>paying for images
- Home
- Board: /qa/ - Question & Answer
- Reading: >paying for images
So after getting tired of seeing the fucking Getty Imashits watermark on half the pics I see I decided to investigate what the fuzz was about.
>$500 for a picture
>every fucking picture
>$125 for a sub 1 Megapixel pic
How is this shit allowed? What am I missing here lads?
You're not a news corporation with a budget in the dozens if not hundreds of millions.
Stock photos are used all the time in news stories.
There's also things like movies or video games, again with budgets far above most individuals.
>>578865
>What am I missing here lads?
A considerable amount of brain cells
>>578865
It's a stock image, probably royalty-free too.
News stations use them because it's actually cheaper to pay that one time fee for permanent rights to the image instead of licensing something else.
Also the images that are posted here with the watermark are probably just Google search results and it's somewhat of a meme to purposely post stock images with watermarks on them.
>>578892
>it's somewhat of a meme to purposely post stock images with watermarks on them.
this tbqh
>>578865
welcome to the 21th century's first world problems.
everything is expensive even art trades.
