Getty

[Graham.b]

I was trawling another site when i came across this. Made interesting reading.
What do you all make of it.

Graham

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...em&ex=1216180800&en=25ed54a2cd790bd6&ei=5087

 

[Michael W]

We're all gonna get rich! Hooray.

 

[removed account4]

sounds frightening to me.
especially when most people
who are not professionals
don't copyright their work,
and think that photographs are
copy-protected as soon as the
shutter is depressed ... adding the " © " that an image does not mean
it is protected, when it isn't registered ...
especially if it is "harvested and used" ...
judges wont' even listen to the case because it wasn't registered
and a lawyer won't even take the case ......

its also the reason why working photographers
get less and less work, because paying clients
go for royalty free or cheap stock images
rather than a custom made image
made by professionals ( photographer and AD/CD ),
images that suit a client's needs, instead of
run of the mill, poorly made stock images
made by people who flood stock agencies
with thousands frames of junk, because they are inexpensive to rent or
"free" if the image has enough pixies and they right click it ......

it used to be that stock agencies were very careful
about who they took under their wing and represented ..

sounds like a good time to remove all
photographs from flikkr and gang register them with the copyright
office, so they won't be found in some ad campaign, used, and the photographer
never notified because the stock agency claimed the image was "orphaned" ...

sounds like google adworks to me, and i can see the job description
: go getter, self starter for work in a world wide stock photographic agency
must have flikkkkr account, and knowledge of what a good photo is ..

 

[2F/2F]

Good for wannabe stock shooters trying to make a buck.

A disaster for integrity in journalism.

You absolutely cannot print journalism photos from just anyone. Ridiculous. If they do this with journalism photos, they are really scraping the barrel.

However, Getty as a corporation has never cared about journalistic integrity and quality. Certain individuals care, but not the company. I have specific knowledge of this. Eventually, anyone who cares about such things gets so sick of Getty that they leave.

Speaks to the fact that Getty is without ethics, poorly run, distributes for boring photographers, is desperate, and cheap. They have also scared away a large number of their best in recent years, due to their management.

 

[viridari]

You absolutely cannot print journalism photos from just anyone.

Why not?

Is an image any better because it came from Platon as opposed to John Smith?

 

[removed account4]

i dont think it is journalism photos they are going to be
scouring from flikkkka.
its cheezy sunsets
flowers blowing in the wind
a girl in the fields ...

no journalism there

 

[2F/2F]

i dont think it is journalism photos they are going to be
scouring from flikkkka.
its cheezy sunsets
flowers blowing in the wind
a girl in the fields ...

no journalism there

Yup.

My point was that they also do journalism, and if they get some pix from Flicker for that use, that is the big problem with this new policy...and, knowing Getty quite well, I know they may do anything and call it journalism. Look at the work of Donald Miralle, for instance. The man makes nice pix, but has no journalistic understanding. He is constantly breaching journalistic ethics guidelines with his Photoshop work and other severe manipulations. My close friend hired him as a picture desk editor at Allsport after he came from a fine art background, and was there at Getty with him as he rose to the level of one of Getty's star shooters. He was constantly being "talked to" about his ethical breaches, yet was never fired, as he was a huge money maker.

For stock, I could not care less. The more working stock photographers there are, the more likely I will be able to get work assisting. Stock has absolutely zero assumed integrity, so I really don't have any issues with them paying fair going rates to purchase it off of Flicker.

 

[2F/2F]

Why not?

Is an image any better because it came from Platon as opposed to John Smith?

Journalism is not about whether an image is better. It is about whether the journalism itself is sound. It is about the integrity of sources. You can't talk about it like you talk about a fine art photograph. Journalism is journalism, and photography is simply one tool that journalists use. There is no way to ensure the journalistic integrity of something found on Flicker shot by someone who likely has had not one iota of instruction in journalistic theory and integrity; and who likely feels that a "better photograph" equals "better journalism", as many (most?) fine art photographers seem to believe.

 

[Graham.b]

However, Getty as a corporation has never cared about journalistic integrity and quality. Certain individuals care, but not the company. I have specific knowledge of this. Eventually, anyone who cares about such things gets so sick of Getty that they leave.

You get to here of things like this and get to think, if it is easy it is to good. No one gets a free bee. As 2F/2F has pointed out, they may be more to this than meets the eye.

 

[2F/2F]

However, Getty as a corporation has never cared about journalistic integrity and quality. Certain individuals care, but not the company. I have specific knowledge of this. Eventually, anyone who cares about such things gets so sick of Getty that they leave.

You get to here of things like this and get to think, if it is easy it is to good. No one gets a free bee. As 2F/2F has pointed out, they may be more to this than meets the eye.

Well, I think it is good for Flicker shooters who may never have thought to market their stuff as stock, though are certainly good enough to do so. At least they are offering equal pay rates to their normal stock contributors. My only concern is if they start paying for stuff from Flicker and putting it on their site (the modern-day equivalent of putting it on the wire) for sale to news publications. Hell, even stringers hired for assignments by news services have manipulated photos, and they are supposed to know better.....