Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Getty invite


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:55 AM

Dear all,

I just got the Getty invite on Flickr to sell some images. Concerned about the exclusivity clause, can anyone guide? This is what they say:

Exclusivity
All Content submitted to Getty Images is on a Content exclusive basis. This means that Content submitted to Getty Images and any other content that is substantially the same (a “Similar”) may not be licensed to any third party unless Getty Images has notified you that it has been rejected. However, on a non-exclusive basis, You may use Content and any Similars for your personal or self promotional, non-commercial use, including sharing Content on photo sharing websites, blogs or social networking websites for personal or self-promotional/non-commercial use, provided that you do not compete with or limit the rights granted to Getty Images under the Agreement. Also on a co-exclusive basis with Getty Images, you may use Accepted Content that is available for license through a royalty-free license model in connection with the sale by you of prints, t-shirts and other retail merchandise where the Accepted Content is the focus of the product, so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the Accepted Content for anything other than such merchandising. On an exclusive basis you may use Content and any Similars for limited edition, signed and/or numbered fine art prints (though Getty Images retains the exclusive right to sell and license prints not signed or numbered).

Copyright
Subject to the rights granted in this Agreement you will retain your copyright in all Content. You may register the copyright in any Content with the relevant copyright authority, or Getty Images may do so on Your behalf.

Would you do it?

Thanks
Alex
www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland

#2 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:La Maddalena

Posted 12 May 2012 - 03:02 AM

I definitely wouldn't sign up to that.

Alex

Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D4 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (waiting for housing).


#3 PeteAtkinson

PeteAtkinson

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phuket, Thailand

Posted 12 May 2012 - 04:22 AM

Looks like the normal Getty stuff to me. It means that the image and similars can't really be licensed elsewhere by you, or another agent. So if they want a lionfish and glassfish picture, that could exclude half your collection from being sold... I haven't seen an agent with different terms; they usually want image-exclusive so they don't have to compete with another agent for the sale of the same picture.
Off topic, but far more concerning to me, is that you (both) have given Facebook rights to sublicense every picture you post on an RF basis. If Getty and FB get together, they could be selling your pictures, low res, to clients all over the world without paying anything. This is in the terms of contract! I can't understand why more people aren't upset about it. Eric Cheng has a pal at FB who I have contacted, but nothing reassuring has come back at all.

#4 Cary Dean

Cary Dean

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 12 May 2012 - 05:12 AM

Looks like the normal Getty stuff to me. It means that the image and similars can't really be licensed elsewhere by you, or another agent. So if they want a lionfish and glassfish picture, that could exclude half your collection from being sold... I haven't seen an agent with different terms; they usually want image-exclusive so they don't have to compete with another agent for the sale of the same picture.
Off topic, but far more concerning to me, is that you (both) have given Facebook rights to sublicense every picture you post on an RF basis. If Getty and FB get together, they could be selling your pictures, low res, to clients all over the world without paying anything. This is in the terms of contract! I can't understand why more people aren't upset about it. Eric Cheng has a pal at FB who I have contacted, but nothing reassuring has come back at all.


Same way I understand it. Normal Getty contract.

OP - What you didn't mention was what cut they get compared to you.
If I remember your piece of the pie is small compared to theirs.
70/30 in their favor if I remember.....

"The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever."
Jacques Yves Cousteau

#5 Poliwog

Poliwog

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Diving, Travel, 6 metre Bombard Explorer RIB, Triumph Spitfire 1500, Amateur Radio(VE3WRP)

Posted 12 May 2012 - 11:38 AM

Me, neither.

You can get better commission splits elsewhere without having to look too hard.
Paul Walker.
Nikon D2x, D7000, Aquatica D2x, AD7000, SunStrobe 200 x2, Inon Z240 x2, TLC Arms

#6 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 13 May 2012 - 11:32 AM

Alex, Getty doesn't normally consider wildlife photos in the same context as everything else. You can license to Getty version 1 of the Lionfish/glass fish shot and then sell the version 2 to a magazine etc. There comission for RM is 30% RF 20%. I'm not advocating joining one way or the other but my thought is your exposure to clients is magnified significantly with Getty.
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages

#7 Timmoranuk

Timmoranuk

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near NDAC, South Wales
  • Interests:Technical diving; open circuit and rebreather, U/W photography, topside photography, travel, aviation and sailing.

Posted 13 May 2012 - 12:04 PM

Hi Alex, when I'm mended we'll have a chat and I'll introduce you the the agency I work with. London based, international markets and they settle promptly. They keep me in beer vouchers...
· Canon 5D3, 7D & Nauticam housings. Sigma 15mm, Canon 16-35mm, Tokina 10-17mm, Sigma 8-16mm, Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 17-70mm, Sigma 70-200mm, Sigma 120-300mm, Canon 60mm & 100mm
· INON Z-240s & Sea & Sea YS-250 Pros
· SmallHD DP4 monitor & NA-DP4. Fisheye Aquavolt 3500s & 7000s
· Zen DP-100, DP-200 & DP-230

#8 Alex_Tattersall

Alex_Tattersall

    Great Hammerhead

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 May 2012 - 02:51 AM

Thanks Tim, hope you are sorted soon!
www.flickr.com/photos/alextattersall

www.nauticamuk.com
www.uwvisions.com
Exclusive official importer of Nauticam products into the UK and Ireland

#9 decosnapper

decosnapper

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 07:07 AM

No, I would not sign that...not sure the Getty split is in favour of the creator either...as others have said, better deals elsewhere...

From the stock library's perspective, it makes little difference to license 10 images for $500 or 1000 images for $5 - their 50/50 cut remains the same...but it makes a difference if you are one of the 10 or one of the 1000 photographers.

I have pretty much given up submitting stock to many...the last sales report I saw images being licensed for very low fees indeed...based on that, I decided to not chase the market to the bottom and find other outlets for my work...
Simon Brown

www.simonbrownimages.com

#10 decosnapper

decosnapper

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 07:10 AM

....Off topic, but far more concerning to me, is that you (both) have given Facebook rights to sublicense every picture you post on an RF basis. If Getty and FB get together, they could be selling your pictures, low res, to clients all over the world without paying anything. This is in the terms of contract! I can't understand why more people aren't upset about it. Eric Cheng has a pal at FB who I have contacted, but nothing reassuring has come back at all.

It concerns me too...FB are sitting on a pile of IP...not surprised anything reassuring has come back...all those investors and shareholders will want to see a return one day...
Simon Brown

www.simonbrownimages.com

#11 Scubysnaps

Scubysnaps

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Central
  • Interests:Diving, photography, Aprilia RSVR, VW Vans! www.scubysnaps.com

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:29 AM

wording aside, I still think its a great achievement to be approached by one of the worlds top photo agencies, well done Alex....If they are of any value to me I always stick personalised watermark on my facebook images slightly off centre of image with a percentage of opacity, theres not much anyone can do with the image then, anyone they show it to has your details automatically too, better than just an impersonal copyright symbol
Cheers
Paul

*Nikon D90 with Tokina 10-17 & Nikon 60mm, 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Kenko1.4 * 2 x Z240 & 2 x 12 litres...global! *

www.scubysnaps.com >)))°>

#12 decosnapper

decosnapper

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:20 AM

....If they are of any value to me I always stick personalised watermark....


Its not the value to you...its the value to them...that's what makes an image valuable...and its not always easy to predict how an image can be used...based on that, I would recommend watermarking everything...
Simon Brown

www.simonbrownimages.com