Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2010 16:52:42 GMT
Here is probably the best place for this; news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8744817.stmI don't know how many of the regular photo-posters are flickr members, but I can't see a downside to this and have opted into the scheme - if there is hidden hassle I can always opt out. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by paul Zernikazof on Jun 18, 2010 17:42:47 GMT
It seems a good idea and looks like it pays a lot more than some of the other sites that you can upload pictures to sell. I will be interested to hear what results you get Ray
|
|
|
Post by Shuggie on Aug 13, 2010 14:08:10 GMT
Getty are looking for stock photos .. i.e. the sort of unimaginative, middle of the day, record shot that we take when we're on holiday. The payment rates are good but that is offset by the fact that your chances of a sale are comparatively small. If your work is published in the media (the usual destination for Getty work), you don't get the byline .. Getty get that. Furthermore, you surrender all rights to submitted images for 2 years.
If you think that's a fair quid for your quo, Ray, go for it. Personally, I prefer other outlets (RedBubble for example) which (a) allow retention of rights and (b) are far more profitable in the long run.
|
|