Photos on Flickr? Getty May Be Calling - Plus, This Blog's First Contest!

According to an interesting article by Miguel Helft in the NY Times, Getty images, the world’s largest stock photo company, has entered into agreement with Yahoo permitting them to search Flickr’s database for especially high-quality images.

When Getty finds something it likes, it will contact the photographer and ask them if he or she would like to license them the image.

There are a couple of interesting points here. While professional photographers bring a level of craft (and equipment) that even most enthusiastic amateurs don’t match, Getty recognizes that the crowd brings advantages of its own.

For one, Flick attracts photographers from communities including small towns and out-of-the-way locales that professional photographers may never have even heard of, let alone shot.

Additionally, Getty claims, because most Flickr photos were “not shot for commercial purposes” they will bring a sense of “authenticity” that advertisers looking for. Think of all the ads you’ve seen recently that appear to have been taken on the fly or by an amateur, or that are artfully arranged to look as “casual” and “unposed” as possible. Getty is smart to recognize that thousands of photos like that already exist.

Since it doesn’t appear that there will be any way to submit an image to this program (the NYT writes that Getty will “comb Flickr in search of interesting images,”) it seems to me that no matter how great your images are, it’s a million-to-one shot that Flickr will find them.

Still, if you want to increase your chances, you might want to be as creative as possible with your keywords. What words might Flickr be searching for to find the hard-to-get, “authentic” images they’re looking for?

Imagine you are the young editorial assistant at Getty charged with finding salable images in Flickr. What would you search for? “Out of the way?” “Surprise?” “Unexpected?” “Breathtaking?” “Martian?” “Dancing baby?”

Which brings me to this blog’s first contest. Write a comment below with some keywords you think might attract some attention from Flickr. Keep it to under 200 words if you can. Feel free to explain your thinking. If you don’t have ideas of your own, or think someone else’s entry is great, feel free to express that, too. (However, don’t make negative comments about other entries, please. I will delete them and frown at you.) You’ll be helping your fellow photographers have a chance at the Getty brass ring, and you may win these cool prizes:

Two new, unopened copies of terrific DVD collections from The National Association of Photoshop Professionals. 

1) The Best of Adobe Photoshop User: The 9th Year is over 3 hours of NAPP goodness, including:        
•        Tons of Scott Kelby’s “Down and Dirty Tricks"
•        TV, print and web effects and        
•        Classic techniques from contributors Matt Kloskowski, Corey Barker and Dave Cross.

2) The Best of Adobe Photoshop TV Season One brings:
 •        Two more hours of awesome Photoshop video tips
 •        Cutting edge tutorials
 •        Impressive photo effects, color correction revelations, and scintialling shortcuts to make your Photoshop experience more productive and artistic than ever.

And, if you’re interested, I’ll also include a signed and dedicated copy of my novel, First You Fall, to the winner (assuming you’re over 18, that is).

Deadline: I’ll pick what I think is the best, most creative and most helpful answer on August 1, 2008.

Meanwhile, if you’re shooting in the hopes that Getty will acquire you, keep in mind the same rules that apply at iStockphoto (which Getty owns, BTW):

• You must have model releases for all recognizable people in the shot
• Avoid including any trademark symbols (even the Nike “swoosh ” on a pair of sneakers can be a deal-killer) and
• The photos must be of a high resolution and not overly compressed. The screeners at iStockphoto are merciless when it comes to “artifacts,” and we at The Digital Photography Show have had listeners who have sworn that even their highest-quality shots were rejected for having excessive artifacts.

While I doubt that Getty will be acquiring a ton of images from Flickr, this is more bad news for the full-time professional photographer who used to make a living off stock photos. He or she has already taken a beating from iStockphoto and the like. Getty was up-till-now one of the last providers that said “our images deserve their high prices because they come from the most highly-trained pros in the world.” Now, even on Getty, the full-time shooter is competing with the talented amateur. Ouch.

How much is at stake? According to the Times:

Getty charges on average between $500 and $600 for “rights managed” images, which are used by a customer exclusively for a period of time. Photographers get between 30 percent and 40 percent of that. The company charges on average of $250 for non-exclusive use of images and gives photographers a 20 percent cut of that...

The one thing I don’t understand is why Getty would need an “agreement” with Yahoo to do this? Couldn’t they have just trolled Flickr and hit up photographers on their own? Flickr is an open system, photographers who want to can establish an email link on their accounts, and this is, as far as I know, still a Democracy. So, was the “agreement” with Yahoo really needed, and is Yahoo actually getting paid for this? Or was the “agreement” merely a press-release worthy publicity stunt to get out the word and to, possibly, attract more talented and diverse photographers to use Flickr? What do you think?

Comments

[amyj]

I would guess that Getty is gaining direct access to the Flickr database rather than having to search the site itself - hence the need for the agreement. The computer would most likely first filter all the images by size and other technical specifications, then compare tags to the Getty database - hoping to find keywords (or combinations thereof) that Getty either doesn't have at all, or has a limited number of, before actually having a person sit and go through photos to approve.

Therefore, rather than using creative keywords, I would try to describe my pictures in detail - age group of people (child, young adult, etc.), activity (eating, jogging), location (name, city, state), and maybe even include some of the strongest colors as descriptors, and just hope I had a unique combination of attributes that might be needed.

This is the very analytical approach of course:)

[Paul]

'How to Keyword' your images opens up a 'whole barrel of worms', the proverbial "pandora's box', that commonly sets the "cat amongst the pigeons'. The process can get our 'juices flowing', or 'hit us like a ton of bricks'. Frustration, elation, commiseration, brain activation, accomplishment - all feelings that can accompany the keywording task.

Often editors will search for emotions or phrases (such as those above) as well as more mainstream keywords such as colour, location, subject, style of image. Thinking along this more abstract line of thought isn't always easy, but one man's smile is another man's grimace.

So get imaginative ... the creative process doesn't end with the image; with keywording, it often starts with the image.

[Amy]

I'm a copywriter for a creative agency that specializes in consumer engagement, and we subscribe to Getty. We're always searching for action-oriented photos that don't look too perfect or too posed. I think this is an area of Getty that needs improvement.

I don't think it needs to be really complicated or overly clever. Keywords would include "family camping trip," "kids at the beach," "mom gardening," "ice skating," "birthday party," "boating," "learning to ride a bike," "building a new home," "eating ice cream," "walking the dog," etc. -- pictures that showcase real people engaged in an activity. Natural-looking photos -- no posing!

I also think photos that show general locations or local landmarks would be popular. Not specific landmarks like "Golden Gate bridge" -- but photos that show a "red barn," "muddy field," "empty park" or "dried up river bed."

Keywords should be descriptive, but still general. Adjectives could include emotions, type of people involved (grandma, kids, family), type of activity and general location.

[Your Photo Tips]

While I agree with the keywords used above I wonder if Getty will use a filter first to determine whether or not the images posted on flickr will be of high enough quality?

While they can possibly use the meta data provided maybe they'll be looking for keywords with camera models that are accepted.

"Canon 5D"
"Nikon D3"
etc.

Perhaps it would be wise to let them know you are capturing images that are large and noise free (especially for those that use lower res images online).

"Large Image"
"Raw"
"ISO 200"

Also, typically Getty and other stock companies don't like digitally processed images, so they could be filtering by looking for keywords like:

"Unprocessed"
"Cropped Only"
"Minimal Retouching"
"Not Photoshopped"

Or you could just be direct by using keywords like:

"Stock ready"
"Stock qualified"

Maybe just be completely blatant:

"Getty"
"Getty Ready"
"Getty Standards"

And finally, just tell them!

"Hey Getty check this out"!

Okay, maybe not that last one.

Damien Franco

[Don Campbell]

How could Getty make as much money as possible by leveraging photo tags? Let’s explore….

Corruption:
Having possession of sensitive information can be very lucrative. Why not peak their interest with keywords such as “Corporate kickback”, “Candid Presidential bribe”, or “If my wife ever sees this picture of me and my secretary, it’s gonna cost me big-time!”

Rarity:
There’s nothing better than finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. Images of rare events can be turned into cash in many ways. To entice their interests, try tags such as “Bill Gates panhandling”, “Alien spacecraft at McDonald’s drive-through”, or “My tax refund”.

Porn:
Okay, so adult oriented content is perhaps the most abundant category of imagery on the Internet. But remember, our goal is to have Getty buy our pictures, and they won’t do that if they don’t look at them first. Imagine the young researcher at Getty sitting down at a computer with access to millions of Flickr photos and a brand new search tool. What’s the first thing they’re going to type into it? Yes, you know it’s going to be “boobs” or “hottie” or “toe sucking midget” or something similar. Admit it, you would too.

Don

[Ronal (Ron L)]

I think that if someone is going to do the work of putting all those tags into their photos then more power to them. I feel that if you go around creating tags for every photo you are going to take the fun out of it really quickly. I feel you should take photos, have fun, and do not worry about tagging...

[Adam]

Nowadays, people spend a lot of time searching for a particular image but are not able to find the exact one they need. If you are having such a problem, can check http://rotavacx.com
I hope it will help you. It has fantastic visual search tools that work with just a few keywords.

[Chris]

Doesn't Getty provide current event/news photos as well? Aside from them dredging the 'long tail' of stock photos on flickr, I have to wonder if they'll use this partnership as a leg up on finding images of newsworthy events taken by people at the right place, right time and securing those rights.

Other than that, I suppose there's the possibility they'll use it as a recruiting tool for 'undiscovered' talent, even if their flickr postings are necessarily directly marketable because of trademarks, no model releases, etc.

My thought is that keywords are probably the most subjective aspect of flickr when it comes to data mining. And if they're using a particular EXIF filter, I wonder if EXIF hacking/spam will become prevalent? It seems like a weird move on Getty's part when you keep hearing how much of a glut of usable photography out there already these days and how hard it is to make a living as a pro, but I suppose there are unseen depths to flickr beyond what they can get through the standard user interface.

[Scott Sherman]

Thanks for all your comments. Amy, you're the winner. Please contact me at the link on this page.