shot we can sell to Life, National Geographic or whoever wants to pay the highest price......

I will at least be emailing my concerns with any campaign myself, although I wonder if it will have any effect on Getty's decision.....

Idea?

David Haas

www.haasimages.com

Stock photography never commanded much money in the past. It was only the photograph yet to exist (shot on brief) that earned any money. In the '70s and '80s, photographers were king and retouchers were their servants.

Then Photoshop and computer retouching revolutionised the world of photography. Photographers like me were no longer needed. As long as he had some ingredients from stock images an art director could cobble together the final image he needed. Retouchers in the form of computer operators were then king but stock photography went up in value commensurately.

Then came digital imaging at the camera stage. The world is now awash with digital pictures. My children can take pretty good pictures (I mean the youngest). It is no surprise that their value has been destroyed.

A similar thing has happened in the parallel world of music making. My son (32) wanted to be a guitarist but he now writes software for a company that produces a perfect synthesizer that replaces ...musicians! Downloads cost nothing. In Britain, the record stores like Virgin and HMV are going out of business, (I'm sure it's the same elsewhere) so there will be no money for new traditional rock n roll stars.

An old film producer associate of mine used to say, "If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!"

Well, now it is and they are.

Here's an update on this topic just released from ASMP:

Dialog between SAA-led Coalition and Getty Images Results in Much Improved $49 License Product

After two months of ongoing and productive dialog with a coalition of artist groups led by the Stock Artists Alliance (SAA), Getty Images today announced significant changes to its $49 “web-resolution†license for both Rights Managed and Rights Ready imagery. ASMP is one of the coalition members.

The SAA-led coalition’s key concern was this product should be restricted to short-term, highly limited, low-value usages and should not provide a substitute for high-value commercial and advertising online use licenses. Getty Images acknowledged the seriousness of the group’s concerns and engaged in productive dialog with SAA to rework the product to address those points.

Highlights of Changes

The major changes to the Rights Managed and Rights Ready products — compared in the chart below to the products as originally presented — mean they are now clearly and narrowly defined. The image licenses are limited, not only to a three-month term as Getty originally proposed, but also by additional parameters that effectively constrain usage.

Limitation of size

A maximum usage size of 180x150 pixels is now clearly defined. This clearly limits this license to secondary or spot usage.

Limitation on Distribution

In the original product, distribution was unlimited, allowing $49 licenses for major commercial campaigns. The revised product effectively eliminates this loophole. Distribution of a single web ad is now limited to one website only. Distribution of a single promotional email is limited to 10,000 recipients for RM, and a single email blast for RR. Use on a website is limited to a single page, and not unlimited pages as in the original product.

RIGHTS MANAGEDRIGHTS READY ORIGINAL use for one commercial or editorial website, web ad, email, mobile or multimedia for one year use in web or electronic media for commercial or editorial projects for one year REVISED Commercial: One of the following uses at a size up to 180x150 pixels:

use on any single page in one corporate or promotional Website for up to three months or one Web advertisement on no more than one Website for up to three months or one promotional email sent to no more than 10,000 recipients for up to three months.

Editorial: Editorial use on any single page of one editorial Website at a size up to 180x150 pixels. Electronic or web ˜ single use at a maximum of 180x150 pixels in web or other electronic media for commercial, editorial or internal projects for up to 3 months.

Example uses:

 Use on a single corporate, editorial or promotional website or intranet

 A single web ad on one website

 A single bulk email

SAA Executive Director Betsy Reid says the organization’s leaders are pleased the direct dialog led to “an improved license product that resolves many of the concerns raised by photographers and our coalition. It expands new licensing opportunities in a growing market for very small digital uses where this type of product makes sense.â€

Looking Forward

A bigger-picture issue that SAA has been raising is how traditional RM licensing systems can be innovated to better meet the changing needs of customers who are increasingly moving from print to digital media. SAA is engaged in broader discussions around this critical issue with Getty Images and other key players across the stock industry.

SAA President Roy Hsu explains, “SAA is committed to maintaining the momentum from the ongoing dialog started here on issues central to the long-term business interests of both artists and distributors.â€

The Coalition Members

Blah, blah, blah... it went on to list all the coalition members.