Live data from Hacker News

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

seattletimes.com

101–110 of 141 posts

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

#101
post #41

I'm still annoyed that Google bowed down to them in their litigation settlement. Getty wanted have their cake and eat it too, by having Google surface the images, but not really surface the images. Google should have treated it like any other DMCA copyright infringement case and removed Getty images from their index. It would have allowed Google users to use more free images, and Getty would have no copyright claim.…

Remove Getty Images and you’d have all sorts of comments about antitrust.

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

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 incredi…

> Also, if you think the cost is unreasonable, I completely disagree.

The market sets the price. I don't really have a problem with that.

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

I understand the rationale. That doesn't make it any less absurd.

If I'm a freelance journalist I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion. If I'm a freelance web designer I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion.

If a photographer wants a portfolio to show potential clients, they can do what everyone else does: make a portfolio on their own time.

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

#103
There are so many free stock photo sites out there these days that I can't understand why anyone would be hitting Getty up for anything. The quality across the free sites can vary but some are incredibly good. I made a list of about 50 a year ago, there's probably twice that number now.

https://www.mattcrampton.com/blog/mega_list_of_free_image_si...

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

#104

Companies 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.

I think the world is heading for, if not an ecological apocalypse, but a technology one too. Technology is far out pacing our understand of its impact on human development and society. We are screwed.

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

#106

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-...

A long time ago I was Chief Data Scientist at 500px following the acquisition of a company I cofounded and this was exactly what I was advocating for. Professional photographers are cash poor, but with the right interface and contracts we could have done it. I wasn't able to get the CEO to see things my way and other problems with the company led to my departure, but I still think this is a viable business. The key h…

This sounds kind of like Wonderful Machine -- connecting clients to high-quality photographers.

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

#107
I still don't understand how making a purchased company responsible for the debt of its own purchase is legal:

> Getty’s private-equity owners had financed the purchase of Getty with massive debt — $2.6 billion in the case of Carlyle — which became Getty’s debt.

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

#108

I still don't understand how making a purchased company responsible for the debt of its own purchase is legal: > Getty’s private-equity owners had financed the purchase of Getty with massive debt — $2.6 billion in the case of Carlyle — which became Getty’s debt.

Can you point to a law that makes it illegal?

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

#109
post #108

I still don't understand how making a purchased company responsible for the debt of its own purchase is legal: > Getty’s private-equity owners had financed the purchase of Getty with massive debt — $2.6 billion in the case of Carlyle — which became Getty’s debt.

Can you point to a law that makes it illegal?

No, which is why I raised the question - why isn't it illegal? Given the acts with a social cost that soon follow to "pay" for the company's acquisition? Redundancies etc.

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

#110
post #81

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.

Greed? Supply and demand baby. I don’t know what pictures you take, but most likely, they’re a commodity and anyone can do it, especially nowadays. Maybe you feel like you are working hard to make pictures, but the labor theory of value isn’t correct. You get paid based on how easy it is for someone else to replace you. And while I don’t exactly understand the intricacies of stock photography, I’m guessing it isn’t that hard to take some pictures. Ergo, you get paid less.
Post reply on HN