11–20 of 141 posts
Unique photos, i.e. photos not considered "duplicate content", are critical if you want to rank organically on Google [0]
Getty will eventually be disrupted.
[0] https://www.rebootonline.com/blog/long-term-duplicate-image-...
A much more worthy company to support.
No affiliation, just a fan of cooperatives and high quality photos.
> Getty has been criticized for selling the rights to photos that are freely available in the public domain. Searching for images on the web can sometimes mitigate this issue. Search by Image (maintainer here) can help you to quickly find alternative sources for images. It also supports several stock photo sites, so price comparison becomes easier. Visit the extension's options to enable the search engines you need.…
I appreciate the work of photographers, but plunking down $500 for a high-res photo and knowing they're going to resell that same photo to others god knows how many more times has always rubbed me the wrong way. I get there's hardware/time involved in setting up a single photo, but hell, not that much.
These people aren't fabulously wealthy, that's the pricing they need to be able to sustain themselves.
I appreciate the work of photographers, but plunking down $500 for a high-res photo and knowing they're going to resell that same photo to others god knows how many more times has always rubbed me the wrong way. I get there's hardware/time involved in setting up a single photo, but hell, not that much.
Honestly, that doesn't bother me that much.
What's truly absurd is wedding photography. Photographers get paid $1000+ and keep the copyright. Almost every other work-for-hire intellectual job involves an IP transfer.
The article says that Getty is still deriving most of their revenue from generic stock photos? That was quite surprising to me, since Wikimedia Commons among other sites provides plenty of such images under "free content" licenses (including images in the public domain). Perhaps the typical downstream reuser is unwilling to resort to these for some reason?
I appreciate the work of photographers, but plunking down $500 for a high-res photo and knowing they're going to resell that same photo to others god knows how many more times has always rubbed me the wrong way. I get there's hardware/time involved in setting up a single photo, but hell, not that much.
These people aren't fabulously wealthy, that's the pricing they need to be able to sustain themselves.
Photographers aren't getting paid much, the current rate is about 80% to Getty and 20% to the photog. The rate used to be 40% Getty and 60% photog, some people are grandfathered but only if they've been on Getty for 20 years.
Typical working photographers on Getty probably get paid dozens of dollars a month. Typical amateurs might get a dozen dollars a year.
The article says that Getty is still deriving most of their revenue from generic stock photos? That was quite surprising to me, since Wikimedia Commons among other sites provides plenty of such images under "free content" licenses (including images in the public domain). Perhaps the typical downstream reuser is unwilling to resort to these for some reason?
Knowing what people want is key, along with the ability to perfectly execute it. For example "woman in blue dress sitting under fall tree looking at moon" might convey some of of commercial message that is used to sell everything from ebook readers to insurance and nets the photographer a fortune in licensing or royalties, but on the the other hand maybe nobody is interested in it, and if you cannot execute it perfectly, nobody will accept it into their catalog.
Why this Hanukkah photo is better than others, I don't know, but Shutterstock is featuring it right now so I guess it sells well and the colors and tones capture a popular trend:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/jewish-holiday-hanu...
> Getty has been criticized for selling the rights to photos that are freely available in the public domain. Searching for images on the web can sometimes mitigate this issue. Search by Image (maintainer here) can help you to quickly find alternative sources for images. It also supports several stock photo sites, so price comparison becomes easier. Visit the extension's options to enable the search engines you need.…
Does this give significantly better results than just Google and TinEye? They often fail me.
Selling stock photos made sense for photographers 10-20 years ago, not worth it anymore unless you're at the very top.
For the reference: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/MateoSan