Getty images: a photo business under pressure

October 25, 2006 By

I’m sitting here listening to Jonathan Klein talk with a variety of bloggers. Thomas Hawk, CEO of Zooomr, and Kristopher Tate, Founder of Zooomr, a photosharing site are here too. So is Marshall from TechCrunch.

Anyway, Jonathan just came from meeting with analysts and shareholders where he announced some bad news.

This is a business that’s seeing radical changes due to folks like Thomas. Thomas is an amateur. He gives his high-res images away for free, or for a low price if you want to use them commercially. He uses the same Canon 5D that other professionals are using. And, his images are often as good or better than the ones the pros are getting.

And Thomas is HARDLY the only photographer out there who is putting pressure on the professionals. Nikon and Canon are selling hundreds of thousands of digital SLRs every year, most of which go to amateurs or semi-pros who aren’t able to get their images onto Getty right now.

One thing. Go to Getty Images’ home page. Now go to Zooomr. And Flickr.

What do you notice? I notice a couple of things.

1) There’s a photo on the home page of Zooomr and Flickr, but not on Getty.
2) There’s a search box on Flickr, but not on Getty.

It’s interesting how cold the Getty site feels. Clinical. Which shows the bias of Getty. They don’t care about making the site entertaining, they want to make it easy for a magazine editor to find a photo and buy it.

Getty is the most profitable photo site and has many of the world’s best-known images in its archives.

It’ll be interesting to see how quickly they learn from upstarts like Zooomr and Flickr.

One thing I learned is that most of the most profitable images on Getty are of celebrities.

Filed Under: 1
Newer Comments →
  • http://www.convos.com/ Matt

    Another interesting space is the on the video side. Getty offers the sale of stock video (and it’s not cheap).

    The availability of professional level equipment and editing software makes it much easier for an amateur filmmaker to produce professional grade digital footage.

    Combine that with the advances in video distribution / streaming / playback and you’ll soon see some low cost stock video become more accessable to businesses that could not afford a huge production.

    We put together a quick video for our site this past weekend using a panasonic DVC30, handheld steadicam, and Final Cut:

    http://www.convos.com/home/video-our-first-video.html

  • http://www.convos.com Matt

    Another interesting space is the on the video side. Getty offers the sale of stock video (and it’s not cheap).

    The availability of professional level equipment and editing software makes it much easier for an amateur filmmaker to produce professional grade digital footage.

    Combine that with the advances in video distribution / streaming / playback and you’ll soon see some low cost stock video become more accessable to businesses that could not afford a huge production.

    We put together a quick video for our site this past weekend using a panasonic DVC30, handheld steadicam, and Final Cut:

    http://www.convos.com/home/video-our-first-video.html

  • http://www.andcurve.com/ kevintel

    Whoa, I think you’re jumping the gun a little in your analysis. Getty is also aiming at graphic designers (I used to be one before I found out about The Internets) and if I was to point at a factor hurting Getty I would point at the web for sure, but because of much lower production costs in web design more than anything. Customers are tighter with web-based graphics budgets. Getty isn’t cheap. The guys they deal with aren’t cheap. They probably still have a lot of overhead from when they did business by cd collections rather than the web (Remember Photodisc? And endless free Photo catalogues? That’s padding out their mid-quality offerings).

    I’ll say this: iStockPhoto isn’t bad, but it’s still not a patch on Getty’s better collections, where you might buy sole worldwide use of an image. And don’t forget that where Flickr might give them trouble is the outright theft of material from Flickr; we always thought the better of stealing from Getty, because you know they’ll come and get you sooner or later.

    I’d be pretty careful before I point to Web 2.0 as a Getty slayer, but I’m curious about your thoughts on the theft possibility.

  • http://www.andcurve.com kevintel

    Whoa, I think you’re jumping the gun a little in your analysis. Getty is also aiming at graphic designers (I used to be one before I found out about The Internets) and if I was to point at a factor hurting Getty I would point at the web for sure, but because of much lower production costs in web design more than anything. Customers are tighter with web-based graphics budgets. Getty isn’t cheap. The guys they deal with aren’t cheap. They probably still have a lot of overhead from when they did business by cd collections rather than the web (Remember Photodisc? And endless free Photo catalogues? That’s padding out their mid-quality offerings).

    I’ll say this: iStockPhoto isn’t bad, but it’s still not a patch on Getty’s better collections, where you might buy sole worldwide use of an image. And don’t forget that where Flickr might give them trouble is the outright theft of material from Flickr; we always thought the better of stealing from Getty, because you know they’ll come and get you sooner or later.

    I’d be pretty careful before I point to Web 2.0 as a Getty slayer, but I’m curious about your thoughts on the theft possibility.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    kevintel: that’s true. Most amateurs aren’t going to hire lawyers to come after you if you steal their images. Getty will.

    But Thomas is already getting quite a few commercial jobs, but for less than a typical Getty photographer will get.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    kevintel: that’s true. Most amateurs aren’t going to hire lawyers to come after you if you steal their images. Getty will.

    But Thomas is already getting quite a few commercial jobs, but for less than a typical Getty photographer will get.

  • David G

    iStockPhoto, which was acquired earlier this year by Getty, already addresses your criticisms of Getty, Robert. As far as I know, iStock preceeded both Flickr and Zoomr — and could teach both companies a lot about actually monetizing their great graphic content.

    Getty has to still play to their traditional media customers but with time, I suspect you’ll see the bulk of their business organically move to the iStockPhoto brand.

    Last point on this is that photographers typically specialize. Those that specialize in Stock should probably stick with Getty, but those that specialize in events / sports etc. should absolutely use tools and networks like Flickr to promote their work.

  • David G

    iStockPhoto, which was acquired earlier this year by Getty, already addresses your criticisms of Getty, Robert. As far as I know, iStock preceeded both Flickr and Zoomr — and could teach both companies a lot about actually monetizing their great graphic content.

    Getty has to still play to their traditional media customers but with time, I suspect you’ll see the bulk of their business organically move to the iStockPhoto brand.

    Last point on this is that photographers typically specialize. Those that specialize in Stock should probably stick with Getty, but those that specialize in events / sports etc. should absolutely use tools and networks like Flickr to promote their work.

  • http://www.darrenbarefoot.com dbarefoot

    It’s not so much Flickr and Zoomr that’s killing Getty, but all the upstart stock photo sites that sell decent images at a 10th or 50th of the price. We use iStockPhoto.com for most of our stock photo needs, with photos never costing more than $5.

  • sam

    Those are some good observations. I’ve been thinking about this too. I’m of the opinion that pro amateurs and flickr aren’t going to completely displace Getty, Corbis, et al. But they’re going to erode their lower end and will probably precipitate changes in how professional stock images are priced and licensed.

    And I’m hoping professional stock photography is going to start looking a little more like amateur, “user generated” photography. Maybe that makes no sense; maybe pro photographers will hold on to what differentiates their work. But I think taste is changing, people are more accepting of uncorrected color, bad focus, etc. I’d like to see that cause an overall shift in taste, along with a move away from professional cultural production.

  • http://www.darrenbarefoot.com Darren

    It’s not so much Flickr and Zoomr that’s killing Getty, but all the upstart stock photo sites that sell decent images at a 10th or 50th of the price. We use iStockPhoto.com for most of our stock photo needs, with photos never costing more than $5.

  • sam

    Those are some good observations. I’ve been thinking about this too. I’m of the opinion that pro amateurs and flickr aren’t going to completely displace Getty, Corbis, et al. But they’re going to erode their lower end and will probably precipitate changes in how professional stock images are priced and licensed.

    And I’m hoping professional stock photography is going to start looking a little more like amateur, “user generated” photography. Maybe that makes no sense; maybe pro photographers will hold on to what differentiates their work. But I think taste is changing, people are more accepting of uncorrected color, bad focus, etc. I’d like to see that cause an overall shift in taste, along with a move away from professional cultural production.

  • http://www.darrenbarefoot.com dbarefoot

    Huh, I didn’t know that Getty owns iStockPhoto. That kind of renders my point moot.

  • http://www.darrenbarefoot.com Darren

    Huh, I didn’t know that Getty owns iStockPhoto. That kind of renders my point moot.

  • Henrik Brameus

    As you said, celebrity images is one of the things that Getty makes money from. And although Flickr and Zoomr have a lot of good pictures, not all of them are useful in anything else than journalism. Mainly for rights reason. Most people don’t have model releses for all the faces they post to those sites.

    A site that has done something different is istockphoto.com, which is very stringent on what they let onto the site. It all has to be stock photography with model releases from all participants, etc. Still, you can buy the photos for $1.00 and up. That approach can really kill off the old expensive stock photo agencies.

    For the record, I have no affiliation with istockphoto, other than as a buying customer (I have spent $10) and as an aspiring photographer.

  • Henrik Brameus

    As you said, celebrity images is one of the things that Getty makes money from. And although Flickr and Zoomr have a lot of good pictures, not all of them are useful in anything else than journalism. Mainly for rights reason. Most people don’t have model releses for all the faces they post to those sites.

    A site that has done something different is istockphoto.com, which is very stringent on what they let onto the site. It all has to be stock photography with model releases from all participants, etc. Still, you can buy the photos for $1.00 and up. That approach can really kill off the old expensive stock photo agencies.

    For the record, I have no affiliation with istockphoto, other than as a buying customer (I have spent $10) and as an aspiring photographer.

  • http://just.shelleypowers.com/ Shelley

    I don’t see where something like Zooomr or Flickr is going to be causing hurt to stock photo houses. I would say there’s probably an overall decrease in budgets where one would buy photos, so they’re not selling as many, especially if their photos are expensive.

    And if Thomas has sold photos, he’s not an amateur. That’s the difference between professional and amateur–whether you sell your work or not.

    And I also imagine that the work Thomas is getting is specific to his position as a relatively well known weblogger as much as it is to his photographic skills.

    I don’t understand this desperate desire to prove that amateurs are going to kick professionals out and take over the world. Can’t we respect the time and dedication a professional puts into their career. Just because Nikon and Canon have made it easier to be hack photographers, doesn’t mean we’re all going to end up the next Walker Evans.

  • http://just.shelleypowers.com Shelley

    I don’t see where something like Zooomr or Flickr is going to be causing hurt to stock photo houses. I would say there’s probably an overall decrease in budgets where one would buy photos, so they’re not selling as many, especially if their photos are expensive.

    And if Thomas has sold photos, he’s not an amateur. That’s the difference between professional and amateur–whether you sell your work or not.

    And I also imagine that the work Thomas is getting is specific to his position as a relatively well known weblogger as much as it is to his photographic skills.

    I don’t understand this desperate desire to prove that amateurs are going to kick professionals out and take over the world. Can’t we respect the time and dedication a professional puts into their career. Just because Nikon and Canon have made it easier to be hack photographers, doesn’t mean we’re all going to end up the next Walker Evans.

  • David G

    Henrik reminds me that I should have disclosed –> I am a (lazy) contributor to iStockPhoto and have also purchased image licenses with my profits there.

    That reminds me –> the primary reason I recommend iStockPhoto to photographers is that it’s the site that is most likely to help improve your talent. On iStockPhoto, every single picture I upload gets critiqued by professionals – their feedback is sometimes brutal but my accepted rate has improved dramatically since I started listening to them.

    Free photo communities will never compete for the same consumer as microstock websites –> buyers of stock images need garuanteed unambiguous commercial licenses and they need very targeted search capabilitiies where free sites don’t actively enforce copyright and benefit more from browse than search.

    So, iStockPhoto doesn’t need to worry about ZOOMR but likewise, I don’t think Getty’s going to get into photo hosting and “interestingness”.

  • David G

    Henrik reminds me that I should have disclosed –> I am a (lazy) contributor to iStockPhoto and have also purchased image licenses with my profits there.

    That reminds me –> the primary reason I recommend iStockPhoto to photographers is that it’s the site that is most likely to help improve your talent. On iStockPhoto, every single picture I upload gets critiqued by professionals – their feedback is sometimes brutal but my accepted rate has improved dramatically since I started listening to them.

    Free photo communities will never compete for the same consumer as microstock websites –> buyers of stock images need garuanteed unambiguous commercial licenses and they need very targeted search capabilitiies where free sites don’t actively enforce copyright and benefit more from browse than search.

    So, iStockPhoto doesn’t need to worry about ZOOMR but likewise, I don’t think Getty’s going to get into photo hosting and “interestingness”.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Shelley: but the world of photos are radically changing. When I almost became a professional photographer in the 1980s, making good images was much more difficult than today. And, distributing those images was much much much more difficult. Heck, during the 1989 earthquake it took us six hours to get a black and white photo out of Silicon Valley to a newspaper on the East Coast.

    THAT is why things are changing. Back then the only way to get good images for publication was to go to things like Getty. Today I can find hundreds of thousands, even millions, of good, publication-quality, images on Flickr and other photo sharing sites for far less than I’d pay Getty.

    But, I’m totally into professionals making money doing this stuff. My Photowalking show will talk about this more in the future.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Shelley: but the world of photos are radically changing. When I almost became a professional photographer in the 1980s, making good images was much more difficult than today. And, distributing those images was much much much more difficult. Heck, during the 1989 earthquake it took us six hours to get a black and white photo out of Silicon Valley to a newspaper on the East Coast.

    THAT is why things are changing. Back then the only way to get good images for publication was to go to things like Getty. Today I can find hundreds of thousands, even millions, of good, publication-quality, images on Flickr and other photo sharing sites for far less than I’d pay Getty.

    But, I’m totally into professionals making money doing this stuff. My Photowalking show will talk about this more in the future.

  • http://clevermonkey.wordpress.com/ clevermonkey

    Personal opinion. I am neither a photographer nor a graphic designer, I actually think I may be colour blind. However, I think that the audience each sight is geared toward is quite different, a fact which this article somewhat states. Still, I believe that sites such as Flickr will continue to gain viewership and popularity among amateur, professional, and semi-professional photographers. The recent trend toward social networking for all things not just leisure has pervaded the photography community. And, there is also a quite pervasive trend toward people, professionals included, attempting to ‘strike back’ at what they see as overly stringent and exploitative intellectual property and copyright laws.

  • http://clevermonkey.wordpress.com/ clevermonkey

    Personal opinion. I am neither a photographer nor a graphic designer, I actually think I may be colour blind. However, I think that the audience each sight is geared toward is quite different, a fact which this article somewhat states. Still, I believe that sites such as Flickr will continue to gain viewership and popularity among amateur, professional, and semi-professional photographers. The recent trend toward social networking for all things not just leisure has pervaded the photography community. And, there is also a quite pervasive trend toward people, professionals included, attempting to ‘strike back’ at what they see as overly stringent and exploitative intellectual property and copyright laws.

  • http://foolswisdom.com/~lloyd foolswisdom

    I am not surprised that the most profitable images on Getty are of celebrities, as that reflects many of the most interesting blog posts about copyright that I have read by independent photographers.

  • http://foolswisdom.com/~lloyd foolswisdom

    I am not surprised that the most profitable images on Getty are of celebrities, as that reflects many of the most interesting blog posts about copyright that I have read by independent photographers.

  • http://www.jimhwilliams.com/ Jim

    I did not now that Thomas Hawk was the CEO of Zooomr?

  • http://www.jimhwilliams.com Jim

    I did not now that Thomas Hawk was the CEO of Zooomr?

  • Christopher Coulter

    Getty and Corbis will always have their place, just as fine art film prints will.

    Digital, at least, enables the prosumer crowd, to produce professional results. But it’s not a revolution, there will always be a Getty and Hollywood, just you can skip film school now, and raw practice, not needing to goto school to get access to the “tools”.

    But really, differing markets altogether…

  • Christopher Coulter

    Getty and Corbis will always have their place, just as fine art film prints will.

    Digital, at least, enables the prosumer crowd, to produce professional results. But it’s not a revolution, there will always be a Getty and Hollywood, just you can skip film school now, and raw practice, not needing to goto school to get access to the “tools”.

    But really, differing markets altogether…

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Jim: yeah, that’s a new title for Thomas, though.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Jim: yeah, that’s a new title for Thomas, though.

  • http://blog.macb.net macbeach

    I fail to see what’s bad about this. Cost of materials, production and so forth have gone down drastically due to advances in computer technology. Isn’t that what was SUPPOSED to happen? Any manager of a business that didn’t see this coming years ago should be fired!

    Yes, there are a lot of talented photographers out there who haven’t ever gotten paid for their work, just as there are a lot of talented musicians who have to do it all for fun. But all of that is changing even if those who are entrenched have to be pulled from their ivory towers kicking and screaming.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

  • http://macbeach.blogspot.com Mac Beach

    I fail to see what’s bad about this. Cost of materials, production and so forth have gone down drastically due to advances in computer technology. Isn’t that what was SUPPOSED to happen? Any manager of a business that didn’t see this coming years ago should be fired!

    Yes, there are a lot of talented photographers out there who haven’t ever gotten paid for their work, just as there are a lot of talented musicians who have to do it all for fun. But all of that is changing even if those who are entrenched have to be pulled from their ivory towers kicking and screaming.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

  • http://www.jeffnolan.com Jeff Nolan

    Hi Robert,
    You said “But I think taste is changing, people are more accepting of uncorrected color, bad focus, etc. I’d like to see that cause an overall shift in taste, along with a move away from professional cultural production.”

    If that’s the case then why are you shooting HD video for your work? There’s a difference between looking amateurish, which is deliberate, and poor quality, which is neither deliberate nor excusable for a professional. I don’t believe we’re more tolerant of poor quality, in fact I think the bar for professionals is going up because of the fact that so many prosumers own 5Ds with $1,500 lenses.

    It’s still damn hard to take a professional grade image and do it daily, and what makes it hard has little to do with equipment.

  • http://www.jeffnolan.com/ Jeff Nolan

    Hi Robert,
    You said “But I think taste is changing, people are more accepting of uncorrected color, bad focus, etc. I’d like to see that cause an overall shift in taste, along with a move away from professional cultural production.”

    If that’s the case then why are you shooting HD video for your work? There’s a difference between looking amateurish, which is deliberate, and poor quality, which is neither deliberate nor excusable for a professional. I don’t believe we’re more tolerant of poor quality, in fact I think the bar for professionals is going up because of the fact that so many prosumers own 5Ds with $1,500 lenses.

    It’s still damn hard to take a professional grade image and do it daily, and what makes it hard has little to do with equipment.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Jeff: sam said that. I didn’t.

    I disagree with that sentiment. Which is why I shot HD.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Jeff: sam said that. I didn’t.

    I disagree with that sentiment. Which is why I shot HD.

  • http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net/ Jason Lefkowitz

    “Getty is the most profitable photo site… It’ll be interesting to see how quickly they learn from upstarts like Zooomr and Flickr.”

    Wait a minute. If Getty is the most profitable photo site, what should they be learning from Zooomr and Flickr? How to make less money?

  • http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net/ Jason Lefkowitz

    “Getty is the most profitable photo site… It’ll be interesting to see how quickly they learn from upstarts like Zooomr and Flickr.”

    Wait a minute. If Getty is the most profitable photo site, what should they be learning from Zooomr and Flickr? How to make less money?

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Jason: how to grow into new businesses. Shareholders demand growth, not just profits.

    So, any big company exec and employee better be looking for ways to grow audience, grow customer base, grow transactions, grow engagement, grow brand love, etc.

    Getty can learn a LOT from Flickr and Zooomr in those areas. Even their CEO admitted that.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Jason: how to grow into new businesses. Shareholders demand growth, not just profits.

    So, any big company exec and employee better be looking for ways to grow audience, grow customer base, grow transactions, grow engagement, grow brand love, etc.

    Getty can learn a LOT from Flickr and Zooomr in those areas. Even their CEO admitted that.

  • Pingback: Getty needs to cannibalize itself » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work

  • Pingback: Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation and the Web » Blog Archive » Stock Photography Under Fire from User Generated Media

  • http://technovia.typepad.com/ Ian Betteridge

    “Shareholders demand growth, not just profits.”

    Actually, shareholders demand growth that represents ROI, not just growth for the sake of it. Grow into an area that’s going to lose you money, and your shareholders will have your heads unless there’s a long term plan.

    By the way, the home page you point to doesn’t have a search box because it lets you go to two very different sites, GettyCreative and GettyEditorial (plus the film stuff, of course). Go to the GettyCreative home page (http://creative.gettyimages.com/source/home/homeCreative.aspx) and you can search much more comprehensively.

    And this actually gets to the nub of why I always go to Getty and its ilk first. Getty’s advanced search lets me narrow down an image by collection (which are themed), keyword (much more comprehensive and professionally done that Flickr tags), and crucially orientation (if want an image to fill a space in a layout, I NEED to get the right orientation).

    If I go to Getty, I can pretty much gaurentee that I’ll find a usable image. If I go to Flickr, I might – or might not – find the image I want, depending on whether it’s been tagged well or not. Time spent searching through amatuer images is time wasted for me, and my time is very expensive.

    Oh, and of course, there’s another thing – Flickr doesn’t actually have very many images that are freely available for commercial use. There are far more than release under creative commons non-commercial licenses, which are useless for me.

  • http://technovia.typepad.com Ian Betteridge

    “Shareholders demand growth, not just profits.”

    Actually, shareholders demand growth that represents ROI, not just growth for the sake of it. Grow into an area that’s going to lose you money, and your shareholders will have your heads unless there’s a long term plan.

    By the way, the home page you point to doesn’t have a search box because it lets you go to two very different sites, GettyCreative and GettyEditorial (plus the film stuff, of course). Go to the GettyCreative home page (http://creative.gettyimages.com/source/home/homeCreative.aspx) and you can search much more comprehensively.

    And this actually gets to the nub of why I always go to Getty and its ilk first. Getty’s advanced search lets me narrow down an image by collection (which are themed), keyword (much more comprehensive and professionally done that Flickr tags), and crucially orientation (if want an image to fill a space in a layout, I NEED to get the right orientation).

    If I go to Getty, I can pretty much gaurentee that I’ll find a usable image. If I go to Flickr, I might – or might not – find the image I want, depending on whether it’s been tagged well or not. Time spent searching through amatuer images is time wasted for me, and my time is very expensive.

    Oh, and of course, there’s another thing – Flickr doesn’t actually have very many images that are freely available for commercial use. There are far more than release under creative commons non-commercial licenses, which are useless for me.

  • http://www.feverishmind.com/ Kai

    Ok — I have the reverse test for you…

    Go to Flickr or Zooomr and show me the commercial licenses and the ‘buy now’ button. Or the image search with the well-edited and cross-referenced taxonomy.

    I agree that you can find some very good professional quality photos on these services, but tell me what company would be willing to use these for a major advertising campaign on the back of a creative commons license? Equally, do you want your kids popping up as the next Gerber baby because you forgot to change your default CC license for that shot?

    It wouldn’t be hard to do, but Flickr and Zooomr will clearly have to create a well-defined business-to-business section if they truly want to compete with Getty.

  • http://www.feverishmind.com Kai

    Ok — I have the reverse test for you…

    Go to Flickr or Zooomr and show me the commercial licenses and the ‘buy now’ button. Or the image search with the well-edited and cross-referenced taxonomy.

    I agree that you can find some very good professional quality photos on these services, but tell me what company would be willing to use these for a major advertising campaign on the back of a creative commons license? Equally, do you want your kids popping up as the next Gerber baby because you forgot to change your default CC license for that shot?

    It wouldn’t be hard to do, but Flickr and Zooomr will clearly have to create a well-defined business-to-business section if they truly want to compete with Getty.

  • http://www.trenthead.com/ trent

    I love seeing photographers like Hawk and their increasing visibility. And the free flow of information is all great, but you have to pay the bills. Hawk uses a $3,000 camera and carries around probably another $2,000 in lenses and memory cards. How many “licenses” would you have to sell on iStock just to recoup your equipment costs, not to mention rent/mortgage, utilites, food, car, insurance, gas, college fund? I’d love to see great photography priced in favor of the photographer, whether they’re a pro or an amateur. There may be a better model than Getty, but giving your photos away free only works if you have a day job outside of photography. And it damages the people who make a living as photographers.

  • http://www.trenthead.com trent

    I love seeing photographers like Hawk and their increasing visibility. And the free flow of information is all great, but you have to pay the bills. Hawk uses a $3,000 camera and carries around probably another $2,000 in lenses and memory cards. How many “licenses” would you have to sell on iStock just to recoup your equipment costs, not to mention rent/mortgage, utilites, food, car, insurance, gas, college fund? I’d love to see great photography priced in favor of the photographer, whether they’re a pro or an amateur. There may be a better model than Getty, but giving your photos away free only works if you have a day job outside of photography. And it damages the people who make a living as photographers.

Newer Comments →