On 26/02/2008, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Getty supplies high-quality, color-corrected,
print-ready images to
risk-averse commercial publishers. They are looking for actionable
assurances that all of the copyright, model rights, and other restrictions
have been cleared on the work they are purchasing.
Pity about their disclaimer ;-) OTOH, they are taking actual money for it.
Commons is a very long way from having the same
kind of impact (or even
really competing in the same space) as a commercial image distributor like
Getty.
Just as wide availability of good cheap digital cameras and an
Internet to put pictures from them on doesn't compete in the same
space as professional photographers, except of course it's trashing
their business.
No Getty are trashing their business. "good cheap digital cameras"
isn't true. Last a I looked for a good camera you were still looking
at £500+. For a good enough for most things (pro-am bridge camera
whatever) about £300+. Secondly Getty own and continue to acquire a
lot of iconic pics. You want a pic of a historic event the US gov
missed your options are Getty or Corbis. Even for a more recent event
pics by private individuals are in most cases fairly weak camera phone
pics if they exist at all. Third Getty doesn't have the PR problems
the RIAA has over enforcing it's IP and the actions of Picscout
suggest it is technically possible for it to do so. Fourthly with
iStockphoto getty are able to buy off at least part of the pro-am
threat.
--
geni