It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers • Hacker News Board

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#31

Post by zozbot234 » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

masona wrote: post #27

zozbot234 wrote: post #6

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?

Anything free is going to ding your search ranking - just reverse image-search any image from Unsplash and you'll find thousands of content-farm clickbait adware using the same image. If your revenue is dependent on search ranking, that can get expensive really fast.

Okay, take the free image and apply some arbitrary "filters" just to make it harder to programmatically match. You've still paid $0, vs. the hundreds of dollars that Getty asks for.

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#32

Post by billmalarky » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #15

pupppet wrote: post #4

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.

> 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. 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…

>Photographers get paid $1000+ and keep the copyright. Almost every other work-for-hire intellectual job involves an IP transfer.

That probably means the wedding photography business is not actually sustainable at $1,000 per engagement (no pun intended). They probably need to make (example) $1,500 per engagement to make it worth their time, but the industry has consolidated around a "standard" of lower foot in the door costs where they make up the additional money required on the back-end via licensing the IP.

One could create a photography business where there is a one time cost of $1,500 and the customer retains all IP rights, but customers probably just (ignorantly) view you as 50% more expensive than the "exact same service" sans IP rights.

The other thing to keep in mind, is by breaking out costs associated with IP ownership, the service isn't just hiding total up-front cost, they are also offloading some of the burden of cost from the purchasing decision maker (ie bride/groom) to the wedding guests.

I have no idea if the above is correct, but wedding photography is a commoditized service so odds are there's a reason it's standardized this way.

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#33

Post by masona » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

x__x wrote: post #22

Surprised there was no mention of the upcoming threat of AI stock photos, and how easy it will be to generate massive amounts of these fast and cheap. Ne real people, who won't have to sign contracts or be paid. https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/20/20875362/100000-fake-ai-p...

Lately I've been imagining what it would take to create an AI-generated food image. It's super hard!

Just the rights management issue of the training set is a tough question. Then you have to account for quality, direction and dimensionality of light, food styling, props, custom products or ingredients, the list of challenges goes on an on.

Then after the image is produced, if you're a food company, all your imagery is a kind of 'claim-based' imagery meaning consumers assume it is real and in some cases, there are laws preventing the use of fake foods in ads.

I'm curious about the implications of a world where AI stock photos are ubiquitous, but some styles of imagery are pretty far out at the moment.

Source: Spent 15 years in the commercial photo industry.

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#34

Post by potency » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

RobertRoberts wrote: post #8

Getty is the epitome of the evil corporation. They threatened a number of my customers (who all won against Getty via lawyers) for putting photos on their sites with dubious ownership rights. I have experience with copyright law (unpleasantly) and there is a process required by the law to actually win a settlement on copyright infringement, and Getty uses thug tactics and threats to get small parties to pay up. Their…

I had the same experience. Had my website designed by a designer, then a few years later received a threatening letter saying that if I didn't fork over 4-figures for a small image that they used, they'd come after me. I ignored the letter and several follow-ups and never heard from them again, but I could absolutely see how they could intimidate a small business to pay up.

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#35

Post by pupppet » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

nightfly wrote: post #5

pupppet wrote: post #4

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.

They're not wealthy because they've collectively decided to go for the easy money, jumping on-board the Getty train who takes an absurdly large cut of their profit.

As consumers we get hosed, but at least they've looked out for number one, right?

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#36

Post by bitL » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

willyg123 wrote: post #11

There is a startup yet to be founded to sell inexpensive, high-quality original photos for exclusive use. 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-...

How are you going to get "high-quality original photos" if you won't pay pro photographers as you'd like to be "inexpensive"? By outsourcing it to Papua?

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#37

Post by ghaff » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #16

zozbot234 wrote: post #6

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?

Most of those images still require visible attribution, which is a non-starter for most commercial use. Advertisers don't want a big "image from flickr user foobar" right on top of the photo in their glossy magazine ad.

Furthermore, if there are recognizable people in them, they don’t have model release forms which are needed for things like ads.

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#38

Post by Invictus0 » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

masona wrote: post #24

willyg123 wrote: post #11

There is a startup yet to be founded to sell inexpensive, high-quality original photos for exclusive use. 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-...

There are a ton of two-sided marketplaces out there that try to do this. It's a messy challenge involving rights management (no good photographer will agree to the contracts these companies offer), production workflows (all companies do it differently) and assignment complexities (by 'high-quality' you mean 'high-quality and custom to the project' because a nice but generic picture is mostly useless). But you're righ…

1. Let photographers license their photos from a list of standard licenses

2. Let photographers set their own prices

3. Let buyers search by budget and by license

4. Startup charges a X% platform fee

The market will take care of the rest.

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#39

Post by masona » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

Another major shift that the article neglects to mention is global arbitrage. The advancement of camera + software quality and accessibility means people can make great pictures anywhere.

These days there are a lot of studios in the stock houses like Getty and Shutterstock that are based in Eastern Europe, or Asia, where the small amounts of money from stock images can really add up over time.

Copying styles, compositions and concepts of historically successful stock images means these producers make out quite well for their regional market by selling to more expensive markets.

Photo prices are going down for American photographers but it's still good money for smaller economies.

Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers

#40

Post by buboard » Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

Photographers should be already looking for another job or try some warzones. Cant beat the variety of AI models and photos.

Also, i think the article is wrong, stock sites have become ridiculously expensive, with shady subscriptions and daily limits and all. Sorry guys, it s a new century. Few people need print-resolution photos anymore