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

131–140 of 141 posts

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

#131

Post by jcl »

9935c101ab17a66 wrote: post #96
nordsieck wrote: post #15

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…

> It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising

That's probably not the main reason, since many other artists are able to use their work-for-hire in self promotion. All they'd need is an appropriate usage license, not copyright ownership.

More likely, when wedding photographers try to keep the copyright, they are hoping to charge separately for additional prints or DVDs, control which print shop reproduces their work, enforce the presence of their watermarks, or relicense the images as stock photography. These are all additional revenue and advertising streams that would not be available if the customer held the copyright.

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

#132

Post by flappyTwatLips »

friendlybus wrote: post #121
plorkyeran wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reloaded the page ten times and every single one had something clearly off.

You mean like the Goldeneye box art? He has two mouths and it didn't stop the game selling like hotcakes. https://gaminghistory101.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldene...

Uh, no. I think you are distracting attention away from the topic of conversation.

Pierce Brosnan's face is highly recognizable, with a large quantity of reference material that aids the viewer in understanding that the stylized, high contrast photo is that of James Bond (the main character of the game) pointing a silenced pistol at the camera, both in the spirit of a multi-player first person shooter, and in the spirit of the movie and book franchise.

It is obviously his hand wrapped around the pistol grip of the gun he's holding.

There is no uncanney valley depicted in the graphic elements of the box art. It's not some grotesque, warped, surreal, dead-eyed robotic puppet masquerading as human.

It's black and white photos of recognizable performers posing for the camera.

If anything, noticing the odd juxtaposition of the clasped hand of James Bond as anything other than a hand would represent exactly the kind of error that machine learning and neural networks are incapable of correcting for on their own. This deficiency is exactly what leads to the production of uncanney valley results, in that a computer can't control for differentiable concepts like James Bond weilding a pistol.

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

#133

Post by throwaway3563 »

friendlybus wrote: post #121
plorkyeran wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reloaded the page ten times and every single one had something clearly off.

You mean like the Goldeneye box art? He has two mouths and it didn't stop the game selling like hotcakes. https://gaminghistory101.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldene...

Where’s the second one? I see one mouth and a fist (holding the gun) in front of it.

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

#134

Post by joking »

anigbrowl wrote: post #124
gnicholas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much do you get when it's licensed on Getty for $50? It's an apples-and-oranges comparison to talk about your cut from 500px and the gross fee on Getty. I'm sure your cut on Getty is bigger, but I'm curious to know if it's 10x bigger or 50x bigger.

I received less than 1 usd in fees

I don't want to defend getty, ¿but are not most of the images licensed via subscription instead of one by one? For example, you can get access to getty images inside canva, I don't think they can paid 50$ per image when they sell a 10$ month subscription.

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway3563 wrote: post #133
friendlybus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like the Goldeneye box art? He has two mouths and it didn't stop the game selling like hotcakes. https://gaminghistory101.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldene...

Where’s the second one? I see one mouth and a fist (holding the gun) in front of it.

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by friendlybus »

throwaway3563 wrote: post #133
friendlybus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like the Goldeneye box art? He has two mouths and it didn't stop the game selling like hotcakes. https://gaminghistory101.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldene...

Where’s the second one? I see one mouth and a fist (holding the gun) in front of it.

https://screenrant.com/worst-video-game-box-art-mistakes-obv...

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

#137

Post by dsr_ »

smabie wrote: post #110
lsd3 wrote: 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 t…

The market says their photos are worth $50 to $100 per license. The new middleman in the market is taking 95-99% of that. The correct thing to do is to fire that middleman, and that's what they are doing.

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

#138

Post by iudqnolq »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #116
iudqnolq wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "natural law" argument can be demonstrated in a couple of stories. Years ago there was a very strong copyright on sheet music in the US. (1800s some time) And sheet music was kept very secure. But then competing composers/musicians hired people that could hear the music and write down the sheet music from memory. (ie, simply expressing or performing an idea and having other people experience it means it can be co…

Don't feel bad; you had a correct point that you got across, and didn't make me feel bad about myself. I was also not very polite.

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

#139

Post by cm2012 »

greggman2 wrote: post #129
cm2012 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I download probably 25 images a month on Shutterstock to make ads with, and I need continuous color to out text on.

dumb question. Do any of the services let you filter for continuous color?

Don't think so

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

#140

Post by smegger001 »

mickael-kerjean wrote: post #119
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.

> https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ This is exactly why I read hacker news. This is both perturbing and amazing all in the same time with all the links you need to understand how it works under the hood. Thanks!

several of them I looked at had malformed ear (I assume the training set had earings and gauges and such mixed in) and one had a tuft of of hair growing out of their neck
Post reply on HN