Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 141 posts

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

#91

Post by viraptor »

big_chungus wrote: post #87
SignalsFromBob wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, parti…

These are random images though. If you do want something specific, you can dial the right knobs to fix the issues you mentioned and match up the features you don't like. Adding some extra constraints should be possible if you actually want commercial usage.

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

#92

Post by freehunter »

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-...

I've been kicking around the idea of digital escrow for that sort of thing. I put this file in the digital locker, you pay me money, and when you download the image the locker is cleared out. The purchase price includes the exclusive rights to that digital file and the creator gives up all rights as soon as the locker is opened.

File that into "side projects that I'll likely never get around to".

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

#93

Post by 9935c101ab17a66 »

greendestiny_re wrote: post #69

I 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).

Is this sarcastic? Plenty of photographers sell their services, and I'd wager anecdotally that a lot of photographers who do normally charge per shoot / per hour also contribute images to stock photo sites.

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

#94

Post by tehwebguy »

iudqnolq wrote: post #76
masona wrote: post #39

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, composi…

Picking on you a little, but I see lots of comments like this one on HN: Unsourced, industry inside knowledge, stated authoritatively, confirms my biases and fits into a narrative well known amoung the kinds of people who read HN. I'm not really sure what the solution is. Thoughts?

I’m not sure people need to use a citation when effectively just saying “opening a market up to the world drives prices down”

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

#95

Post by iudqnolq »

tehwebguy wrote: post #94
iudqnolq wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking on you a little, but I see lots of comments like this one on HN: Unsourced, industry inside knowledge, stated authoritatively, confirms my biases and fits into a narrative well known amoung the kinds of people who read HN. I'm not really sure what the solution is. Thoughts?

I’m not sure people need to use a citation when effectively just saying “opening a market up to the world drives prices down”

Exactly. It's not making a controversial claim. But it is telling a specific story. And it's interesting because of that. If the comment was what you'd written to summarize it I wouldn't have payed it much attention.

Also, it's selection bias if "obviously sensical" anecdotes are believed and ones that disagree with our preconceptions aren't.

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

#96

Post by 9935c101ab17a66 »

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…

It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising, which totally makes sense.

Also, if you think the cost is unreasonable, I completely disagree. Photography is a very expensive vocation, and the wedding season is very short. There is little room for error, and the photos have an enormous emotional significance. The event day (or days) is incredibly long, and cataloging and processing images can be an enormous time suck afterward. I get that some people may not be interested in wedding photos, but that doesn't mean the photographers are overpriced for the work they do.

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

#97

Post by bigbaguette »

A couple points to balance the opinions seen in the comments:

-While the photographic offer grew a lot over the past decades, demand spiked as well. Ask yourself: how many pictures have you seen since you got up this morning? We're surrounded by screens.

-It's not the camera that makes a great picture. However advanced and accessible the hardware gets, there's still a need for the creative minds operating it to produce quality content.

For sure, owning good equipment is not enough anymore to make a living out of it, which was the case in the past, especially for local, family photographers. These needs are now fulfilled by the technology in our pockets.

The scene is now worldwide. There's a profusion of imagery everywhere. To stand out of the noise, one needs to specialize and up the ante.

Getty and other stock providers make the growing demand and offer meet, dragging down the value of "common" photography (through dubious ways sometimes). There's still plenty of space for high quality production, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

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

#98

Post by RobertRoberts »

iudqnolq wrote: post #85
RobertRoberts wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hurt…

The contract part is probably poor wording on my part. The contract is between the government at the public in that there is no such thing as a natural protections against copying. So the government enforces an artificial period of time of sole ownership of something that otherwise cannot be owned.

Single mom was sued for millions of dollars years ago because she put 40 songs (or some low number) on the Mule/Donkey file sharing network. She lost in court. If a multinational corporation got nailed for the same, they would have either made a deal, settled for a portion or just paid the loss. She could have stolen (theft) 40 cds from a store and the fines/punishment would have been miniscule.

The percentage of income to punishment ratio is a travesty of justice. The imbalance is in the sheer overwhelming destruction of the law's punishments on those that infringe that are not rich and powerful.

Consider the photographers that had their photos "copied" by Getty and used internationally. Or Facebook using a photographers photo without any compensation. What happened to Facebook and Getty? Nothing, (maybe some bad press?) because individuals can't afford to defend their copyrights.

Edit: I am glad you looked into this, it's worth a deeper study at least once in a person's life.

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

#99

Post by nordsieck »

tomcam wrote: post #77
Invictus0 wrote: post #38

Earlier 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?

> 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?

Presumably the purchaser sues the photographer.

One thing that marketplace could do is to require a bond from any photographers that would be used to help pay for any judgements.

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

#100

Post by iudqnolq »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #98
iudqnolq wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hurt…

The contract part is probably poor wording on my part. The contract is between the government at the public in that there is no such thing as a natural protections against copying. So the government enforces an artificial period of time of sole ownership of something that otherwise cannot be owned. Single mom was sued for millions of dollars years ago because she put 40 songs (or some low number) on the Mule/Donkey f…

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm not convinced by the natural law argument because everything, including property law, falls apart if you look at it that way.

I hadn't learned about either story, though, and your point that multinationals just negotiate it away is something I hadn't thought through.

Post reply on HN