In a surprising move, Getty, the biggest picture agency, is now open to any photographer who want to work for them. It’s called “Getty Open”.

So you want to work for Getty? The catch is that you have to pay 50$ for every image you submit. In exchange, they give up 70% of the sale back to the photographer with a two-year exclusive.

Allen at Photoshelter posted an article on his blog and a SportsShooter thread is open.

Many people think it’s a good gamble by Getty

Jim Leary:

Seems to me that this fee setup is being done for two reasons. First, it will generate some extra revenue for those willing to pay and second, it may give Getty a lead or two to some unknown quality photographers. Let's face it, anyone willing to pay $50 per submission is either crazy or very good. This opens the door for some completely unknown photographers looking to get noticed. You get those diamonds in the rough once in a while and this might just find one or two for Getty

Derek Montgomery:

I would also guess that it acts to ensure that the quality of the photography submitted remains high. At $50 an image the quality of the collection would likely be higher on the whole than if it was a total free-for-all. Getty could probably market it as such and editors would have a resource that they could always depend on as having high-quality work.

Clark Brooks:

Imagine if just 30,000 of the probably 600,000 amatuer/part-time/student photographers buy into this concept and submit two images each. That would be $3 million in additional revenue plus whatever income they generate from the licensing of those images. Imagine that numer if on average wannabees submitted four images a year.

The concept gives "stock photos" a whole new meaning. Basically the shooter willing to pony up $50 is now an investor in his own work. Submitting an images with the $50 fee would like purchasing a share of stock hoping that the value of the share will increase. In this model the photographer now hopes that the photo will sell so that he/she can recoup their initial investment plus additional income.

May be a lottery concept is more accurate. You are buying a $50 lotto ticket when they submit a photo, in hopes they will license the image two or three times at $200-$300 each. The $50/image is a fee for newbies to dream just like a state or national lottery. The number of people who will enter will be big, the number who actually make back their annual submission cost will be very, very small.

What's the logic? Using this model, Getty will not have to rely on seasoned, full-time professionals to refresh their visual inventory in a few years who have high expectations for what their work could/should fetch. They can offer the images to clients at rates far below the $200-300 mentioned in the PDN article.

The plan is brilliant as it cost Getty absolutely nothing to implement and they stand to gain more than they would lose. Hand me another Guinness... BRILLIANT!

Some are not so sure Getty is the winner:

James Escher:

It's certainly a gamble. The flip side is that this plan could backfire, and quality photographers whose first choice would have been to have their images represented by Getty will turn to other stock agencies, thereby potentially providing a bit more parity for those agencies trying to compete with them.

And the bottom line for most professional:

Steven E. Frischling:

I shot a number of stories on securities over the past few years. From these stories I have about 300 in for stock sales now ..... and they sell and generate income for me. I am pretty sure at least 200 of them have at one time of another been licensed back out for various purposes.

If I had to pony up $15,000 to submit the photos I would have just said screw it and they would have lived in darkness on my harddrive.