"We are excited and proud to be partnering with Flickr to offer our customers even more choice for their projects. Our customers will be able to select and use the best imagery from a fresh collection of high-quality images chosen by us from Flickr’s diverse and prolific community," said Jonathan Klein, co-founder and CEO of Getty Images. "Flickr is the ideal partner as we continue to move the imagery industry forward by offering the broadest range of high quality digital content to our customers."

Getty Images CEO Jonathan Klein

Although the press release issued on the new joint venture doesn’t spell out many of the details of the program, an article over at CNET provides more information as does an article over at the Seattlepi.

According to CNET, photographers interested in participating in the new Flickr collection will "have to simply wait to be contacted."

The Seattlepi reports that, "Flickr users will be able to declare whether they want their images considered for commercial use. Klein said Getty’s customers will likely prefer scenic or creative images, not those of news events." the Seattlepi adds:

"Flickr users, many of whom are amateurs, will be paid in the same manner as professionals if their images are used commercially. Getty customers usually pay between $29 and $200,000 for an image, depending on how freely they may use it. Photographers receive 30 percent to 40 percent of the licensing fee if the customer’s rights to use the image are limited in scope or time, or 20 percent if the image may be used with fewer restrictions."

Personally I think that this partnership is a very promising development, but I’m reserving judgment on its merits until I see more how the deal will actually play out.

What surprises me most about this deal is that in the past Getty has seemed to make a very strong distinction between their "Pro" quality Getty Images photographs, which represents their bread and butter business, vs. "amateur" images which have largely been pushed towards their microstock offering iStockphoto.

iStockphoto sells images for much less than Getty’s traditional stock photography business, typically marketing images at $1, $3 and $5 per image.

It would appear that with this new offering, Getty is going to treat at least some of Flickr’s images as they would their own "Pro" photographer imagery. My own expectation would be that current Getty "Pros" are probably none too happy about having a new horde of "amateurs" jointing their ranks and competing with their own image sales.

At the same point there is simply no denying the quality of imagery that many of these so called amateurs are posting to Flickr, nor the breadth of photography that has been accumulated, organized and ranked.

It will be interesting to see how Getty balances out this conflict and whether or not their new "Flickr Collection" will receive the same marketing emphasis as their own Pro photography collection.

Earlier this year in February when I published an article about what a Microsoft buyout of Yahoo might mean for photography, I mentioned that with Microsoft as the new owner of Flickr that they could possibly use the relationship with Bill Gates 100% owned Corbis, Getty’s largest competitor, to build a stock component to Flickr.

Although this relationship will probably not be significant from an economic standpoint in the short term for either Yahoo or Getty, it is hugely important from a strategic standpoint.

At present, in Flickr, Yahoo owns the largest organized and ranked collection of imagery in the world. By opening up access to much of this collection, Getty stands to dramatically improve image search for their buyers. Whether or not those buyers buy Flickr images or other Getty images this partnership should still create a far more meaningful stock search experience on Getty vs. #2 Corbis and other competitors.

Although Getty’s payout to Pros in the 20-40% range may seem low, with Getty’s marketing muscle in this space and their ability to correctly price imagery at the Pro level this may represent a lucrative new source of income for many Flickr photographers.

The big question though is how seriously Getty will market this collection.

On a personal level I’m very interested in participating in this new partnership and will be blogging about it much more in the future.

More information from the New York Times here. There is also an interview with Getty’s Jonathan Klein and Flickr Chief Kakul Srivastava here.

Flickr has an FAQ up on the new program here as well as a topic on the subject in their help forum here. According to Flickr Community Manager Heather Champ, today’s partnership announcement really is just an announcement that Flickr and Getty have "started dating," with more information coming out, "as we move forward with the development of the platform, etc."

Comments

If you’re like most designers, at some point in the process you’ll start looking around for appropriate imagery that visually displays the story you’re trying to tell. But that’s not the only thing you’ll need to keep an eye out for-you’ll also want to make sure that the image’s licensing structure meets your business needs.

Photo and image licensing can be a bit confusing to even seasoned designers; we’ve put together a photo licensing primer below. There are three basic types of licenses-and a one common practice we’re calling an ‘un-license’. Let’s take a look at them now:

Royalty-Free Licensing

When you purchase a photo or illustration with a royalty-free license, you have the rights to use the image over and over again* without having to pay additional fees to the person who created it. And there’s no time limit on when or how long you can use that image. That makes royalty-free artwork an excellent choice for a designer on a budget.

But see the little asterisk next to ‘over and over again’? It’s there for a reason, as even royalty-free licensing doesn’t give you free reign to reproduce the image an infinite number of times. Most royalty-free images have a numerical limit on the number of times they may be printed (some allow up to 100,000 printings; others may allow half a million printings) Check the ‘terms of use’ wherever you purchase your royalty-free images for their specific limitations.

And it’s also worth noting that royalty-free photos and images can be sold as many times as the creator desires-there is no guarantee that the great ‘balanced stones’ photo you’ve chosen for your site’s home page won’t show up on another web site, in a brochure or on a billboard belonging to someone elseeven your competition. With royalty-free, there’s no such thing as exclusivity-you’ll want to keep this in mind if you’re considering using royalty-free artwork for elements that are integral to your client’s long-term branding.

Royalty-free images are good for:

Designers who are doing work on spec, or working with clients that have small budgets

Designers who need to buy an image now but may not use it for some time

Royalty-free images aren’t good for:

Designers who want assurance that no one else will be using the same image

Designers who are doing large print runs

Rights-Managed Licensing

Purchasing a rights-managed image allows you rights to use the image for a specified time, in a specified format, in a specific geographic area-and it’s typically much more expensive than royalty-free artwork. So why would anyone want to pay more for rights-managed when it’s a lot more restrictive than royalty-free? One word: exclusivity. Most rights-managed images guarantee some form of exclusivity-even if it’s just making sure that no one in within a 50-mile radius of your business will be using the same image.

Choosing a rights-managed image means that you’ll pay each time you make use of the image; you’d pay a fee to use it in your brochure, and a separate fee to use it in a billboard advertisement. And, gaining permission to use the image is often more time-consuming than simply purchasing and downloading a royalty-free imagethere are questions to answer and paperwork to fill out. But if you want to make sure that no one else will be using the same image, rights-managed is the only way to guarantee that the great image you choose for your Yellow Pages ad won’t be the same image your competition chose for their ad on the facing page.

Rights-managed licensing also lends itself nicely to larger print runs. Magazines, newspapers and other high-volume printers will often choose rights-managed photos over royalty-free photos, both to ensure exclusivity as well as contain costs

Rights-managed images are good for:

Designers who want exclusive imagery for their design projects

Designers whose clients can afford to pay for the exclusive use of a photo or illustration

Designers who are creating materials for large print runs

Rights-managed images aren’t good for:

Designers with small budgets

Designers with tight timelines, as image procurement paperwork can be time-consuming

Rights-Ready Licensing

Rights-ready is the newest form of licensing, created by (and only available for) images purchased through Getty Images. Touted as the best of both licenses, rights-ready promises the hassle-free experience of royalty-free licensing with the exclusivity promised by rights-managed licensing. At this time, rights-ready licensing is only available on the ‘Riser’ collection of Getty’s images.

Only time will tell if Getty has created a license that will end up being an industry standard. With that in mind, check out the collection just so you know all of your options.

Un-licensing (or Illegal Use of Images)

The last (but not least common) type of license isn’t actually a license at all-it’s what happens when a designer ‘borrows’ an image from another web site or via a Google Images search. The technical term for this is copyright infringement, and while it may be the quickest and easiest way to get an image, it is also illegal. ‘Borrowed’ images don’t offer credit or payment to the creator; getting caught using them can be not only embarrassing, but costly if the creator chooses to pursue legal action.

An Informed Choice is a Smarter Choice

So now that you know the different kinds of stock image licenses available, you’ll be better informed to make smart choices. Are you designing a book cover for a nationally-known author? You’ll need the exclusivity and high print run-friendliness of rights-managed artwork. Putting together a brochure for your local church or children’s group? Royalty-free is the way to go. Right-clicking and selecting ‘copy this photo’ from another web site while you’re online? That kind of practice can be both embarrassing and costly. Whatever you’re designing, stock photography providers are sure to have a license that will work for your needs. Why not take advantage of it?

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Bryan Zmijewski is founder and chief instigator of LuckyOliver (www.luckyoliver.com), a stock photography site that sells high-quality royalty-free images for about $1, Bryan is a professional amateur photographer, a lecturer in Stanford University’s design department (his alma mater) and a dad. Contact Bryan at z@luckyoliver.com or by visiting www.luckyoliver.com.