Jupiter Media Sells To Getty

- - Stock

Wire story (here).

There Are 14 Comments On This Article.

  1. Picture This

    Got this e-mail today…

    Dear Customer:

    This morning Jupitermedia announced that it has entered into a purchase agreement to sell its Jupiterimages division to Getty Images. While the companies have signed a definitive agreement, the deal will not close until shareholder and government approvals have been obtained. Approvals could take up to several months and there is the risk of not obtaining approvals, but that is not expected. There will be no change in your relationship with Jupiterimages as a result of this announcement. Jupiterimages will continue to operate as it always has delivering the highest quality imagery with world-class customer service.

    I will continue to communicate updates periodically as we move through this process.

    James Alexander
    Senior Vice President and General Manager
    23 Old Kings Highway South
    Darien, CT 06820

  2. Does Getty have a Monopoly yet? Or do they have to buy Corbis first. Their stock is up 37% right now. At least some one is making money in the stock market.

  3. I am with Workbook Stock, which is owned by Jupiter….which will now be owned by Getty. Whatever.
    The whole idea of going with Workbook Stock, way back in the day, was to avoid getting lost in the crowd of a giant stock corporation. I guess it’s just inevitable.
    I think my next step will be to follow Jim Erickson’s path for stock. DIY.
    Anyone else been thinking about this?

  4. The rich get Richer! Not sure there is anything that can stop the domination by Getty. Wouldn’t mind if they weren’t so difficult to work with and unfriendly to most photographers.

  5. I got the same e-mail, as I wrote on my own blog, as Picture This, I know a lot of sad and concerned people over this news.

    Things can be very scary before you wake up.

  6. Damon I like your thinking. I love going to really well done personal archive/stock sites when I have to search. The crap is filtered out – I can’t imagine searching Getty now with another umpteen million mediocre images in it – and you can set your terms. I am curious how Jim does in sales via this method. Does anyone have insight on this or their own version?

    As someone who searches a lot for stock I want unique and not obvious imagery so the magazine I work for can hopefully standout a bit from the others using the macro /uber-agency stuff. I know the style I want and hopefully a few of the photographers shooting that way. Going directly to their site cuts straight to the chase. If the overhead and maintenance is not massive, though lets face it, it ain’t going to be cheap or easy, I hope more photographers go this way.

    • Myles, that’s very reassuring to hear. More and more, I hear from clients that they are not looking at Getty or Corbis for stock images, but rather looking to their favorite photographers for certain types of images. I truly hope this trend continues, because it gives some of that lost leverage back to photographers, and validates them as a creative business.
      Jim Erickson is a good example of a successful self-owned stock business, but he was hugely successful before that, so the income he gets from those stock images is probably not the best way to gauge the benefits from DIY stock. He can also afford a full-time staff to run the stock side of things.

  7. MONOPOLY – is the one simple word that come to mind
    does anyone know the percentage of the market Getty controls now – it is an other sad day for this industry- the “art” of photography is becoming null and void – Getty has a motive by buying all of these enourmous companies – wire, film, jupiter – the rest of us just dont know what it is yet – but i am sure the outcome will not be good

  8. I read the Lucie play by play – really funny and better then actually attending! How did you type that fast without typos??? I find that amazing as well. Great to meet you last night – Kristina

  9. I helped Jim Erickson set up Ericskon Stock. From a business perspective, he always seems to be a step ahead.

    I’ve long believed that there will only two types of stock photographers. The first type provides images on a commodity basis that fill specific current market needs and are created on a “paint-by-number” basis. The others are those who create their own brand and market their images directly to buyers. If they can provide the quality, service and a distinctive look that is attractive to higher-budget photo buyers (and can afford to invest in a substantial marketing effort), then they will be able to command Rights Managed prices.

    Also, what helped Jim and others like him is the symbiotic relationship between his assignment and stock businesses. We originally marketed his stock as a more affordable and immediate alternative to hiring him for a shoot. This made his stock look like a bargain even thought we charged premium usage rates.

    I don’t mean to completely dismiss the “commodity” photographers. Some of them are pulling in substantial incomes. But I think photographers who want to see a lot of revenue from stock need to recognize that Rights Managed agencies are quickly dying, and even “traditional” Royalty Free is on its way out. The vast majority of stock sales will be microstock and the only stock that will fetch Royalty Free rates (with a few exceptions) will be sold by those photographers who create distinctive brands and market it themselves directly to buyers.

  10. There was a recent story on Page Six of the New York Post where PMC raised the issue of Wire/Getty’s growing monopoly that got him closed out from covering The Vanity Fair party. Only problem is that both large enterprises have engaged in tactics to undermine independent photographic artists. The consolidation of media, news gathering and distribution should be of concern to any citizen and journalist, not just photojournalists. As one who has head to deal with the attempted monopolization of documenting social, cultural and charitable life in New York by both PMC and Wire/Getty, where they send 2-3 of their own people to cover one event and independents are locked out of key aspects of events, it makes it hard for any independent photojournalist to have sympathy for either. Independent journalism and photo journalism are under attack even if frankly I could care less about the rights to document the most over documented people in the world. Fact is all the Hollywood community wants is to deal with the photo agency that can distribute their content (social distraction) to as many outlets as possible. I think photojournalists would best focus their gripes against this growing monopoly by not patronizing them for stock work and for truly newsworthy journalism. If they want an exclusive to photograph Lindsay Lohan getting drunk, go for it, but when it comes to legitimate news, back off whatever claims to exclusivity they seek to obtain. This country was founded on independent journalism.