After two years or more as a Getty contributor (via Flickr), I have cancelled my contract with Getty Images. While they licensed several of my images early on for reasonable fees, there seemed to be a definite downward trend in fees for my work. Of course, I am not alone as lowball pricing is endemic in the stock image industry. I guess the last straw was when Getty licensed one of my rights managed images via their Beijing portal for use on mobile phone covers for the princely sum of $1.19, of which I received 36 cents. This was a renewal of a license fee for usage last year ($4.19) and which I questioned Getty about before the renewal. Of course, I received no response. My most recent sale via Getty was also a renewal but at 50% of the original license fee. At this rate, photographers will soon be paying buyers to license their work! Due to their exclusivity, it was just not economic for me to license work for 36 cents. What the most astounding comment from Getty when they eventually (after a month or so of nagging) commented on the license by the Beijing portal was that they had no control of third party pricing. Astonishing to say the least. If that is true, then someone in Getty's legal department stuffed up big time if this was written into the three year contract with the Chinese company.
I was never entirely happy having Getty license my work. Their appalling commission (they keep 70-80% of fees, depending on RM or RF), the exclusivity which means that I cannot license my work which appears on Getty anywhere else (even directly to clients) and the inability to choose the license (RM or RF). All that said, my RPI (revenue per image) was very good with Getty but it was probably their attitude of "lump it or like it" bothered me. Getty is now uploading photographers images to Fine Art America print site, competing directly with photographers who have had their images on FAA for years. They are undercutting them to such an extent that its not worthwhile to keep images on this site. Thankfully, none of my images are being uploaded by Getty and they won't now because Getty removed my images from their own site within days of me cancelling my contract. What a lot of Getty photographers don't realise,especially those on Flickr, is that RF images can be downloaded by clients for a low amount and then the images can be on-sold as prints by the client without reference or any further payment to the photographer. When this was brought up on the Getty/Flickr forum, it was never answered or acknowledged by Getty.
I have 19th October 2012 circled on my calendar as the "free of Getty" day!
I was never entirely happy having Getty license my work. Their appalling commission (they keep 70-80% of fees, depending on RM or RF), the exclusivity which means that I cannot license my work which appears on Getty anywhere else (even directly to clients) and the inability to choose the license (RM or RF). All that said, my RPI (revenue per image) was very good with Getty but it was probably their attitude of "lump it or like it" bothered me. Getty is now uploading photographers images to Fine Art America print site, competing directly with photographers who have had their images on FAA for years. They are undercutting them to such an extent that its not worthwhile to keep images on this site. Thankfully, none of my images are being uploaded by Getty and they won't now because Getty removed my images from their own site within days of me cancelling my contract. What a lot of Getty photographers don't realise,especially those on Flickr, is that RF images can be downloaded by clients for a low amount and then the images can be on-sold as prints by the client without reference or any further payment to the photographer. When this was brought up on the Getty/Flickr forum, it was never answered or acknowledged by Getty.
I have 19th October 2012 circled on my calendar as the "free of Getty" day!
