Thanks, but I already knew Latin wasn't my strong suit.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Well indeed, the latter part of the tag would have to be kept to a pre-canned list with carefully explained meanings, or you'd effectively be promoting contract disputes.
I suggested the noads one because I can see people not wanting their likeness abused for whatever type of product advertisement they find to be most annoying.
Why it was implemented as all-or-nothing, I'm inclined to go with your second suggestion. This idea I outlined wasn't particularly hard to arrive at.
If what they effectively want to say to downstream clients who would buy a license via Getty is, 'You only have to deal with one party: us', that still doesn't explain why they're not allowing an artist to specify a minimum fee, or indeed what images are released this way.
Technology wise it's hardly that much more work to adding just images with a certain tag to Getty's pool vs. adding a user's entire cache of images. One would imagine this to be trivial, in fact.
Why don't they just introduce a new tag, 'gettylicense', with everything after the colon being the minimum amount owed.
e.g. 'gettylicense:$5.00'
And maybe another colon for specifiers: 'gettylicense:$5.00:noads' for something that can be licensed for $5.00, isn't available to be used in ads.
Put a set of standard tags together like this, link to them on an FAQ page about the whole scheme, and let people decide on a per photo basis whether or not they want to allow commercial reuse like this.
Doing this with tags instead of something new and separate would expose the ability to upload these permissions along with the photos using whatever tools integrate with Flickr.
"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa