Getty and Life images issued this statement last week, regarding a new internet venture offering iconic images from, LIFE Magazine, a publication I had the pleasure of working for in the eighties and early nineties.
“Today Life.com and Getty Images “joined forces to provide you instant access to millions of breathtaking photographs – for free.” … “When you find a photo you like, you’ll be able to share it, print it, and sometimes even buy it.”
Yes you read that right. The site, like Youtube, gives users the code to embed images from LIFE where ever they like– Facebook, Myspace, you name it. First to chip in was PDN, concerned that commercial blogs (that is blogs written for magazines like PDN) would have to pay for using these images, as opposed to smaller “non-commercial” blogs. Well. I don’t know if PDNs policy has changed recently but PDN has been publishing photographers images for free since its existence, running them next to expensive camera ads, never paying the photographers a penny. For the photographers, its a promotion. Are the normal magazines up in arms because PDN uses photographs for fee, giving it an unfair advantage? Not. Bottom line, PDN can afford to pay for photography for its blog.
This from Vince Laforet:
I was a bit surprised at first when I heard of this – after all the Time Life collection has always been highly regarded in the photography world as one of the most important historical collections of the 20th Century.
I think that it’s great to allow people to enjoy it – to view the images that are all too often inaccessible or hidden away and decaying in dusty filing cabinets. Yet there always has been a certain cache to these photographs – in fact I bought a limited edition Margaret Bourke White print a few years ago as a gift for my wife. Now if anyone can legally print and share these images online for free – I do have to wonder: does this move lessen the inherent value of these images?”
Vincem I would think that the added exposure of an iconic image would increase the value of a limited edition print. But the bigger more important picture is that Getty and Life can make more money with banner ads than licensing royalties on for these photos on the web. So they are giving away what they can’t control.
All those pictures you took for the NY Times– guess what, since the Times owns them, you can expect your pictures to be wallpaper for Rolex ads too.
What is worse, as photographers pass away and their images are abandoned in the large collections like Getty and Corbis, those images will be used as wallpaper also, including some of mine if I am not careful. The lesson is do not work for hire–its as simple as that, the staff gig being more a quid pro quo. And don’t trust a big company to look after your interests– its not in their nature to do that.
What is positive about all of this is that iconic images, like those in LIFE, have a power that photographers must themselves take advantage of.
It can be in a photographers best interest to have his or her most iconic images reproduced ad infinitum, if that same image can then be sold in a gallery for $20,000 a print.