The Fallout has Started Over the Getty's Decision to Give Images Away for Free

Recent Getty Images announced it would enable free image embedding for it's stock images.

I predicted the move would not go over well with the photographers that actually owned the images Getty was giving away for free.

The fallout seems to have started.  Pixels.com has just announced that it will now offer licensing for the images uploaded by photographers.  (Pixels.com is a sister site for Fine Art America.  Content loaded to Fine Art America is automatically mirrored on Pixels.)

The call for offering image licensing greatly increased after Getty's move to give images away for free.

The move is a result of the site being responsive to the needs and desires of the photographers that use the site, and that is reflected in the implementation.  The photographer uploading the image sets the licensing fee.  Pixels then adds a 30% markup.

The end result is a 77/23 split with the majority going to the photographer.

(A licensing fee of $100 yields a $30 markup.  The end price is $130.  $100, or 76.9%  of that goes to the photographer.)


That split is a great deal for photographers, and vastly better than what photographers can get at Getty.

Pixels/Fine Art America seems motivated by meeting the needs of its contributors.  Getty's motivation seems to be making as much money as possible and that leads to decisions that benefits the company at the expense of its contributors.


Fine Art America/Pixels.com does limit the number of images that can be offered at the same time for those using a free account.  Paying members can offer unlimited images.  (The yearly fee is fairly low so this isn't that much of a drawback.)

This decision does effect me personally as I have a Fine Art America/Pixels account.  Now I need to decide which images I want to offer and the price to ask, a task I am happy to undertake.


Getty has forgotten those ultimately responsible for its success, and other sites are going to take advantage of that.  Pixels is just the first to publicly announce a move meant to cater to contributors unhappy with Getty.