Getty Images refines $49 Web-Resolution license
Getty Images, Inc. (NYSE: GYI) has announced that it has refined the terms of its controversial new $49 Web-resolution license for rights-ready (RR) and rights-managed (RM) images. The changes come after concerns were raised by photographers and photographer’s groups who felt the previous terms were too broad and unclear. Among the changes the new license now restricts the customer not just by the file size they are given but also by the display size where the user is only permitted to display the image online at sizes up to 150 x 180 pixels (similar in size to the images displayed in this article). Further, the new license terms restrict usage to a single page on one website, to 10,000 recipients for a single promotional email for RM, and to a single email blast for RR. The licensing parameters for royalty-free (RF) images remain unchanged.“We have had very positive dialogue with our photographer community, and this input has been invaluable in helping us evolve the product,” said Paul Banwell, director of photographer relations. “While keeping an important and relevant product for customers, the refinements address photographers’ concerns specific to licensing duration, distribution and usage for the rights-ready and rights-managed products, while the royalty-free product remains unchanged.”
The Stock Artists Alliance (SAA,) who led the photographer groups who opposed the $49 web-use product in its orignal form, are satisfied with the changes. "We are pleased the outcome of our direct dialog and Getty Images' open-minded approach is an improved license product that resolves many of the concerns raised by photographers and our coalition, and expands new licensing opportunities for a growing market for very small digital uses where this type of product makes sense," said Betsy Reid, executive director of the Stock Artist Alliance.
According to Getty Images, the new product has attracted thousands of new customers and has seen a significant increase in volume although the company declined to comment on how much volume has increased. In addition, the company claims that new customers are also introduced to other Getty products leading to increased sales across the Getty Images portfolio.
“We created a brand new product, at a compelling price point, for an entirely new market, and customers are responding,” said Nick Evans-Lombe, executive vice president of imagery, products and services at Getty Images. “The Web-resolution product is in its early days, but demand is already very strong. We are bringing new customers into our business through this product, who are then licensing more broadly across other collections and other usages. Getty Images continues to be a catalyst for change in the industry, creating opportunities for our photographers and the broader photographic community.”
Getty Images now offers several low-priced licensing alternatives including iStockphoto (starting at $1 for an RF image), Valueline (starting at $19 for an RF image) and the Web-Resolution License ($49 for RM, RR, and RF images). With the recent acquisitions of iStockphoto, Punchstock, Wireimage, and others, it seems the Getty is determined to have products to fit every image buyer, but the company is still sorting out whether it can cross-sell/up-sell various products to the same buyer.
Web: www.gettyimages.com
---
Related Stories:
Pressure mounts on Getty to alter $49 web-use product (September 24, 2007)
Editorial: there’s gold in them thar $49 images (September 18, 2007)
Getty answers critics of the $49 web-use product (September 17, 2007)
Photographer associations protest Getty's $49 web-use fee (September 11, 2007)
Getty launches $49 across-the-board price for web use (September 6, 2007)






Comments
“We created a brand new product, at a compelling price point, for an entirely new market, and customers are responding,” said Nick Evans-Lombe, executive vice president of imagery, products and services at Getty Images.
I think photos have been around for a while on the web sites. I’ve been designing web sites for 10 years. Am I missing something?
Posted by: Bryan Zmijewski | November 16, 2007