Photographers, Masterfile, Getty should be ashamed of themselves

[Rainbow Queen]

Photographers should be ashamed of themselves to go after people and extort thousands of dollars for some image not worth more than $30. Who buys Rights Managed images anyway?? WHO? I am asking you who would be so crazy to pay $800 per year for an image. This is the standard pricing at Masterfile. I think it is a major fraud right on their website.

[newzshooter]

So, who decides what an image is worth? You?
If you want a generic, Walmartesque image, I suppose a $30 will work for you.

On the other hand, if you want a unique image that very few companies have, you'll need to pay more. A lot more. If you want an image that no other company has, you'll pay more still. Exclusivity is pricey, along the lines of $10K or more.

For the most part, a photo from the stock agencies isn't going to help set your company apart from your competition.

If you want the best wedding photos, you'll pay for them. The same holds true for every other type of photography and these aren't people with a $200 point and shoot or dslr picked up at a local Best Buy. Top notch equipment costs money, and that equipment wears out, meaning . Training costs money. Advertising costs money. Insurance costs money.

The people making money on $30 images probably aren't making a living at it, unless they've got thousands of images for sale and rely on bulk sales.

Like anything else, you generally get what you pay for. If prints made at Walmart do the trick for you, there you go.
If you need custom work, or something unique, expect to pay for it. $30 isn't goning to do anything to set you apart from your competition.

[Bekka]

LOL!  $10,000 for one picture....it better be a "real" dinosaur that has ben extinct for millions of years and then suddenly appear in NYC.  I can't think of any photo worth $10,000, heck I don't see how some oil paintings sell for what they do. 

As far as equipment, have you ever seen the pictures from the moon expedition?  They were taken by a box camera strapped to the chest of an astronaut.  The astronaut could not pick it up and aim it, nor adjust any settings, nor have any special lighting and guess what, they were flawless.  Too funny!  The 16mm and 35mm cameras, projectors and even film have gone by the wayside.  Everything is digital and can be manipulated, smoothed out, etc via computer programs.  I have seen some pictures taken by a polaroid disposable camera look better than studio pictures, so there is no way to justify that kind of money for a photograph.

One more thing, a photograph on a website just sits there.  If I have a process, procedure, etc. that I want demonstrated or representated it would be much more plausible to get a 3D model that can show the smallest detail and be animated in a way to describe what I am offering, whereas a still image can not do that.  The only photos for websites would be "contact us" or very generic photos of items such as cars, birds, cats, etc. 

Now if someone hired you to go to Afghanistan and take a picture, then you could charge for travel, protection, and time expenses which you would in incur, and maybe get $10,000 from the person that commissioned you.  But even so, the picture itself would not be worth $10,000.

I don't mean to sound ugly, but I just can't see someone spending that kind of money for one photo unless they have more money than sense.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

ok I'll jump in here.. I think what newzshooter is stating is getting twisted here. It's not so much what the photo is worth, but how the photo is used..

For example if i go to getty cause I need an image for my site and only my site, it will be on one page, no other use..the image will be less expensive..Now say I also want to use that in my publication / magazine, the magaizne has 50k subscribers, so now in essence i'm using the image 50,000 times, hence it will cost more money...now say I also want to distribute the same image on my site, in the magaizine and I also want to include it on a DVD for digital subscribers...thats another use, the price goes up..

kinda like how car rentals used to be it would be x amount to rent the car and x amount additional for miles...more use more money, very simple concept.

The problem with getty ( with me anyway) is not what they charge, but the WAY they go about trying to collect and the extremely high amounts, regardless of usage or anything. Trust me big company's ( Ford,  Movado, ect...) pay tens of thousand of dollars for images in advertising per year..it's just another cost of business

Another new model I've seen recently and I'll use dominoes for an example, they recently ran a photo contest, for 1 year free pizz or something silly, the catch was to submit your photos..the winner get the pizza, but ALL of the photo's become the property of Dominoes, copyright and all to use however they see fit...this is horrible for photographers and I'm quiet sure no pros would enter such a contest, hell i'm a hack and wouldn't enter it, as they were not going to compensate me in any way shape or form, but use my images in all of their adds, billbords, commercials ect....

[Bekka]

Well, I can see your point, but also keep in mind that if you buy/lease an image from Getty, it will not be unique just for your website, because they can still sell that picture to others as long as it is in their catalogue.  Another point, most magazines & newspapers have their own in house photographers.  I know that we used to run a local newspaper for the airport community here and we had ads from Ford.  They furnished their own photos, whether from stock or hired photography, I don't know.  Some were artist's renderings of cars, etc. We also took our own pictures.  With advertising dollars spread thin in this economy, I would suspect more and more companies will start to reign in or eliminate those kinds of costs that can be controlled.

I never really truly understood the concept of "rights managed" photos and I suppose I never will.  It seems rather extravagant to pay for a photo for use "several times," when you could just take your own picture or purchase a "royalty free" image and use it.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

They are indeed reining in those costs, which I think is part of the reason for the letters, Getty is hurting in the way of sales, since nowadays everybody has a digital camera of some sort, the sales have gone down, so they resort to this method...it's all about the bottom dollar, they don't care who they step on or put into a grave..

Hell even in my business I've had to think outside the box to get sales back, but would never stoop to such low levels..

I'm active on a photography forum and see questions about pricing almost daily, it's always the standard answers, how are the photo's going to be used, how often, where, when, does the potential client want to purchase copyright...prices are always based on these elements.

[SoylentGreen]

In my professional experience with stock image companies, using an image in print media was not as expensive as using it on the web.
For example, we paid $2000 for exclusive use of an image for print, but it would have cost about $12,000 to use it anywhere on the web site.
This was a number of years ago, however.  I shy away from the stock image companies these days.

Let's all be honest with each other here.
The price demanded for infringements is designed specifically to be as high as possible while being low enough that it's cheaper to pay it than to hire legal representation.
It has little to do with the quality of the photograph, skill, equipment, or anything.  It's about money.
Riddick/Imageline wanted millions (literally) for complete garbage.

We mentioned Ford.  Can you imagine if Ford started threatening to litigate or began suing its customers?
The company wouldn't last a year, and there'd be no bailout.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I understand everyone's point here. But why stop at $10,000? Why doesn't Getty just slap a $100,000 price tag on some of these generic "rights managed" photos they are sending the letters out over? I mean they certainly are not selling any at either price point.

They seem to think these photos are worth thousands of dollars for their appearance on the third level web page that gets 20 visits a month. I swear if any of these outrageous claims get tested in court the judge will laugh them out. And that is why I believe they haven't been tested.

Please note, I am not saying that some photographers work is not worth 10's of thousands. Take the moon landing example. The equipment might not have been all that by modern standards, but getting to the location WAS a little pricey.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that there is a huge chasm between getting an exclusive one-on-a-kind photo to feature prominently on your web site, and a 200 by 200 pixel photo of a handshake illustrating a business article three levels down. However the stock agencies do not want to take this into account. So if they are already claiming 10k is reasonable, why not 100k -- or a million?

[SoylentGreen]

I know that it won't happen.
However, I'd be interested to see some of the $10,000 photos that were infringed upon.
I'm honestly not being facetious; I do wish to understand the pricing levels.

While were speaking "photo contests" where the "copyright" becomes that of the company running the contest, does anyone remember the small print that Facebook had about it owning the copyrights to every photo uploaded to its site for perpetuity?

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I remember that fiasco well, they have since "re-worded" these terms:

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

The key here is "subject to your privacy settings" so there is a way around this, however most laymen never look at the terms much less understand them..I rarely post images on FB and if i do I make sure they suck for the most part, or I just visit newzshooters site and grab them from there! ; ) Just kidding newz! I don't steal images or content..

[newzshooter]

Bekka,
The cameras used on Apollo 11 were far from simple "box cameras" they were Hasselblads, which were the cameras of choice for NASA for years.
In fact the "moon cameras" were specially made to operate on the moon. The lenses were made by Carl Zeiss and were also specially designed for the lunar expedition. Neither Hasselblads, nor Zeiss lenses are inexpensive, even today. I own some Zeiss designed lenses, they are among the best ever made and I paid a pretty penny for them.

You are missing the point. A unique image that no one else has is more valuable than an image that appears on 9,000 websites.

My guess is that you are an engineering type person. For you everything is a linear process, and there is no deviating from the process. If all a picture does is "sit there", then why have it at all? It should be eyecatching and draw the viewer's interest. There's a reason companies often have an art department, it's because bean counters and engineers can't see beyond there own boxes.

[Bekka]

I think you missed the point I was trying to make about the moon pictures.  Strap on a cheap or an expensive camera do your chest.  Then take pictures.  If you can't aim at your target, except to turn in the general direction and you can't get professional lighting, not to mention the radiation exposure to the film going through the Van Allen Belt and you are still able to turn out flawless pictures, then I suggest anyone can.  I really wasn't referring to the price of the camera, but the way the pictures had to be taken. 

If "us" engineering types can't deviate from the "box," then how do you explain your fancy megapixel cameras, or your Zeiss lenses, or better yet the very spaceship that went to the moon?

I am with S.G. on this one, I would love to see an infringed picture that someone has valued at $10,000.  The very generic one my web guy used came close....$5,520 and it was a brunette woman with a headset on with a notepad in her hand.  She was no beauty, there was nothing in that picture that was unique, so I am assuming that once the photographer took the picture it became art on the scale of a mini "Mona Lisa" in his mind and therefore justifying the high value that Masterfile has placed on it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge photographers from making a living and there are many people out there who really do enjoy the art they see in still images.  I also do not believe in taking others people's work without compensating them, but I do object to being harrassed and asked to pay huge sums of money for a picture that I was not responsible for using in the first place.  A reasonable amount and a nice cease and desist should be sufficient without all the threats.  It really leaves such a bad taste in one's mouth and makes them want to boycott the stock photo houses and because of this it piggybacks straight to the photographers who condone this type of activity.

[photographer]

As mentioned, it entirely depends on usage.
I license at least one photo per year for 10k USD or more and these are for advertising use and not exclusive.

If you want exclusivity for a license it is a minimum of 25k USD and again depending on length of time.

So whilst I agree coming after someone for 5k or 3k for a single web use image does appear ridiculous it depends if that image has been licensed or not exclusively or if the infringment has stopped exclusive licenses being sold. Whilst this may be rare this is the main reason I chase infringements. Infringements of exclusively licensed images.

On friday I licensed images from 75 dollars (single one off use small in a printed newspaper) to 710 dollars (print front cover).
For website use it varies for me from 50 dollars to over 3500, again depending on usage etc.

As for who buys rights managed images, well loads of people, otherwise I wouldnt be in business. The current trend for high value images is to move away from the generic RF stock as everyone has them and they are known to be 'cheap', so companies will either go for more exclusivity with the likes of Getty or will commission someone like me to produce bespoke images for them.

Its these bespoke images that I am being infringed for the most, purely because they are unique to an industry and people have sat down over a period of time and crafted.

If you are really 'unlucky' then you will infringe an image which is no longer for sale or which has an exclusive license applied. There is no 'market value' for this as the image isnt for sale.
If thats not the case then just get a variety of responses from a number of photographers or agencies and see what the market value is. I am sometimes called on to provide what I would consider the market value for commissioned photographs or a wedding package as a result of a legal dispute so for stock photos its easier.

Just as an aside, my highest grossing ever image (over 20k) was one I took walking back to the car, didnt even consider uploading to an agency as I couldnt see the value in it and only uploaded it because I took it and it was part of a batch. No-one was more surprised than me when I saw the first sale for over 10k.
On the other hand my 2nd highest grossing image (approx 20k) was one Id waited a month on the right atmospheric conditions, hired models, hired a venue, got model and property releases for and spent about a day in post production. I knew it would get me a lot of money, but sat for 2 years without a single sale before coming good.

The old saying, dont judge a book by its cover, look up the price guides, go to a few auctions and see what it is being sold for....

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

You do realize that you are talking about images that are NOTHING like the images Getty is claiming to represent, don't you? My personal experience and the disputed images I have seen are almost laughable in their mediocrity.

So, like I said, why not just price them at a million bucks.

[SoylentGreen]

Prices for photographic work have really come down due to the competition; everybody's in on the game.
Good equipment is much cheaper these days, too.

The top-end prices mentioned here are pretty rare.
The high-end is usually reserved for one-of-a kind news snaps that can be syndicated to all sorts of media outlets.
For example, if you had a photo of the Challenger Disaster, and nobody else had a good photo of it, then that would be worth a lot.
A photo isn't worth much if it's easily "repeatable", can be set up again, or if there are many photos in existence of the subject matter.

For most alleged infringements, you can divide the settlement demand by 30 or 40 to get the actual retail price.
So, a $20,000 "infringement" is probably a $500 dollar photo license.

Also, let's not confuse what a stock image company would pay a photographer for exclusive rights to a unique photo with what it would cost a customer to purchase a license to use it.
A photographer might get thousands on a good photo, but it can be licensed for use for much, much less.

However, I'm pretty sure that it's in the best interests of photographers who chase infringements to give the public a greatly inflated picture of what the prices are.

S.G.