Wow. This sucks.

[Mainecoonmaniac]

This will give the impression that photography doesn't have usage rights.

https://petapixel.com/2019/11/07/getty-is-going-all-royalty-free-and-that-sucks-for-photographers/

 

[removedacct1]

I'm glad I am not trying to make a living doing this anymore.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm glad I am not trying to make a living doing this anymore.

Me too. I quit 20 years ago because it was getting tough. There's a constant devaluing of photography because there are too many photographers and digital technology doesn't help.

 

[removed account4]

Stock is a tough racket. There are still ways of making a living in photography. From what I heard a few weekends ago the day rate for shooting architectural photography in Boston is something like $8000/day. It is a job like everything else, snooze ya loose.

 

[Ian Grant]

I know a Getty Images photographer who was working for them in London, he was the only Getty salaried Paparazzi photographer working for them. He was a bit of a Mod fan raced around London on a moped. Here in the UK in the 1960's we had Mods and Rockers, they'd clash and fight, the Mods rode Lambretta and similar moped, the Rockers motor bikes, hair styles and clothing were very different. Ironically this was a photographer who preferred film and MF and LF for his personal work, he'd moved up to where I live with his wife bought a house giving up working for Getty, began building a darkroom, then his wife had an affair . . . . . . . . . . . . and child. So I guess he's a freelance Paparazzi photographer now, he does have a Photography Degree and wide experience

Getty and other agencies make their killings with a few images and peanuts from the rest, so why police them make them Royalty free. It does suck because it cuts potential earnings from up and coming photographers.

These days small newspapers have no staff photographers, my local newspaper had 3 staff photographers 15 years ago and still used freelancers as well, now it has none and not even an office in the town.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Stock is a tough racket. There are still ways of making a living in photography. From what I heard a few weekends ago the day rate for shooting architectural photography in Boston is something like $8000/day. It is a job like everything else, snooze ya loose.

Some years ago 1986-88 I was building Gold refineries, I bought equipment things like pumps and filters from around the world. Some US catalogues were so poorly illustrated - it was apparent the images were made by an amateur employee or a friend (or perhaps the owner). We'd see this in many US catalogues and also magazines.

Off course eventually it started here in the UK but poor images hampers sales so it's far less common, but got worse everywhere with the advent of Digital imaging.. My sister and I had to sell my mother's Bungalow after she died in early 2014, the Estate agents (they are Real without needed to use the term) took the photographs, I then took studio flash units and shot a new set, they helped us get £60.000 more for the house actually 15% more. A few months later I did the same for a friend.

In this largely digital age where we look to buy on the Internet good photography will easily help tip the balance.

Ian

 

[Pieter12]

I blame the internet. People grab images and use them without permission or paying. RF or not photography has become devalued and that's what they've come to expect. Only if a client needs a photo of their product/facility/employees will they hire a photographer--and not want to pay much at that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would think that photographers who do product ads, brochures etc are the ones who make money along with wedding photographers. I still get loads of store and product magazines and flyers. Also from cruise ships and travels places like hotels etc. Pro photographers have to do these shots. If you want to make money in photography, you have to target the opportunity. It doesn;t seem stock is the way to go.

 

[Ian Grant]

I would think that photographers who do product ads, brochures etc are the ones who make money along with wedding photographers. I still get loads of store and product magazines and flyers. Also from cruise ships and travels places like hotels etc. Pro photographers have to do these shots. If you want to make money in photography, you have to target the opportunity. It doesn;t seem stock is the way to go.

The problem is that High End Digital imaging makes photography less accessible to many commercial photographers. One of my cousin'sin London's partner just couldn't afford to switch to digital backs for his LF & MF work and went back to Derbyshire to become a gamekeeper.

When I moved from 35mm to 120 and a year or so later to 5x4 in 1975/6 the difference in terms of equipment costs weren't excessive, but to switch to high end LF/MF digital is an arm and a leg and more now.

There's still work around if your're canny. My last two DSLRs and also Video camears were paid for with one or two days work.

Ian

 

[adelorenzo]

Having worked in an small agency I can see the other side of this. Usage rights are confusing and a pain to work with. You buy a photo or hire a photographer to get some shots for a client's website. Great, then a few months later the client wants to do a brochure. Oops, sorry, we don't have rights for that, can't use the images without paying for them again. Is the brochure A4 or 8.5x11 because the price is different. How many copies will you print because that costs more. Will it be mailed to another country? Now its international rights and that costs more too. Need to reprint it a year later? Oops the rights expired you need to pay for them again. Royalty-free makes your life a heck of a lot easier.

Where I work now (much different job) we occasionally hire photographers but we get full rights to the images they shoot for us. They price their services accordingly as they have to make their profit on the front end of the deal.

I feel for photographers whose living is affected but from the perspective of the Getty customer this is a no-brainer. When you are competing with oodles of free and low-cost stock rights managed photos are a tough sell.

 

[Pieter12]

The problem is that High End Digital imaging makes photography less accessible to many commercial photographers. One of my cousin'sin London's partner just couldn't afford to switch to digital backs for his LF & MF work and went back to Derbyshire to become a gamekeeper.

When I moved from 35mm to 120 and a year or so later to 5x4 in 1975/6 the difference in terms of equipment costs weren't excessive, but to switch to high end LF/MF digital is an arm and a leg and more now.

There's still work around if your're canny. My last two DSLRs and also Video camears were paid for with one or two days work.

Ian

It's ironic. I don't think there is any reason to shoot digital LF unless you need the movements. The resolution difference would never show up in commercial applications. Even MF digital is a bit of overkill for most commercial purposes.

Having worked in an small agency I can see the other side of this. Usage rights are confusing and a pain to work with. You buy a photo or hire a photographer to get some shots for a client's website. Great, then a few months later the client wants to do a brochure. Oops, sorry, we don't have rights for that, can't use the images without paying for them again. Is the brochure A4 or 8.5x11 because the price is different. How many copies will you print because that costs more. Will it be mailed to another country? Now its international rights and that costs more too. Need to reprint it a year later? Oops the rights expired you need to pay for them again. Royalty-free makes your life a heck of a lot easier.

Where I work now (much different job) we occasionally hire photographers but we get full rights to the images they shoot for us. They price their services accordingly as they have to make their profit on the front end of the deal.

I feel for photographers whose living is affected but from the perspective of the Getty customer this is a no-brainer. When you are competing with oodles of free and low-cost stock rights managed photos are a tough sell.

And then there are clients (and agencies sometimes) who will go ahead and use a stock image for other than the purchased rights or beyond the purchased time limit--through ignorance or malice, who knows. By selling RF stock agencies don't have to track such usage, a cost and headache savings for them.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Over 20 years ago, I worked for a pretty successful assignment photographer . He would send his pages of outtake slides to a stock agency. Being a young kid that had no experience of the photography business, I said "Wow you must make pretty good money with stock photography". I learned from him that he makes an average 50¢ per image per year. Back then, he didn't have to spend hours meta tagging his images either. Once in a while, he'd get a check in the mail when there's a stock sale. I think being a stock photographer is a rough game. You're always shooting images on speculation, doing research on what pictures to make so it will sell. Once an image is sold, a client can use it in forever.

 

[Pieter12]

As an Art Director, I frequently saw photographers shooting stock for themselves while on location for an assignment. Cinematographers, too. But what amazed me was to find that photos that had been shot on assignment for my clients would turn up at stock agencies not too long after the original usage period was over.

 

[removed account4]

Some years ago 1986-88 I was building Gold refineries, I bought equipment things like pumps and filters from around the world. Some US catalogues were so poorly illustrated - it was apparent the images were made by an amateur employee or a friend (or perhaps the owner). We'd see this in many US catalogues and also magazines.

Off course eventually it started here in the UK but poor images hampers sales so it's far less common, but got worse everywhere with the advent of Digital imaging.. My sister and I had to sell my mother's Bungalow after she died in early 2014, the Estate agents (they are Real without needed to use the term) took the photographs, I then took studio flash units and shot a new set, they helped us get £60.000 more for the house actually 15% more. A few months later I did the same for a friend.

In this largely digital age where we look to buy on the Internet good photography will easily help tip the balance.

Ian

Ian:

I approached a family friend who is a real estate agent 20 years ago and asked if she or anyone in her agency would be interested in quality photographs to sell their properties
and I was told ( as you illustrated ) the agents do their own photography. When I mentioned they were all terrible she replied the photographs are only there to spark your interest about the property. This was all before DIGITAL took hold... MLS ( multiple listing service ) isn't much better. Agents list with them, and one of their photographers comes down and shoots the building. These days they use "high tech" VR equipment for 360º views so it is a little better, but not much.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As an Art Director, I frequently saw photographers shooting stock for themselves while on location for an assignment. Cinematographers, too. But what amazed me was to find that photos that had been shot on assignment for my clients would turn up at stock agencies not too long after the original usage period was over.

I hate to say this, but it comes down to copyright laws. By default, the creator the images, ie, the photographer owns the rights by default. The client has to negotiate the ownership of the image with the photographer. Back in the 80's on 90's, some client has to pay extra for "exclusive rights" while the client paid production costs. I've been out of the business for a while, but I don't know how profitable assignment photography is and how much power the photographer to dictating usage rights.

 

[Pieter12]

I hate to say this, but it comes down to copyright laws. By default, the creator the images, ie, the photographer owns the rights by default. The client has to negotiate the ownership of the image with the photographer. Back in the 80's on 90's, some client has to pay extra for "exclusive rights" while the client paid production costs. I've been out of the business for a while, but I don't know how profitable assignment photography is and how much power the photographer to dictating usage rights.

For some reason, this doesn't go for cinematography. For a commercial, the production company/director/cinematographer hands all the film over to the client/agency. I guess a buyout of all the rights is just par for the course in that business.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here's one view of photography I agree with. The good ole' days are gone. What is a photographer going to do about change? Every industry is working harder for less. Photography is no different.
https://petapixel.com/2019/11/08/ph...-changing-and-its-your-job-to-change-with-it/

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Having worked in an small agency I can see the other side of this. Usage rights are confusing and a pain to work with. You buy a photo or hire a photographer to get some shots for a client's website. Great, then a few months later the client wants to do a brochure. Oops, sorry, we don't have rights for that, can't use the images without paying for them again. Is the brochure A4 or 8.5x11 because the price is different. How many copies will you print because that costs more. Will it be mailed to another country? Now its international rights and that costs more too. Need to reprint it a year later? Oops the rights expired you need to pay for them again. Royalty-free makes your life a heck of a lot easier.

Where I work now (much different job) we occasionally hire photographers but we get full rights to the images they shoot for us. They price their services accordingly as they have to make their profit on the front end of the deal.

I feel for photographers whose living is affected but from the perspective of the Getty customer this is a no-brainer. When you are competing with oodles of free and low-cost stock rights managed photos are a tough sell.

Getty makes sense. The cost to administer complicated copyright sales for mostly inexpensive photos, can be prohibitive. At least Getty feels it's not worth it.

Curious though. How would they handle a situation where the buyer wants exclusivity and doesn't want a particular picture to be used by anyone else?

 

[Pieter12]

Getty makes sense. The cost to administer complicated copyright sales for mostly inexpensive photos, can be prohibitive. At least Getty feels it's not worth it.

Curious though. How would they handle a situation where the buyer wants exclusivity and doesn't want a particular picture to be used by anyone else?

I am sure they would be glad to sell the buyer exclusive rights and pull the photo from the collection, for a price. They DO want to make money, above all. I remember finding a historical (Bettmann Archive, maybe?) photo on their site years ago, and wanting certain advertising rights. They were happy to oblige for a high fee. Upon further research, I found the same image from the source (a university collection) and they were content to let the client use the image for a nominal fee (actually no fee, be we convinced the client to pay something for the use) as long as they were credited in a caption.

 

[Ai Print]

There is NO money to be made for the 99% of shooters now.

I guess I am in the 1% then because I have been at this full time for 32 years and 2019 has been by far my best year ever in terms of creative satisfaction and in the top three in terms of income, I am up 28%.

One magazine assignment in particular paid more than double what I am used to. Stock is also up but I have always repped my self, I knew Getty's model was criminal over 15 years ago, I passed on invites to join them three times. Darkroom based black and white prints are also up as interior designers have actually commissioned me for exclusive one off works for super high end interior remodels.

I am to put it mildly, very grateful.

 

[Ariston]

Getty makes sense. The cost to administer complicated copyright sales for mostly inexpensive photos, can be prohibitive. At least Getty feels it's not worth it.

Curious though. How would they handle a situation where the buyer wants exclusivity and doesn't want a particular picture to be used by anyone else?

I think clients like that typically hire a professional instead of surfing stock photos online.

 

[MLP120]

Ian:

I approached a family friend who is a real estate agent 20 years ago and asked if she or anyone in her agency would be interested in quality photographs to sell their properties
and I was told ( as you illustrated ) the agents do their own photography. When I mentioned they were all terrible she replied the photographs are only there to spark your interest about the property. This was all before DIGITAL took hold... MLS ( multiple listing service ) isn't much better. Agents list with them, and one of their photographers comes down and shoots the building. These days they use "high tech" VR equipment for 360º views so it is a little better, but not much.

i am a Realtor here in Arizona and the MLS does not have photographers. They may recommend someone but I am not sure. I shoot a lot of listings for the other agents in my company. Stills and drone shots for $125. It lets me get to use my equipment more. I don't advertise or market my photography, just word of mouth only. Other agents take their photos on a smart phone. If I was a client and viewed those photos for my house, I would fire the agent immediately.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think clients like that typically hire a professional instead of surfing stock photos online.

Those that have the budgets will hire a photographer, but those that don't want to will surf stock photos. In general, those that hire photographers have specific needs and want something unique. Those clients don't want to use a stock image that the competition might also use.

 

[removed account4]

i am a Realtor here in Arizona and the MLS does not have photographers. They may recommend someone but I am not sure. I shoot a lot of listings for the other agents in my company. Stills and drone shots for $125. It lets me get to use my equipment more. I don't advertise or market my photography, just word of mouth only. Other agents take their photos on a smart phone. If I was a client and viewed those photos for my house, I would fire the agent immediately.

Good to hear !
Maybe because I live in a small city state they have MLS ( multiple listing service ).. that everyone uses..
andthe photography by the realtors who do their own photography is terrible, unless it is a 1, 2 or 8 million dollar home
then they do a nice-nice kind of thing. The realtors I have met locally don't really want to spend any money ... I've always thought
nice pix>more people interested>sale.. but in these parts it must mean nice pix>more people interested>sale ( and you have to pay the 'tog for the pix so less $ in your pocket )
drone and stills ! FUN!

 

[jim10219]

I would think that photographers who do product ads, brochures etc are the ones who make money along with wedding photographers. I still get loads of store and product magazines and flyers. Also from cruise ships and travels places like hotels etc. Pro photographers have to do these shots. If you want to make money in photography, you have to target the opportunity. It doesn;t seem stock is the way to go.

If the company you're shooting for is big enough, or the wedding party is rich enough, then there is indeed money to be made. However, most small companies put no value on this type of work. And most wedding parties will gladly hire this job out to a friend to save a few bucks (weddings are crazy expensive as it is).

My wife did both. The last job catalog she shot was for about 2,000 images of various auto transmission parts. He originally offered to pay her 10 cents a photo. His argument was the camera did all of the work and all she had to do was click a button. After months of negotiations, she finally got him up to $3 a photo. After it was all done, she gave him the photos and he tried to stiff her on the money. She had to threaten to hire a lawyer and remind him the contract he signed meant he would lose in court, and have to pay her legal fees and court costs. Months later, he finally paid her. This is a company that has about 100 employees and does business all over the world, so you know they had no problem coming up with $6,000. Later, this same company called her up and asked her to steal photos from a competitor's website and remove their watermarks to use on their own. She refused and reminded him it was illegal. He argued that every photo on the internet is free and yelled at her for refusing him. He still calls her about once a year to see if he can get more photos from her, but she refuses, as it just isn't worth her time.

Unfortunately, this isn't the only company like that. There are probably more companies that operate like this in the U.S. than don't. I do graphic design and am constantly getting asked to violate copyright law (I was even fired for a job because I refused to steal footage from a major motion picture without written consent and when I tried to sue them, my lawyer advised me that they would likely deny ever asking me to do that, and without written proof, I would have no case and under state law, they can fire me for any reason outside of me being part of a protected class, including no reason at all).

Wedding photography is even worse. The guests will try everything to ruin your shots (like literally, because some are mad at you because they weren't asked to shoot the wedding). The family members will often send you to other family members to collect your money in an endless loop of denial. Then, after going through months of trouble, you finally take the bride and groom to court. Only they don't show. And they lose. But the judge can't do much, outside of putting lean on their home or something. Then they get foreclosed on their house and skip town and the bank takes over the house, and you have to take the bank to court. Suddenly you've spent more money on lawyers than you're owed.

Technology has robbed any respect for creativity in this world. Everyone assumes anyone can take a photo. Everyone assumes you're born with the ability to draw, and everyone has a nephew who can draw and will do it for free. Everyone assumes that owning a DSLR makes you a pro because the camera does all of the work. Everyone assumes typography is easy because of Helvetica. And everyone assumes negative space is a waste of space.

I'm not saying you CAN'T make money as a photographer or a creative. I'm just saying that unless your clients are big enough to be listed on the NYSE or rich enough to drop $50k+ on a wedding, it's going to be really difficult to make ends meet every month without a second source of income.