The Getty-Shutterstock Union: Why Photographers Are Wary of the New Era in Stock Imagery

Stock and editorial image licensing behemoth Getty Images has declared intentions for a $3.7 billion merger with its staunch rival, Shutterstock, a stock photography enterprise.

Craig Peters, the CEO of Getty Images, conveyed the merger to contributors via an email on Tuesday morning, expressing that the firm was “enthusiastic” to deliver this update while indicating that the arrangement was still contingent upon shareholder and regulatory consent. Both organizations will keep functioning until the agreement is concluded.

A press release from Getty Images highlighted that the merger is intended to enable the companies to “address the changing demands of creative, media, and advertising sectors through combined investment in content generation, event coverage, as well as product and technology advancements.”

“We are pursuing this merger largely because we predict it will provide broader access to your content, support for new asset types and formats, along with improved assistance and resources to handle your work,” Peters, who will continue as the leader of the merged entity, informed contributors through his email.

Peters additionally discussed the emergence of artificial intelligence, asserting that Getty Images is committed to “the necessity of compensating creators for the usage of their work.” He reassured photographers that this perspective would remain unchanged due to the merger. Shutterstock’s head Paul Hennessy similarly alluded to technological innovation prospects such as A.I. in a concise statement.

Getty Images and Shutterstock have both been compelled to react to the surge of A.I. In 2023, Getty Images introduced an image generator trained on its repository of licensed images, which was also launched on its subsidiary iStock. Shutterstock previously collaborated with OpenAI to supply training data for A.I. generators.

An image from Shutterstock.AI’s Overcoat collection. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.AI

Photographers who communicated with Artnet News, however, expressed significant apprehensions regarding the merger.

“From my perspective, any consolidation invariably leads to adverse effects for photographers. This merger is monopolistic,” remarked seasoned photojournalist Yunghi Kim. “Getty has consistently aimed to dominate the image market.”

“The majority of contributors to Getty are freelance photographers who earn a modest income licensing their valued work for royalties, but increasingly you hear photographers complaining about receiving mere cents for their work,” she continued. “Some photographers have even risked their lives to document this work.”

Photojournalist Angus Mordant, whose photographs have been featured in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, expressed concern that the merger would “create a monopoly that will only be detrimental to photographers.” Mordant, who has not undertaken assignments for Getty Images, reiterated criticism regarding the notoriously low payouts the company has offered over the years.

“There is a longstanding trend of declining stock image prices, and both Getty and Shutterstock have been infamous for leading the push towards the lowest end of pricing with some of the most minimal licensing rates in the industry,” Mordant stated.

Previously, Getty has faced criticism about insufficient compensation for photographers concerning day rates and royalties. In 2019, Getty declared a Royalty-Free licensing model against Rights Managed licensing for its creative stock imagery, a decision that ultimately lowered photographer earnings.

Daniel McKnight, a photojournalist for the New York Post, noted that one advantage of firms like Getty Images and Shutterstock is that photographers are able to present stock images and receive remuneration for their craft at a time when it’s challenging to earn as a photographer.

However, Stephen Yang, another photojournalist, commented that Shutterstock’s contributor base has long been populated with what he referred to as “amateurs” who “dilute the quality of available images.”

“It is indicative that Getty would wish to incorporate that into their already undervalued collection of imagery,” Yang remarked, while McKnight conceded that compensation for contributors is already considered “absurd.”

“I can’t foresee how a single company controlling the entire stock photo market will bring any benefits to the photographers creating that artwork,” McKnight added. “The individuals in those positions believe they are assisting photographers in the field, whilst in reality, they are merely exploiting them.”

Artnet News has contacted competitors Adobe Stock and Alamy for their input but did not receive a response prior to press time.