"The price, based on a bid of $34 a share, represents a 55 percent premium over the company's share price on Jan. 18, the day before it announced it was "exploring strategic options." Hellman & Friedman's bid is 39 percent higher than Getty's closing stock price of $24.45 on Friday.
"Through a series of acquisitions, Getty grew to become the world's largest distributor of high-quality pictures and video. Still, fears about increased competition from lower-cost Internet-based rivals have taken their toll on Getty's stock price, prompting the company to seek a buyout."
Dare I suggest H&F didn't get a very good deal. But I suppose they were smart to move faster than [[Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]].
cheers Brianna
On 26/02/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
"Through a series of acquisitions, Getty grew to become the world's largest distributor of high-quality pictures and video. Still, fears about increased competition from lower-cost Internet-based rivals have taken their toll on Getty's stock price, prompting the company to seek a buyout." Dare I suggest H&F didn't get a very good deal. But I suppose they were smart to move faster than [[Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]].
Just imagine the impact when Commons' search doesn't suck ;-)
- d.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:38 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
"Through a series of acquisitions, Getty grew to become the world's largest distributor of high-quality pictures and video. Still, fears about increased competition from lower-cost Internet-based rivals have taken their toll on Getty's stock price, prompting the company to seek a buyout." Dare I suggest H&F didn't get a very good deal. But I suppose they were smart to move faster than [[Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]].
Just imagine the impact when Commons' search doesn't suck ;-)
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.
For as much as Commons wants to portray itself as THE free image repository, people don't place nearly the same degree of faith in its assurances as they do in a commercial service like Getty (nor should they based on the track record so far). Nor is a commercial publisher likely to touch complex vehicles like GFDL, CC-SA, etc.
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.
-Robert Rohde
On 26/02/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@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.
- d.
On 26/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@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.