7 ms·

Those pictures look really nice, so I clicked through to see how much it would cost to use them on a website. It asked me all kind of bullshit questions like wh

by Maro 14y ago

Those pictures look really nice, so I clicked through to see how much it would cost to use them on a website. It asked me all kind of bullshit questions like which industry I want to use them in, whether it's a site or an ad, TBH I don't think there's even a good way to answer their question. At the end it gave me a quote of $160 to use the image for a 1 month period. What a joke.

pvarangot 14y ago
Are you at least moderately aware of the average costs and profit margins for that kind of photography? u$d 160 a month is sort of on the cheap side for the kind of images in that landing page, specially if you are thinking about the katana one. And of the stock photo services, Getty is by far the one that treats the photographers with most respect and compensates them very competitively.
- GoodIntentions 14y ago
  Getty isn't after anyone that thinks 160 is expensive. They're after companies/individuals that understand 160 is much cheaper than paying 1+ professional for n hours to "maybe" get a usable shot. Having said that, the profusion of really really good modestly priced pro-am cameras has spawned an ugly race-to-the-bottom on stock photography. You can get ( often quite good ) stock photos for next to nothing from the low cost stock photography sites. To put it in HN parlance, Getty's model has been thoroughly 'disrupted'.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    I take issue with your 'ugly-rate-to-the-bottom' unless you can explain to me how that is any different from anything else capitalism has made cheap enough for the masses to buy?
    - GoodIntentions 14y ago
      I called it an "ugly-race-to-the-bottom" because the micro stock niche debases the art and makes the photographer's work into a commodity judge mainly on its' cost. I don't know about you, but I won't take an afternoon setting up a shoot, utilize thousands of dollars worth of gear, spend more time selecting/post processing and then submit it to a service that will sell the rights for 1 dollar and pay me pennies. The micro stock model has worked because pricing was high. It's swung the other way. Fair value is not received in many cases.
      - MichaelGG 14y ago
        Aren't there plenty of folks who would give away the images for free, even if it took them a day, just because they love doing photography, and are thrilled at the idea of anyone using their images at all?
        grego 14y ago
        Like there are many coding free apps for Android and making no money doing it... kids or first timers. I believe in few years there will be less of both, as the first generation doing this has turned bitter and told everyone who cares to listen not to make the same mistake. Now we are living exceptional times in that cost of hardware to do good work is so cheap that anyone can have a go at photography / programming / ...
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        > "debases the art" Surely if "the art" is actually a quality that objectively exists and has value, it will resist attack from those that lack it.
      - fennecfoxen 14y ago
        s/the art/my ability to make money off the art/ If you want Art, you can go put up a gallery, and whine there about how the little people who aren't paying you money don't properly appreciate your vision. If you want business.... Economics 150, friend: In an efficient market, the marginal cost of a new unit of something is the same as its price. If that's less than what you think is "fair", perhaps that's a signal that (a) there are too many people in this market, don't bother, use your skills and/or equipment elsewhere, or (b) someone else can get snazzy photos to people-who-buy-snazzy-photos more efficiently than you. The price of photographic equipment, the price of introduction to stock-photo companies, the price of accepting-stock-photo-company-terms-and-conditions, and the price of browsing-stock-photo-catalogs have all fallen dramatically thanks to technology and the Internet. That run-of-the-mill stock photos are now much cheaper ought to be expected.
  - pvarangot 14y ago
    None of the images on that landing page can be achieved with only a moderately priced pro-am camera. I understand your point, but Getty's model has not been disrupted and in fact they have no real competition. Getty offers professional images in a stock-like pricing model, short of agencies like AP there is no direct competition to them. Lets go one by one on the photos on that landing page in terms of minimum equipment and people behind them... short obviously of a camera and an achieved photographer, that is already hard enough to come by and expensive but is a common factor in all images. Katana image: model, make up, big room with stupidly expensive lamps, costume, katana, watermelon, more than one 1k/2k+ flash head. War image: ticket to war zone, bulletproof vest, AK-47, missile launcher, missile, model/combatant. Very likely many pro camera bodies, pro to resist dust, many to have spares. You won't find a pro body there if one breaks up, unless you can loot a dead photographer. London image: helicopter, helicopter pilot, weather controlling machine (can be replaced by an insane amount of luck or many tries and a lot of time in each one). Guy with car hat: model, car hat, not sure if only one flash head or camera mounted strobe. I'm not sure of how much a car hat costs but I think this is the cheapest photo of the lot.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      I agree these examples of high-end Getty photographs don't have a lot of competition, but I do think they've been losing their formerly strong grip on a wider range of middle-end stock photography, which traditionally was a big money-maker for them (and photographers) due to being high-volume. Nowadays there are a lot of alternatives for run-of-the-mill stuff like "photo of guy working at a cubicle", "photo of multi-racial group in a park smiling", "cheesecake on a plate with strawberry topping", etc.
    - arethuza 14y ago
      After playing with Google Earth and its 3D buildings, I'm pretty sure the London pic is taken from Broadgate Tower. :-) NB I was curious what the low linear building in the lower center of the image is - it's the roof of Liverpool Street Station.
    - GoodIntentions 14y ago
      Not looking for any argument here - the shots on the landing page are great examples of what Getty does and can continue doing. I agree that the serious hobbyists that feed micro stock companies those 2 dollar pictures will not compete with warzone shots, shots requiring $$$ cost in travel, props, lots of models or whatever to set up unless they happen to be professionals "double-dipping" on a paid shoot. The cash just isn't in it. The Micro-stock guys might surprise you though at how much cash they have invested in gear ( including lights ) Some of them take perfectly good photos of subjects that might previously have only been sourced more expensively through agency or in house.
  - CubicleNinjas 14y ago
    The two biggest of Getty's "competitors" are owned by Getty (iStock and StockExchange). Getty makes its money on both ends. They're also slowly rising the purchase prices for both user submission sites to be around $70/photo average compared to $10-20 two years back.
- Maro 14y ago
  To answer your question, no I'm not. My major problem was with the problematic question about the license, which I feel are impossible to answer precisely for an average small business owner with 5 minutes on his hand, which then leads to a situation where I pay a lot of money for an image but still may be violating their copyright, because I misunderstood their questions. Also, I really don't think these images are 100x better than the ones on iStockphoto, but they cost 100x more. But, if their business model is doing well, then who am I to comment on it.
  - stan_rogers 14y ago
    The questions are there to find out if you can license the image; rights may already have been licensed for certain uses (regional, publication type/genre, etc.). If your intended use overlaps with an existing license that has exclusivity, you can't use it. Even if you're the first one in, your use affects the remaining licensable rights in the image. Let's take the katana image, f'rinstance. You want to use it for your French-language extreme cookery magazine? Cool. That leaves the image available for the Karate-gi supplier's worldwide site and catalog, as well as for publication in languages other than French (unless you wanted a worldwide print publication exclusive). If you want first publication rights and exclusivity for a year, you've tied up all other rights in the image. The rights you want in the image may or may not be available, and if they are available, they will determine the licensing fee because they affect the remaining rights. If you go to a place like iStockphoto, you don't get any kind of exclusivity, and can find that every one of your competitors are using exactly the same images you are using. Oh, and so is the weekend "contractor" down the street—you know, the guy with the Skilsaw, cordless drill/driver and Workmate who ruins people's bathrooms and kitchens (but is so affordable). You get what you pay for.
kenrikm 14y ago
There are other cheaper alternatives example: Bigstockphoto = $1 - $8 per image/use (if you use credits) However Getty does have some really nice images!
- rrreese 14y ago
  Exactly you are paying for quality, and rarity. Not many cheap stock photo agencies have archive photos of US presidents: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=107553102&EditorialProduct=Archival http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=1075...
  - Maro 14y ago
    Thanks for all the answers to my rant. I'm a regular customer at iStockphoto, but for some reason I wasn't aware of higher-end options like Getty. Based on some of the comments is this thread it seems to me their business model is like "Enterprise Sales", some guy landing on their page getting a good price is not how their model works. That sucks, because I wouldn't mind paying 5-10x over iStockphoto for a great picture, but 50-100x is too much.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      Enterprise sales is exactly right, with the enterprises being the biggest ad agencies, media companies, and corporate cients on the planet. A lot of these folks are keenly interested not just in the images themselves, but also in the contexts and markets where they may have previously appeared. Often, the fewer associations an image has, the more likely they are to buy it. And if they want to ensure that no one else buys something they're working with, they'll pay very substantial amounts for full exclusivity.
  - comex 14y ago
    (Honestly, photos from 60 years ago ought to be in the public domain.)
slig 14y ago
Keep in mind that they're really big, and their clients are huge companies with deep pockets. There're a lot of cheaper alternatives with a very direct pricing. See for instance: http://photodune.net/ http://photodune.net/
Gring 14y ago
That $160 includes the royalty. It's the decision of each photographer whether to ask for one. If you don't like that, google for "royalty free stock photos", which is the much more popular way of licencing photos. Even Getty has such a section: http://www.gettyimages.ch/creativeimages/royaltyfree http://www.gettyimages.ch/creativeimages/royaltyfree Of course, the really great looking photos often are not royalty free, which is why Getty features those on that page.
JimmyL 14y ago
Welcome to the professional stock photo industry - that's what shots like that cost to use. If you'd like something cheaper (which generally won't look as good, won't have the metadata searching capabilities you needs as a professional photo editor, or may not go with the story you're trying to illustrate), the market will provide - in the form of iStockPhoto and others. Getty's main client base doesn't ever purchase just one photo, will rarely look at the price on the website (they know what they need, and already know roughly what it will cost), and more often than not will have their own separate pricing contract with Getty that looks nothing like that series of drop-down boxes. If you're searching for an individual photo, looking at the price, and considering if you need it - you're just icing on the cake for Getty, as opposed to the target of their business model.
blhack 14y ago
If you think that's expensive, go try to find a similar image on iStock.
jlarocco 14y ago
Okay, I don't get it. What's the joke? Saying "$160? What a joke." puts you in the same category as the guys on rentacoder asking for $100 Photoshop clones.

by Maro 14y ago

pvarangot 14y ago

Are you at least moderately aware of the average costs and profit margins for that kind of photography? u$d 160 a month is sort of on the cheap side for the kind of images in that landing page, specially if you are thinking about the katana one. And of the stock photo services, Getty is by far the one that treats the photographers with most respect and compensates them very competitively.

GoodIntentions 14y ago
Getty isn't after anyone that thinks 160 is expensive. They're after companies/individuals that understand 160 is much cheaper than paying 1+ professional for n hours to "maybe" get a usable shot. Having said that, the profusion of really really good modestly priced pro-am cameras has spawned an ugly race-to-the-bottom on stock photography. You can get ( often quite good ) stock photos for next to nothing from the low cost stock photography sites. To put it in HN parlance, Getty's model has been thoroughly 'disrupted'.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  I take issue with your 'ugly-rate-to-the-bottom' unless you can explain to me how that is any different from anything else capitalism has made cheap enough for the masses to buy?
  - GoodIntentions 14y ago
    I called it an "ugly-race-to-the-bottom" because the micro stock niche debases the art and makes the photographer's work into a commodity judge mainly on its' cost. I don't know about you, but I won't take an afternoon setting up a shoot, utilize thousands of dollars worth of gear, spend more time selecting/post processing and then submit it to a service that will sell the rights for 1 dollar and pay me pennies. The micro stock model has worked because pricing was high. It's swung the other way. Fair value is not received in many cases.
    - MichaelGG 14y ago
      Aren't there plenty of folks who would give away the images for free, even if it took them a day, just because they love doing photography, and are thrilled at the idea of anyone using their images at all?
      - grego 14y ago
        Like there are many coding free apps for Android and making no money doing it... kids or first timers. I believe in few years there will be less of both, as the first generation doing this has turned bitter and told everyone who cares to listen not to make the same mistake. Now we are living exceptional times in that cost of hardware to do good work is so cheap that anyone can have a go at photography / programming / ...
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > "debases the art" Surely if "the art" is actually a quality that objectively exists and has value, it will resist attack from those that lack it.
    - fennecfoxen 14y ago
      s/the art/my ability to make money off the art/ If you want Art, you can go put up a gallery, and whine there about how the little people who aren't paying you money don't properly appreciate your vision. If you want business.... Economics 150, friend: In an efficient market, the marginal cost of a new unit of something is the same as its price. If that's less than what you think is "fair", perhaps that's a signal that (a) there are too many people in this market, don't bother, use your skills and/or equipment elsewhere, or (b) someone else can get snazzy photos to people-who-buy-snazzy-photos more efficiently than you. The price of photographic equipment, the price of introduction to stock-photo companies, the price of accepting-stock-photo-company-terms-and-conditions, and the price of browsing-stock-photo-catalogs have all fallen dramatically thanks to technology and the Internet. That run-of-the-mill stock photos are now much cheaper ought to be expected.
- pvarangot 14y ago
  None of the images on that landing page can be achieved with only a moderately priced pro-am camera. I understand your point, but Getty's model has not been disrupted and in fact they have no real competition. Getty offers professional images in a stock-like pricing model, short of agencies like AP there is no direct competition to them. Lets go one by one on the photos on that landing page in terms of minimum equipment and people behind them... short obviously of a camera and an achieved photographer, that is already hard enough to come by and expensive but is a common factor in all images. Katana image: model, make up, big room with stupidly expensive lamps, costume, katana, watermelon, more than one 1k/2k+ flash head. War image: ticket to war zone, bulletproof vest, AK-47, missile launcher, missile, model/combatant. Very likely many pro camera bodies, pro to resist dust, many to have spares. You won't find a pro body there if one breaks up, unless you can loot a dead photographer. London image: helicopter, helicopter pilot, weather controlling machine (can be replaced by an insane amount of luck or many tries and a lot of time in each one). Guy with car hat: model, car hat, not sure if only one flash head or camera mounted strobe. I'm not sure of how much a car hat costs but I think this is the cheapest photo of the lot.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    I agree these examples of high-end Getty photographs don't have a lot of competition, but I do think they've been losing their formerly strong grip on a wider range of middle-end stock photography, which traditionally was a big money-maker for them (and photographers) due to being high-volume. Nowadays there are a lot of alternatives for run-of-the-mill stuff like "photo of guy working at a cubicle", "photo of multi-racial group in a park smiling", "cheesecake on a plate with strawberry topping", etc.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    After playing with Google Earth and its 3D buildings, I'm pretty sure the London pic is taken from Broadgate Tower. :-) NB I was curious what the low linear building in the lower center of the image is - it's the roof of Liverpool Street Station.
  - GoodIntentions 14y ago
    Not looking for any argument here - the shots on the landing page are great examples of what Getty does and can continue doing. I agree that the serious hobbyists that feed micro stock companies those 2 dollar pictures will not compete with warzone shots, shots requiring $$$ cost in travel, props, lots of models or whatever to set up unless they happen to be professionals "double-dipping" on a paid shoot. The cash just isn't in it. The Micro-stock guys might surprise you though at how much cash they have invested in gear ( including lights ) Some of them take perfectly good photos of subjects that might previously have only been sourced more expensively through agency or in house.
- CubicleNinjas 14y ago
  The two biggest of Getty's "competitors" are owned by Getty (iStock and StockExchange). Getty makes its money on both ends. They're also slowly rising the purchase prices for both user submission sites to be around $70/photo average compared to $10-20 two years back.
Maro 14y ago
To answer your question, no I'm not. My major problem was with the problematic question about the license, which I feel are impossible to answer precisely for an average small business owner with 5 minutes on his hand, which then leads to a situation where I pay a lot of money for an image but still may be violating their copyright, because I misunderstood their questions. Also, I really don't think these images are 100x better than the ones on iStockphoto, but they cost 100x more. But, if their business model is doing well, then who am I to comment on it.
- stan_rogers 14y ago
  The questions are there to find out if you can license the image; rights may already have been licensed for certain uses (regional, publication type/genre, etc.). If your intended use overlaps with an existing license that has exclusivity, you can't use it. Even if you're the first one in, your use affects the remaining licensable rights in the image. Let's take the katana image, f'rinstance. You want to use it for your French-language extreme cookery magazine? Cool. That leaves the image available for the Karate-gi supplier's worldwide site and catalog, as well as for publication in languages other than French (unless you wanted a worldwide print publication exclusive). If you want first publication rights and exclusivity for a year, you've tied up all other rights in the image. The rights you want in the image may or may not be available, and if they are available, they will determine the licensing fee because they affect the remaining rights. If you go to a place like iStockphoto, you don't get any kind of exclusivity, and can find that every one of your competitors are using exactly the same images you are using. Oh, and so is the weekend "contractor" down the street—you know, the guy with the Skilsaw, cordless drill/driver and Workmate who ruins people's bathrooms and kitchens (but is so affordable). You get what you pay for.

kenrikm 14y ago

There are other cheaper alternatives example: Bigstockphoto = $1 - $8 per image/use (if you use credits) However Getty does have some really nice images!

rrreese 14y ago
Exactly you are paying for quality, and rarity. Not many cheap stock photo agencies have archive photos of US presidents: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=107553102&EditorialProduct=Archival http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=1075...
- Maro 14y ago
  Thanks for all the answers to my rant. I'm a regular customer at iStockphoto, but for some reason I wasn't aware of higher-end options like Getty. Based on some of the comments is this thread it seems to me their business model is like "Enterprise Sales", some guy landing on their page getting a good price is not how their model works. That sucks, because I wouldn't mind paying 5-10x over iStockphoto for a great picture, but 50-100x is too much.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    Enterprise sales is exactly right, with the enterprises being the biggest ad agencies, media companies, and corporate cients on the planet. A lot of these folks are keenly interested not just in the images themselves, but also in the contexts and markets where they may have previously appeared. Often, the fewer associations an image has, the more likely they are to buy it. And if they want to ensure that no one else buys something they're working with, they'll pay very substantial amounts for full exclusivity.
- comex 14y ago
  (Honestly, photos from 60 years ago ought to be in the public domain.)

slig 14y ago

Keep in mind that they're really big, and their clients are huge companies with deep pockets. There're a lot of cheaper alternatives with a very direct pricing. See for instance: http://photodune.net/ http://photodune.net/

Gring 14y ago

That $160 includes the royalty. It's the decision of each photographer whether to ask for one. If you don't like that, google for "royalty free stock photos", which is the much more popular way of licencing photos. Even Getty has such a section: http://www.gettyimages.ch/creativeimages/royaltyfree http://www.gettyimages.ch/creativeimages/royaltyfree Of course, the really great looking photos often are not royalty free, which is why Getty features those on that page.

JimmyL 14y ago

Welcome to the professional stock photo industry - that's what shots like that cost to use. If you'd like something cheaper (which generally won't look as good, won't have the metadata searching capabilities you needs as a professional photo editor, or may not go with the story you're trying to illustrate), the market will provide - in the form of iStockPhoto and others. Getty's main client base doesn't ever purchase just one photo, will rarely look at the price on the website (they know what they need, and already know roughly what it will cost), and more often than not will have their own separate pricing contract with Getty that looks nothing like that series of drop-down boxes. If you're searching for an individual photo, looking at the price, and considering if you need it - you're just icing on the cake for Getty, as opposed to the target of their business model.

blhack 14y ago

If you think that's expensive, go try to find a similar image on iStock.

jlarocco 14y ago

Okay, I don't get it. What's the joke? Saying "$160? What a joke." puts you in the same category as the guys on rentacoder asking for $100 Photoshop clones.