Getty Images

[Tony-S]

Just got an email from Getty Images about some of my Flickr photos. Anyone do this? There is a contract associated so I want to make sure what it's all about before jumping in. Pros and cons, anyone?

TIA

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

(Delete)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is this that start of another deleted thread?

 

[polyglot]

The commercial terms are absolutely terrible, in the grand scheme of commercial terms. But if you're happy with them for your purposes, go ahead.

 

[Tony-S]

The commercial terms are absolutely terrible, in the grand scheme of commercial terms. But if you're happy with them for your purposes, go ahead.

I really don't know what the terms mean since I've only done photography for personal gratification. What's terrible about them?

 

[polyglot]

Basically they take everything and give nothing. If you don't understand the terms of the agreement, you absolutely shouldn't be signing it. You know, the whole bit about when you can't spot the sucker at the table, etc.

For starters:
a) they take 80% commission instead of 30-50%
b) they demand exclusivity and a whole bunch of other rights you wouldn't normally hand over

Some articles: JMG, Hawk and Dead Link Removed.

 

[Tom1956]

Is it perhaps possible that "image pollution" may manifest these days?

 

[Tony-S]

Alright, sounds like I'll forgo this predatory company.

 

[removed-user-1]

Read through the terms, and that is not a contract I would ever sign.

 

[polyglot]

The above is only one side of it, and the people that think the contract is bad are usually commercial/pro photographers. Compared to any other buying arrangement a commercial photographer would enter into, it is very bad.

However, a lot of people do sign the contract and are happy with the trickle of money they receive. If you never intend to make any other commercial use of the images in question, are happy to trade value for getting any money at all and can provide all necessary model releases, then it may well make sense for you to give Getty access to some of your images. I would never hand over my whole stream or give them exclusive rights to represent me, but I could imagine letting them sell a handful of images for me, with the full understanding that I was being commercially exploited wrt those images.

It is, after all, basically zero-effort cash that you're otherwise maybe not getting. So don't let me talk you out of it, but really you do need to understand the contract fully, which will require reading up on a bunch of legal and commercial terms and finding other typical contracts to compare with.

 

[Felinik]

If you use flickr to dump stuff you don't feel any use for somewhere else and their choice are amongst such pics, why not.. But if the pics are amongst stuff you love and value, don't even think about it...