The rubik cube is an iconic piece of design that instantly conjurs up associations that for the stock photographer can translate into a whole host of great keywords; think problem solving, challenge, difficulty, success, skill, etc! It has great potential for creating images that will readily illustrate these concepts for potential image buyers. However, it is also the copyright of its creator Mr Rubik and closely guarded intellectual property. This means that images of, or featuring, a rubik cube can’t be used for commercial purposes without thier prior agreement. When I made the image above I knew I’d be marketing it as an RM photo with no property release for use in editorial markets. So, no potentially lucrative advertising use, but otherwise no problem. Or so I thought. The shot passed Alamy QC and was on sale for several weeks before I received the following email from member services;

We would like to make you aware of some current issues surrounding copyright and trademark violation, specifically relating to the Rubik. Simply displaying such images on our website is deemed to be an infringement. The legal advice that we have been given is very clear and as a consequence we have had to remove all images on the site which contain this as the main focal point, or a recognizable part of the image.
Alamy sells to editorial and commercial customers alike, currently the website does not have separate areas dedicated to buying images for one sector over another (as with Getty for example). In the absences of such a structure we have taken the decision to remove the images from the site in order to protect our contributors and ourselves from being involved in time consuming, costly and potentially damaging litigation.

While it was good to hear Alamy are looking out for contributors inadvertently getting into legal problems the frank admission of the weaknesses in its site was worrying. Given Alamy have a strong reputation for editorial images I find it particularly concerning they have effectively told me they can’t market my image because their site doesn’t adequately differentiate between images suitable for commercial use and those that aren’t. The open admission of the superiority of the Getty system (of splitting Creative and Editorial content) in this respect is also interesting, though a quick search on Getty currently reveals a couple of images with rubik like cubes in the creative results. The fact Alamy don’t currently feel able to safely market an image like this illusrates an additional less obvious benefit that may follow once the commercial collection is better established and a distinct and seperate editorial collection is effectively created from the remaining content.

Needless to say I was naturally disappointed to have an image I hoped would do well removed. It only took me a few minutes to legally pull the image of  a competitor at the 2009 Rubik’s Cube Italian Open from picapp, so clearly editorial depictions of the cube are possible. To my mind images of the cube in action should be good for Rubik as effectively free publicity. Just to check their position I fired off a quick email to the people who manage the rights to the cube and had a quick response confirming editorial uses are quite acceptable. They are concerned with controlling commercial uses and are therefore happy for images featuring the cube to be made available as long as it is clear commercial use is not permitted. Obviously an image with these kind of issues isn’t appropriate for microstock licensing but Alamy should really be able to handle it.

So in the absence of a willing and able middleman the image can of course be licensed directly!

I don’t envy the picture editors at Getty. The news that they are opening up the Getty Flickr collection for anyone to submit a test batch of ten images to is like opening the flickrgates holding back a deluge of literally millions of images. Already the call for artists pool is overflowing with images, many of which you have to wonder why the contributors imagine Getty might be interested in. The people wrapping their eyeballs around the inevitatble influx of images are going to have a lot on after this announcement.

However, this news goes beyond provoking sympathy for Getty Images’ soon to be overworked picture editors. It is pretty revolutionary. Getty used to be akin to the wholly grail of stock agencies. Being a Getty shooter was something to aspire towards; an achievement that meant you were producing work of quality and distinction. A commensurately impressive remuneration usually followed. Now anyone with a Flickr account can throw their hat into the ring.

A lot of long standing Getty photographers understandably lament the passing of the old days when they enjoyed their elite status but you have to hand it to Getty for not restng on their laurels. They’ve evolved with the changing market place by gobbling up istockphoto and partnering with Flickr to tap into the biggest collection of creative imagery online. As soon as Getty got in the commercialisation of Flickr was ineviatble. This latest move will effectively create a new stock collection cherry picked from the endless supply uploaded to Flickr.

Getty and Flickr have effectively democratised stock photography. Getting into Getty has gone from being the preserve of a relatively few invited high end professionals to an open door ‘show us what you’ve got’ policy. There has been the pay to get in Photographers Choice for some time, but that was $50 an image and required high end cameras. The Flickr collection requires a minimum of 3MP! Your phone could quite possibly be adequate to get you images into Getty. Seriously, most microstock sites have tougher technical entry requirements.

This is because Getty are responding to market demand for images that have a feeling of real life and this demand is often coming from market sectors that don’t need huge files. Its more about the image being right emotionally, not technically. The defunct photoshelter collection was thinking along these lines; they were on to something but didn’t last long enough to make it happen. Getty saw this, and crucially realised Flickr was the quick way to build this new collection.

So, should we all be Getty Photographers now? Check out this thread on the call for artists group and you’ll see not everyone wants to jump into bed with Getty. Personally I hate the 20% royalty to photographers, but then you come around to the old chestnut 20% of a big pie is often better than 50% of a small pie. Getty’s pie is undeniably large; their credits are easily found and they dominate many markets through sheer size. I’m undecided at the moment but will probably upload some more images to Flickr with a view to putting in my ten to apply. There is no obligation to accept any offer Getty make, and if I decided to knock an acceptance back I could at least brag I turned Getty down. Thing is, I’m not sure “Getty Shooter” will carry the status it currently does for much longer.

What do you think?