We’ve all heard by now that Getty has been sold. I still think this is the beginning of the end of the humongous stock houses and that is a very good thing for photographers. Rob Haggart recently posted his list of stock houses (but don’t call them agencies, they’re not anymore*) with their “rankings” (in his opinion). The comments in this section (see esp. #59) I think back up my contention that big houses will die (or just suck so much they’ll be strictly volume sellers) and individual photographers will continue to license stock especially via companies like PhotoShelter and Digital Railroad — this is the future of stock. Smaller houses will specialize and people will go to the right source for the images they need, rather than a one-stop-shopping alternative.
PS and DR will back up photographers’ own presentation and marketing of their own stock to their own clients/targets, and thus be highly targeted sources of material for stock buyers.
But the big companies are too filled with crap to be able to differentiate themselves in the market by any other means than price, and we all know how that will work out.
So smaller houses like BigShotStock.com and others will have their niche and do fine–relatively speaking (the stock industry will never be what it once was–almost a retirement plan–but it can be an additional income stream). Same for photographers licensing their own work via PS and/or DR.
——-
* The word “agent” or “agency” has a specific legal definition that includes the concept of having the best interest of the client, in this case the photographer, first in mind. Stock houses (esp. the big ones) now have legal language in their contracts that says, essentially, “we are NOT an agent or agency for the photographer.” In other words, they don’t have the photographers’ best interests as the basis of their negotiations, etc., but rather are going to make their own money doing whatever they think is best for them and to hell with the creative “content providers” involved.