Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
Interesting article from todays Herald, I was wondering what your take on this is? I noticed the Getty Images option on Flickr a couple of days ago:
Personally I don't have a big issue with it. I feel that Mr. Booker is very biased in his view of Flickr and the quality of some of the photos on there, perhaps he should look at the work that many of you post to it? I know I'd LOVE to see your work of skylines and buildings inserted into more articles and stories, instead of the usually dull and boring images used currently (for proof of this look no further than the Heralds own "Building the Bow" photo album).
|
I have to disagree with you on this one. I think Booker is right. There's some really good photographers on Flickr, but one has to wade through a ton of crap to find them. I checked out the Getty group on Friday night and they already had over 200,000 photos submitted. I think it was over 300K, but I'll stick with 200K. I obviously didn't wade through them all, but the majority that I saw were crap.
The quality of photo is not Booker's concern, nor is it mine. The more crap the better it is for those who actually have some talent.
Booker's major concern is this move by Getty Images will lead to reduced work for professional photographers. Which is a very valid concern. The usually dull and boring photos you're referring to most likely come from stock which is why they're dull and boring.
Eventually, once Getty acquires the rights to a billion or so photos, they will slash rates and put the squeeze on photographers. They'll also do what they did with iStock, which is not pay photographers until their account reaches a certain doller value.