I used to earn over 100 usd per photo sale on 500px. Since they started licensing through Getty I get pennies. Litterally. Just a few days ago one of my photos got licensed where I received less than 1 usd in fees. I went to check on Getty's website and saw the cheapest you could license it from there was 50 usd. Talk about greed and getting screwed. I'm removing all my photos from 500px within a month.
It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
81–90 of 141 posts
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#82Surprised 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...
Once AI is good enough to take photos better than a human, I think AI will be good enough to make entire categories of jobs obsolete. Photographers will at least have a fun hobby to enjoy while collecting their basic income.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#83I don't understand why photographers don't sell their services as opposed to single photos for a few cents each. I've written plenty of articles for a popular website (now defunct) where I looked through Google Images for hours to find an "appropriate, interesting and HD image" (exact job requirements).
Photographers do. But a lot of the time companies don’t want to spend thousands of dollars (and perhaps a fair bit of time) to get custom photographs shot. They may and do but that’s not always what you want.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's it like being a voluntary shill? Nothing that person said implied theft, they talked about a bots and then mentioned fucking with the bot.
Edit: Reply showed me I was wrong. Leaving the comment up so the chain makes sense. They talked about fucking with a bot that caught them infringing copyright because they knew they'd be hard to hunt down. Copyright theft is (currently) theft. Did you create this account just to leave that comment? Why? What did you think would happen as a result?
Please stop spreading this lie. Copyright "infringement" is a breaking of a contract. This is the black and white law.
Copyright infringment is absolutely not theft. That is just evil propaganda spread by a cartel of super rich and powerful media moguls and corps.
And the abuse of this lie affects the poorest and lowest in society most.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: Reply showed me I was wrong. Leaving the comment up so the chain makes sense. They talked about fucking with a bot that caught them infringing copyright because they knew they'd be hard to hunt down. Copyright theft is (currently) theft. Did you create this account just to leave that comment? Why? What did you think would happen as a result?
Please stop spreading this lie. Copyright "infringement" is a breaking of a contract. This is the black and white law. Copyright infringment is absolutely not theft. That is just evil propaganda spread by a cartel of super rich and powerful media moguls and corps. And the abuse of this lie affects the poorest and lowest in society most.
Thank you. I looked the issue up and learned that legally copyright infringement is distinct from theft. I still think the term is a good inexact colloquial approximation.
However, I couldn't find anything to support your assertion that copyright violation is a breach of contract. It doesn't make sense: breach of contract requires an agreed upon contract to be breached.
Also, cite for the idea that copyright law hurts the poorest the most? Haven't seen that before.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I like it. What happens if ownership of an image is disputed, or it turns out the photog uploaded a photo that she had copied off the web?
Send extortion letter
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, last I checked, AI models of humans looked super, super creepy. Not the sort of content you would want on a marketing campaign, that's for sure.
This has changed. It's hard to tell they're fake. For example, each reload of https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ produces a new computer-generated image of a person.
You're right, that's better than it used to be by orders of magnitude. However, there remain things that "just don't look right". The most obvious I can spot is the teeth, followed by warped edges (odd indentations, a missing ear that ought to merely be partially hidden), followed by the eyes(more subtle, but definitely there). The "big swathes of skin" are generally fine. There are also wrong numbers of teeth, partially missing eyebrows, etc. Finally, there's not much correlation between apparent ethnicity and facial characteristics or hair. All these "just look wrong" enough to put someone off of a marketing brochure.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#88I used to earn over 100 usd per photo sale on 500px. Since they started licensing through Getty I get pennies. Litterally. Just a few days ago one of my photos got licensed where I received less than 1 usd in fees. I went to check on Getty's website and saw the cheapest you could license it from there was 50 usd. Talk about greed and getting screwed. I'm removing all my photos from 500px within a month.
Have you got experience with other photography platforms / comparison from the photographer point of view?
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#89Companies like pinterest, getty, and yelp are genuinely the worst. They're like leeches, and I hate how they constantly show up on my google searches.
Re: It’s crunch time for Getty Images, and for photographers
#90I don't understand why photographers don't sell their services as opposed to single photos for a few cents each. I've written plenty of articles for a popular website (now defunct) where I looked through Google Images for hours to find an "appropriate, interesting and HD image" (exact job requirements).
Because not everyone can afford their services. They would have trouble finding buyers at the prices their services will be. Example:
> The federal Liberal government spent a grand total of $563 on the cover of its most recent budget... The cover production apparently included two stock images, the first costing taxpayers $527 and the second just $36.[0]
As opposed to:
> ... the $212,000 the Liberals paid an advertising agency to produce a cover and related materials for last spring’s federal budget with an appreciative shiver of disdain, pausing at various points to gag pleasurably on the details: the $89,500 for models hired to depict middle class Canadians ... [1]
I suppose the national government of a wealthy nation has no problem affording a few hundred thousand dollars on a bunch of photos. Most private and public organizations do not have that much budget for a couple of photos.
[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/4151874/budget-cover-cost-2018-li...
[1] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-bloated-glossy...