MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Please explain the hate towards Getty Images  (Read 12442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 03, 2017, 08:14 »
+2
Hi!

I'm a new poster here but relax: I'm not trolling or anything.

I want to ask a question because I've seen all the hate posted by people, way more than I would think would be normal, for Getty Images. I've been a contributor with them for about 5 years and have a portfolio of over 2000 photographs there.

Very recently I also started uploading to Adobe Stock, Shutterstock, Depositphotos, 123RF, iStockphoto, and Dreamstime, so I'm a newbie as far as microstock is concerned but not so much in regular stock. I've been selling very little as of yet with Shutterstock and Adobe Stock being the best (although I've NEVER seen pickiest reviewers - or reviewer bots- as in AS).

So, my question is this: why all the hate towards Getty Images? Yes, I know that they give 20% as a commission while a bunch of other companies start at 35% and many of them go above 50%. But the thing is that in Getty you're getting 20% of photographs sold for $100 or $1000 instead of 50% of 1 dollar.

Is it that so many of you are already at the level of selling 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 photographs a month in the other ones? I JUST started a couple of months ago with all the other agencies non-exlusively and only have anywhere from 100 to 500 photographs in any of them, so I obviously don't know what it's like to sell anywhere near that number, but please help me understand.

If there is the chance of getting to that kind of level that quickly with a bunch of other agencies making a higher percentage of images selling for a dollar or so but of selling hundreds or thousands a month... that would make me consider things in a different light.

I would not take down my photographs from Getty Images or stop uploading to them because I am thankful of everything I've done there, and also for the fact that I've had a pretty great experience with contributor relations and reviews. But I would start focusing more time weekly on micro stock photographs and videos than I've done in the past four months and consider joining many other agencies as well as subscribing to StockSubmitter to make things more streamlined.

I'm not looking for a fight, just substantiated points of view.

Thank you to any and all who answer.

Regards,

Sergio


niktol

« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2017, 08:33 »
+7
got my popcorn ready...

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2017, 08:39 »
+4
I've got the soda ready!

« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2017, 08:41 »
0
I think the hate stems from early on in the microstock game. An "us versus them" or "micro versus trad" mentality and the misinformed belief that it is/was a closed shop. You have to understand that in the "trad" way of life you had to actually know what you were doing to even be accepted, not that different from being accepted to the current day Stocksy. Stocksy (an agency I have no interest in) currently is in effect as closed as the "trads" were. In a nutshell you had to submit your best images and you went through a rigorous screening process and you either made the grade or you did not. Speed up the truck and the introduction of microstock and a whole new breed of generally speaking hobby photographers who knew little if anything about the stock industry, a very low threshold of entry and a rather rapid pace of technology and you now suddenly have a new generation of entitled spoiled kids who know more than the "old school" photographers ever knew about the stock industry. Voila the hate of anything Getty is born.

Also to add fuel to the fire, Getty has traditionally sh!t on the photographers it represents and has little if any respect for the producers of content and continues to do so.

For the most part it is a blend of ignorance from people who have little working knowledge of the industry and the abuse from an agency towards photographers who do have a strong working knowledge of the industry. A perfect storm.

The hate you see towards Getty stems from fabricated misinformation and to a large extent self inflicted by the continual abuse towards their content providers.

 


« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2017, 08:50 »
0
The hate you see towards Getty stems from fabricated misinformation and to a large extent self inflicted by the continual abuse towards their content providers.

Thank you for your reply! While I cannot say anything bad about the treatment they've given me (quite the opposite, actually), I understand the rest very well, then.

What about the fact of the earnings? Are people selling thousands upon thousands of images on the other sites that Getty Images pales in comparison even though the prices and payouts are higher (although the percentage is lower)?

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2017, 08:57 »
+19
If you've read the threads about Getty here you already know why so many people hate them.

« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2017, 09:07 »
+3
The hate you see towards Getty stems from fabricated misinformation and to a large extent self inflicted by the continual abuse towards their content providers.

Thank you for your reply! While I cannot say anything bad about the treatment they've given me (quite the opposite, actually), I understand the rest very well, then.

What about the fact of the earnings? Are people selling thousands upon thousands of images on the other sites that Getty Images pales in comparison even though the prices and payouts are higher (although the percentage is lower)?

In many ways as an individual contributor the treatment can be good to exceptional, but as a company the treatment is despicable and does not bode well for any contributor. Getty simply does not have the best interests for the hand that feeds them. They are actually very out of touch in this regard.

When I first started with Getty it was a total honor to be a contributor and honestly now I would not recommend them to anyone. On their survey the first question was out of 1 to 10 how likely are you to recommend Getty to other photographers etc. My honest answer would be 3. Years ago my answer would have been 10.

In many ways they f*cked themselves. The sad part is the management is so out of touch with contributors that they don't even see what went wrong.

If what you are doing works for you, then keep doing it. I know I don't have plans to drop Getty any time soon as I am in for the long game. If I was just starting out though, I'd do things a whole lot differently from the privileged position I have worked for over many years to achieve. 



« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 09:14 by Clair Voyant »

« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2017, 09:32 »
+3
Wait for me please.
I am mixing my cocktail...

« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2017, 09:59 »
+13

« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2017, 11:43 »
+29
The loathing of Getty started well before they stepped into the microstock world by buying iStock. They bought up lots of smaller agencies and then changed the terms of deals with photographers to boost Getty's bottom line.

They systematically cut back control contributors had over how their work was licensed - choosing RM versus RF licensing, for example. For photographs and for music. As Getty got bigger and more powerful, smaller agencies put work with Getty and percentages for contributors got smaller and smaller. Various efforts to move the focus back to the creator of images were started but didn't go far.

The royalty cutting went with all acquisitions, such as Pump Audio in 2009 where they promptly cut the royalty rate from 50% to 35% unless to changed to exclusive status. All sorts of tales of ethically challenged tactics.

There's a quote from an old article about Getty acquiring Photo Disc "Getty would probably prefer to license usages for several hundred dollars each rather than $49.95, as long as they can. But there are some very interesting advantages to the PhotoDisc model for the stockholders. With every PhotoDisc sale Getty pays a much smaller share of the licensing fee to the image creator, and thus keeps a greater profit for the stockholders."

Two rounds of private equity owners, Hellman & Friedman and Carlyle, have left the company saddled with debt - see here, here and here. Their struggles to deal with that financial bind resulted in more squeezes on contributors and Jonathan Klein's departure when he couldn't turn things around.

There are masses of articles about the various shenanigans Getty has pulled over the years, but I think you get the general drift from the above. Many times people have put up with the stream of bad news and pro-Getty anti-contributor changes because they made enough money at Getty that they couldn't easily walk away, but this doesn't breed positive feelings.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2017, 11:44 »
+5
For me it's not hate. It's a business relationship and I'm more disappointed that it didn't work out. But all of the time I spent on creating images and learning the industry has opened a lot of other doors so I'm grateful for the opportunity.

« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2017, 11:51 »
0
Thank you all very much for your answers!

Now what about the other thing that I asked about? What are the realistic earnings potential for having photographs non-exclusively in 10-20 sites?

Oh, and another question before I forget: in StockSubmitter, is the price they charge per 2-year period or per month? I found no link for Contact and in their Facebook page no link for sending them a message even!

« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2017, 11:58 »
+10
5 years?   Oh, I guess you weren't here for the royalty slashes and the very public statement "Money isn't going to be what makes us happy" response, were you?

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2017, 11:59 »
+9
How long have you got?

What I write below is based on Getty's buyout of iStock, Getty themselves had a poor reputation among their own photographers for various reasons well before 2007, and several big names had left by then.

Broken promises, e.g.
"you will be grandfathered in at your next level" (didn't happen)
"buyers will never be able to filter out exclusive content" (they can buy 'essential' subscriptions)
"exclusives will always feature highly in search" (not a reality for a couple of years at least, now not even a promise)
"being exclusive means we'll be able to protect your property", (Now:  if they feel like it and it isn't too much bother, they might)

Plus if you're always getting 20% of high sales you're lucky. My Getty sales are often just cents with only occasional large sales and my average rpd is already below 1/3 of what it was around 2012/3.

How is 20% an equitable relationship, even if you are getting reasonable money?



« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2017, 13:17 »
+3
How long have you got?

What I write below is based on Getty's buyout of iStock, Getty themselves had a poor reputation among their own photographers for various reasons well before 2007, and several big names had left by then.

Broken promises, e.g.
"you will be grandfathered in at your next level" (didn't happen)
"buyers will never be able to filter out exclusive content" (they can buy 'essential' subscriptions)
"exclusives will always feature highly in search" (not a reality for a couple of years at least, now not even a promise)
"being exclusive means we'll be able to protect your property", (Now:  if they feel like it and it isn't too much bother, they might)

Plus if you're always getting 20% of high sales you're lucky. My Getty sales are often just cents with only occasional large sales and my average rpd is already below 1/3 of what it was around 2012/3.

How is 20% an equitable relationship, even if you are getting reasonable money?

From a Moment's collection contributor, it is not equitable considering:
- they used to keyword and now contributor does it
- keywording and all the data has to be entered before being refused, unlike other macro agencies where you may complete info after it's been accepted by editor
- they don't care and most often don't pursue illegal uses (considering they work on image exclusivity, image has to be stolen from them ...)
- often there are IT bugs in the reporting system or image publication

I clearly fail to see why is Getty "charging" me 80%, ... and I've reached the point where I am considering that 2018 will be the year I will cancel my contract and move somewhere else (not sure where though ... ).

« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2017, 13:46 »
+18
Why?

Because they are hateful by nature

How can we not hate a site selling your images for 2 and reporting your sales after more that a month (when other sites report the sales in minutes)?

« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2017, 13:49 »
+16
When an agency considers to be unsustainable to live with a commission of 80% of each sale, and raises it to 85% cutting the measly share of the artist from 20 to 15%, I think it deserves all the hate and then some more.

Especially considering that several agencies have survived all these years splinting the sale 50/50 with the artist.


« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2017, 17:47 »
+2
Sorry hochmann, but registered today...
NEXT!!!
But congrats for beeing so new and so trustable.

Getty Images and Istock stories are not the same...
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 17:56 by Oligo »

« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2017, 18:49 »
+3
...What are the realistic earnings potential for having photographs non-exclusively in 10-20 sites?

Depends on the photographs and on the sites :)

If you look at the poll results listed here, they're roughly a gauge of what to expect from the microstock sites. The low earners are a waste of time - if you were already there, like I am at Dreamstime, it'd be OK to stay, but otherwise don't bother.

People have advocated using a mix of sites - some macro, some specialist (if you have suitable content), some mobile, etc. Stocksy is currently accepting new artists - have you considered them? One or more niches may work well for you and then you focus more on supplying them. It's hard to know without trying sites out with your content.

Some of the decisions are different for video or illustrations from photographs. Many photographers have branched out into video as a way to counteract the stagnant income (or decline) for stills. Occasionally there's something really innovative - Canva was the last site of that sort introducing micro RM licensing. There are always hopefuls stopping by here with a new agency pitch - mostly focusing on building the web site and not on finding and appealing to buyers. Most are come and gone pretty quickly, but there's hope that a newcomer might improve the list of choices at some point.

Spread the risk and stay flexible :)


« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2017, 12:00 »
+7
Why?

Because they are hateful by nature

How can we not hate a site selling your images for 2 and reporting your sales after more that a month (when other sites report the sales in minutes)?

Please add, months or longer to the above. Files that were removed in December of 2016 were still being reported in Feb and March of 2017. I won't say I hate them, but I hate what they do. I resent the insults and the way they treat us as a group by lying and unfulfilled promises. Cut commissions, cut more, cut more.

If you never went to the forum it would be hard to see how Lobo reflected so clearly the position of the management. Rude, shut off questions, locked threads or vague promises of an answer coming just to put us off for more time. iStock and Getty paid him to be that way which was terrible artist relationship management. Why would any of us be happy with that rotten treatment?

Overall just horrible communication with artists and some kind of twisted viewpoint towards us as their ignorant needy slaves. I'm not so desperate that I will take abuse from an agency just because they drop some spare change on me from time to time. There is an issue of personal integrity and not being willing to take their overall abusive and rude condescending superior attitude.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 12:05 by YadaYadaYada »

« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2017, 19:52 »
+9
Why?

Because they are hateful by nature

How can we not hate a site selling your images for 2 and reporting your sales after more that a month (when other sites report the sales in minutes)?

Please add, months or longer to the above. Files that were removed in December of 2016 were still being reported in Feb and March of 2017. I won't say I hate them, but I hate what they do. I resent the insults and the way they treat us as a group by lying and unfulfilled promises. Cut commissions, cut more, cut more.

If you never went to the forum it would be hard to see how Lobo reflected so clearly the position of the management. Rude, shut off questions, locked threads or vague promises of an answer coming just to put us off for more time. iStock and Getty paid him to be that way which was terrible artist relationship management. Why would any of us be happy with that rotten treatment?

Overall just horrible communication with artists and some kind of twisted viewpoint towards us as their ignorant needy slaves. I'm not so desperate that I will take abuse from an agency just because they drop some spare change on me from time to time. There is an issue of personal integrity and not being willing to take their overall abusive and rude condescending superior attitude.

I had an email from Lobo once threatening to revoke my forum privileges because I called them out on an image which they rejected for copyright - it was money.  I called them out because shortly after I uploaded my image there was one almost exactly like mine from an admin.  I was pissed and made a stink of it publicly.  He was a rude POS and deleted my posts.  I'm sure to hide the hypocrisy they practiced so well.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 09:21 by Mantis »

« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2017, 23:15 »
+6
I deleted my video portfolio from Getty two years ago even though then I made nearly $1000 pm with them. They undervalued my work so I pulled the plug and went non exclusive. Best thing I ever did.  I wonder where Lobo is now.... Hopefully Bering treated the way he likes to treat others, with complete disregard for human decency.

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2017, 03:17 »
+1
Still working there, but seldom posts on the forum nowadays.

Shelma1

« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2017, 04:01 »
+4
Still working there, but seldom posts on the forum nowadays.

He's too busy being rude and dismissive to people on Facebook now. :D

« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2017, 04:45 »
+3
Because they hate and resent their contributors and aren't shy about showing it in the way they communicate and in their business dealings (please just take a look at the threads on this here forum, start by searching for "unsustainable" and "Google giveaway" for two prime examples).

That and they are a bunch of douche bags (their contributor platform is called "ESP" and their copyright department is named the "CIA" for goodness sake).

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2017, 09:15 »
+7
Plus:
- asking for certain types of content then deactivating it, sometimes for legal reasons which should have been checked out beforehand, sometimes apparently randomly, 'on a whim' (or because forced by Getty suppliers?).
- 'disappearing' keywords so that files can't be found on their main keyword
- changing file numbers, making chasing these 'disappeared' keywords up more difficult and time-consuming
- premium access whereby Getty pocket the premium and you only get your percentage of the sale, meaning you aren't getting even the percentage you thought you'd signed up for.

« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2017, 09:14 »
+4
Start here: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/

 
That sure was a mean, nasty, vindictive way to handle a disagreement. How long did it take to recover after they removed you with 30 day notice. I remember you were diversifying to many agencies after being forced out of iStock.

Plus:
- asking for certain types of content then deactivating it, sometimes for legal reasons which should have been checked out beforehand, sometimes apparently randomly, 'on a whim' (or because forced by Getty suppliers?).
- 'disappearing' keywords so that files can't be found on their main keyword
- changing file numbers, making chasing these 'disappeared' keywords up more difficult and time-consuming
- premium access whereby Getty pocket the premium and you only get your percentage of the sale, meaning you aren't getting even the percentage you thought you'd signed up for.


And banning people like you from the forum. Which you haven't mentioned but most of us here know about. Hostile member treatment and negative relationships were part of the reason, not just commission and income cuts.


« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2017, 12:21 »
+21
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.


namussi

« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2017, 23:33 »
+3

 Getty simply does not have the best interests for the hand that feeds them. They are actually very out of touch in this regard.


The customers are the hands that feed Getty, not contributors.

« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2017, 01:53 »
+7
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 02:01 by derek »

« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2017, 09:36 »
+2
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!

They aren't going away and the times have changed, now what? I say adapt to the situation instead of spending years complaining about the good old days of film before the internet. It's the 21st century not the 80s.

« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2017, 10:01 »
+2
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!

They aren't going away and the times have changed, now what? I say adapt to the situation instead of spending years complaining about the good old days of film before the internet. It's the 21st century not the 80s.

Nah you're reading it wrong and yes its the 21st century and they should really be better organized then shouldnt they.

« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2017, 15:39 »
+3
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Sheriff

« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2017, 19:36 »
+3
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

namussi

« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2017, 22:38 »
+3
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.





 

namussi

« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2017, 22:42 »
0
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!

Of course their selling power has declined. There are far more agencies now, and (thanks to digital) a much bigger supply of competent-enough photos. 




« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2017, 01:50 »
+5
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.

Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit

I dumped them back in February

A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.

You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.


« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2017, 02:03 »
+1
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.

Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit

I dumped them back in February

A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.

You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.


Well said!!  its basically the same with SS you keep feeding them and you can have 20K top commercial files there but theyre only as good as until the next search change!
I know an old guy there was with them from the word go with a port of 50K files and thats a lot! just after new year he was slammed down over 50% SS was the only micro he belonged to! Few months later he took his portfolio and placed it all into some RF agency.

« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2017, 09:18 »
+2
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

My last statement on ESP is Sept. 1st which means August data, not Sept data. 2 1/2 months or longer is not really the following month, and I'm just as unhappy as you are about the slow reporting. Then they take longer to pay, so they are holding our money for almost three months most of the time. That's wrong.

ShadySue

« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2017, 10:17 »
0
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

My last statement on ESP is Sept. 1st which means August data, not Sept data. 2 1/2 months or longer is not really the following month, and I'm just as unhappy as you are about the slow reporting. Then they take longer to pay, so they are holding our money for almost three months most of the time. That's wrong.
1st September means 'the month of September', not 'the month of August', though I only know that for sure (as that's not exactly self-evident) by looking at the charts, which show entries for January - September.

« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2017, 12:09 »
0
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

My last statement on ESP is Sept. 1st which means August data, not Sept data. 2 1/2 months or longer is not really the following month, and I'm just as unhappy as you are about the slow reporting. Then they take longer to pay, so they are holding our money for almost three months most of the time. That's wrong.
1st September means 'the month of September', not 'the month of August', though I only know that for sure (as that's not exactly self-evident) by looking at the charts, which show entries for January - September.

I guess I'm lost on that one. How does a 1st of Sept. statement, which comes on the 20th of Oct, mean it's all of Sept. Never mind I'm just making myself more confused.  :) Shouldn't it just say Sept. 30th then? Royalty payments are processed on the 25th of the month. If the statement isn't issued until the following month, then the 25th would be for the preceding month, not Sept.

I see you are correct, I missed that, I have credit pack $15.33 for Sept. 2017 which should mean that's Sept. not August sales, reported in Sept? And DM3 shows Sept income and sales from the 1st to the 30th. I got paid on the following month Oct 25. I see every months payment is processed around that same date.

It still seems to take a long time for them to figure out what's going on when all the rest are same day within hours. Thanks for the correction, it won't be the last time.

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2017, 16:06 »
+1
Some very informative responses and then there's some great rants here.  I'm still with Getty/iStock after a couple years and I'll give some reasons why I'm not thrilled about them.

1)  Uploading high quality 4K videos and seeing them sell for under a dollar.  I don't care if it's a small res web purchase.  If I put in the work to produce videos at a certain level, I can't help but be disappointed with that low of return.

2)  Delayed sales reporting is ridiculous.  If all these smaller companies can report live sales, it shouldn't be that hard.  Probably just a strategy to hide the low payouts.

3)  This is not my personal experience, but I read about a contributor receiving an email from them saying they made a mistake and payed him too much last month.  Now his next couple months of earnings will be withheld until it's payed back.  That would really piss me off!

Even with these points combined with all the other contributors points, I still see it as counter productive to delete my files and close my account.  I don't buy into the theory that my files there are competing with my same files on other sites.  I believe most customers buy content from the site they're already comfortable with and are already logged onto.  I truly don't think pulling my portfolio will increase my sales on other sites.

Now would I recommend a newbie to upload there... Hell No!

ShadySue

« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2017, 18:50 »
0
2)  Delayed sales reporting is ridiculous.  If all these smaller companies can report live sales, it shouldn't be that hard.  Probably just a strategy to hide the low payouts.
They claim that it's because they work out the subs payment on the basis of how much a buyer paid and how many files they used, therefore they can't know how much a sub payment made until that part of their sub runs out, bearing in mind that there's a fairly complicated scheme whereby buyers can roll forward subs downloads.
Easy answer: do away with subs.
Still, I seem to be doing a bit better on rpd with subs now than when it was a flat rate. Which is but a tiny crumb of comfort in the overall dire scheme of things there.
BTW, allegedly the downloads ytd counter on your profile page) is working in more-or-less real time, though it only tells you the number of downloads, not which files were downloaded or how much you earned.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 19:36 by ShadySue »

« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2017, 21:14 »
0
The quality of content they are getting is dropping drastically. If they didnt have the high end partnerships it would be a real problem.

Everybody I know has either stopped supplying them or they send them the outtakes or the test shootings.

All the really good material goes elsewhere and if Getty wants it, they have to license it from smaller high end collections that make sure their files are well placed and that have negotiated special deals, so the content is not exclusive.

I will not delete my old portfolio but I really dont see what I could upload. Now they sell 4k videos for 68 cents...I mean, whats the point? I have a few hundred files on tiny agencies and they now outsell Gettyimages or istock where I still have thousands.

They keep sending out these surveys about how to improve getty, but they never touch on the real problem: paying the industry standard of at least 30% for non exclusive content and an interface and stats that make sense.

real time sales, reliable reporting, no refunds or at least very rarely, a stats page that has meaning...like showing me which files sold?? I dont care about the license type, i need to see trends, so I need pictures and amounts.

Whoever designed that interface has never sold a single stock image.

One day getty will be sold, maybe Adobe will buy them or Shutterstock and adobe together and they each take what they need.

There is no question that they will dominate the industry, because they have vision and now what they are doing.

And there will always be many small and specialized places, so we have diversity. Which is good for artists, I dont think being exclusive with one place is healthy. istock was fantastic, but it will never come back and so far I havent met a single agency with that kind of vibe.

I still have many friends working at getty, i wish them well, but it is obvious that Adobe will be the dominant gorilla in a few years.

namussi

« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2017, 23:40 »
0

They claim that it's because they work out the subs payment on the basis of how much a buyer paid and how many files they used, therefore they can't know how much a sub payment made until that part of their sub runs out, bearing in mind that there's a fairly complicated scheme whereby buyers can roll forward subs downloads.
Easy answer: do away with subs.


I think Getty is more interested in what customers think about subs rather than contributors.

« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2017, 01:54 »
+2
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.

As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content.

The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.

However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.

namussi

« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2017, 06:51 »
0


The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.



Why "of course"?


« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2017, 11:16 »
+3
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.

As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content.

The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.

However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.

Acceptance into Tony Stone Worldwide and/or The Image Bank was an accomplishment and a milestone in any photographers career. If you could make it into either one of those then I think it is pretty safe to say you can make it in microstock and have a very solid working knowledge of the stock industry. Can you imagine if most of today's photographers had to go through such a process? The first thing they would do is use the "it was a closed shop" card. I don't think a majority of today's shooters know what it is like to have to work so hard to get into such agencies like those two.


« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2017, 11:49 »
+2
No black cat. It's all about the money, and in this department they deliver more than all the other agencies/distributors combined (at least in the photo department-video seems to be a different story).

Why do you think that they still have so many top pros as exclusive contributors. I can tell you that those that are supplying images to stock as their main business are a thousand times more sensitive to revenue than anyone else that does it for pocket money. I can guarantee you that once they don't bring food to the table they will be gone in a heartbeat. As simple as that.


Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.

Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit

I dumped them back in February

A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.

You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.

« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2017, 13:58 »
0
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.

As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content.

The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.

However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.

Acceptance into Tony Stone Worldwide and/or The Image Bank was an accomplishment and a milestone in any photographers career. If you could make it into either one of those then I think it is pretty safe to say you can make it in microstock and have a very solid working knowledge of the stock industry. Can you imagine if most of today's photographers had to go through such a process? The first thing they would do is use the "it was a closed shop" card. I don't think a majority of today's shooters know what it is like to have to work so hard to get into such agencies like those two.

Ditto!  I joined them in 88 they used to have a large white villa in st-johns wood. London. later they moved to a huge offices in Camden town. Brilliant outfit!...I havent seen many portfolios in micro-stock but of the ones I've seen maybe only a handfull would have gained entry. It was different it was an achievment just getting the right exposure in those days. You got no second chance of adjusting anything.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 14:01 by derek »

« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2017, 14:47 »
0
No black cat. It's all about the money, and in this department they deliver more than all the other agencies/distributors combined (at least in the photo department-video seems to be a different story).

Why do you think that they still have so many top pros as exclusive contributors. I can tell you that those that are supplying images to stock as their main business are a thousand times more sensitive to revenue than anyone else that does it for pocket money. I can guarantee you that once they don't bring food to the table they will be gone in a heartbeat. As simple as that.


Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.

Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit

I dumped them back in February

A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.

You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.

Black cat? No I'm dark smokey grey with silver frosting :D

And have you checked their 15% royalty rates for none exclusives?

Yup sell a photo for $100 they keep $85 the contributor gets $15

Plus all the pissy 1 cent and 2 cent royalties!

If top notch photogs are getting better rates then they would be exclusive

« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2017, 16:22 »
+4

"No black cat. It's all about the money, and in this department they deliver more than all the other agencies/distributors combined (at least in the photo department-video seems to be a different story).

Why do you think that they still have so many top pros as exclusive contributors. I can tell you that those that are supplying images to stock as their main business are a thousand times more sensitive to revenue than anyone else that does it for pocket money. I can guarantee you that once they don't bring food to the table they will be gone in a heartbeat. As simple as that."





The Top people have special deals. Preferred ranking in the search engine, higher royalties, the ability to be exclusive as an artist, but non exclusive with their business (which is often a different legal entity and maybe owned by their partner).

The pros supply all macro marketplaces, theyll have images on Getty, but also on Offset, or adobe premium collections and many smaller places you have never heard of.

Their contracts have nothing to do with the standard contract for the run of the  mill contributors.

and Getty is of course free to negotiate a special deal with whoever they want.

These special contracts is one of the reasons why so many macro photographers prefer to work with one of the many getty partners. It gives them the best of all worlds -  highly personal and exclusive work environment, but they leave it up to their agency to negotiate deals around teh globe with different partners.

this way they have exposure to the entire stock market and dont need to worry about which agency is currently messing up where.

And nobody advertises  them in the contributor community. If you get into one of them, you just focus on production and stay away from the rest of the stockworld.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 17:11 by cobalt »

« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2017, 19:45 »
0

"No black cat. It's all about the money, and in this department they deliver more than all the other agencies/distributors combined (at least in the photo department-video seems to be a different story).

Why do you think that they still have so many top pros as exclusive contributors. I can tell you that those that are supplying images to stock as their main business are a thousand times more sensitive to revenue than anyone else that does it for pocket money. I can guarantee you that once they don't bring food to the table they will be gone in a heartbeat. As simple as that."





The Top people have special deals. Preferred ranking in the search engine, higher royalties, the ability to be exclusive as an artist, but non exclusive with their business (which is often a different legal entity and maybe owned by their partner).

The pros supply all macro marketplaces, theyll have images on Getty, but also on Offset, or adobe premium collections and many smaller places you have never heard of.

Their contracts have nothing to do with the standard contract for the run of the  mill contributors.

and Getty is of course free to negotiate a special deal with whoever they want.

These special contracts is one of the reasons why so many macro photographers prefer to work with one of the many getty partners. It gives them the best of all worlds -  highly personal and exclusive work environment, but they leave it up to their agency to negotiate deals around teh globe with different partners.

this way they have exposure to the entire stock market and dont need to worry about which agency is currently messing up where.

And nobody advertises  them in the contributor community. If you get into one of them, you just focus on production and stay away from the rest of the stockworld.

You state this as fact. Sounds like speculation to me.

Why is it non-exclusives want their cake and eat it too?

ShadySue

« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2017, 02:58 »
+4
^^ Cobalt formerly worked for them, which gives her more insight that the rest of us have.
Besides, we all know that Yu-know-who got a special deal (he has his own site, his pics were on other sites except SS for over a year after he became 'exclusive'), so why wouldn't others have 'deals'?

namussi

« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2017, 06:46 »
0
Besides, we all know that Yu-know-who got a special deal

I don't know 1) what that deal was, and 2) who "you-know-who" is.

I suspect I'm not alone


ShadySue

« Reply #55 on: November 16, 2017, 07:09 »
+3
Besides, we all know that Yu-know-who got a special deal

I don't know 1) what that deal was, and 2) who "you-know-who" is.

I suspect I'm not alone
I wrote Yu-know-who and pointed out the deal. It's not a secret. It was discussed extensively here at the time. IIRC, one of the other big factories likewise has a pseudo-exclusivity.
Of course, we are not privy to whether they've been able to negotiate a better percentage than the plebs get, but it wouldn't be surprising if so.

namussi

« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2017, 19:21 »
0
Besides, we all know that Yu-know-who got a special deal

I don't know 1) what that deal was, and 2) who "you-know-who" is.

I suspect I'm not alone
I wrote Yu-know-who and pointed out the deal. It's not a secret. It was discussed extensively here at the time. IIRC, one of the other big factories likewise has a pseudo-exclusivity.
Of course, we are not privy to whether they've been able to negotiate a better percentage than the plebs get, but it wouldn't be surprising if so.

Why didn't you just say who "yu-know-who" is?


ShadySue

« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2017, 19:39 »
+1
Besides, we all know that Yu-know-who got a special deal

I don't know 1) what that deal was, and 2) who "you-know-who" is.

I suspect I'm not alone
I wrote Yu-know-who and pointed out the deal. It's not a secret. It was discussed extensively here at the time. IIRC, one of the other big factories likewise has a pseudo-exclusivity.
Of course, we are not privy to whether they've been able to negotiate a better percentage than the plebs get, but it wouldn't be surprising if so.

Why didn't you just say who "yu-know-who" is?
Long story, which it isn't necessary to rehash.

namussi

« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2017, 01:39 »
0
Besides, we all know that Yu-know-who got a special deal

I don't know 1) what that deal was, and 2) who "you-know-who" is.

I suspect I'm not alone
I wrote Yu-know-who and pointed out the deal. It's not a secret. It was discussed extensively here at the time. IIRC, one of the other big factories likewise has a pseudo-exclusivity.
Of course, we are not privy to whether they've been able to negotiate a better percentage than the plebs get, but it wouldn't be surprising if so.

Why didn't you just say who "yu-know-who" is?
Long story, which it isn't necessary to rehash.

Very odd. You make a point that requires people to know what you're talking about. But when we ask what you to explain what you mean, you don't want to explain.

Can anyone one else enlighten us about this "mother knows best" secrecy?

« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2017, 02:24 »
0
Besides, we all know that Yu-know-who got a special deal

I don't know 1) what that deal was, and 2) who "you-know-who" is.

I suspect I'm not alone
I wrote Yu-know-who and pointed out the deal. It's not a secret. It was discussed extensively here at the time. IIRC, one of the other big factories likewise has a pseudo-exclusivity.
Of course, we are not privy to whether they've been able to negotiate a better percentage than the plebs get, but it wouldn't be surprising if so.

Why didn't you just say who "yu-know-who" is?
Long story, which it isn't necessary to rehash.

Very odd. You make a point that requires people to know what you're talking about. But when we ask what you to explain what you mean, you don't want to explain.

Can anyone one else enlighten us about this "mother knows best" secrecy?

Yuri Arcurs

« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2017, 04:36 »
+5
1) royalty cuts from already lowest in the industry
2) Made upgrades to the website that made it worse and drove buyers away.
3) told us that money doesn't make you happy while they took a even bigger % for reduced sales
4) introduced a subs system with a minimum level of 2 cents
5) undercut prices on for video on other sites but pay the lowest %
6) flooded the site with extremely poor quality "agency" files for hundreds of dollars, displaced existing contributors files and drove buyers away.
7) refused to implement a price filter until all the customers left
8) actively promoted subscriptions and other getty sites that made more money for Getty and less for the contributors.
9) clunkiest and slowest upload system with no FTP for photos.


namussi

« Reply #61 on: November 17, 2017, 05:01 »
+1

ShadySue

« Reply #62 on: November 17, 2017, 05:01 »
0
Over the nearly eleven years I've been with iStock, I've been astonished at how often they remove a site buyer feature giving the reason that 'only (small figure below 5%) of customers use that feature'.
But a lot of (small figures below 5%) adds up to a lot of disgruntled ex-buyers (why on earth did they remove descriptions?).
At least until a couple of years ago (I have no more recent info), Amazon UK supported users of a small, niche UK OS which could only have had a couple of hundred diehard users at most (and which browsers couldn't use many big websites).

namussi

« Reply #63 on: November 17, 2017, 07:16 »
0
Over the nearly eleven years I've been with iStock, I've been astonished at how often they remove a site buyer feature giving the reason that 'only (small figure below 5%) of customers use that feature'.
But a lot of (small figures below 5%) adds up to a lot of disgruntled ex-buyers (why on earth did they remove descriptions?).
At least until a couple of years ago (I have no more recent info), Amazon UK supported users of a small, niche UK OS which could only have had a couple of hundred diehard users at most (and which browsers couldn't use many big websites).

So what? Amazon no longer supports them.

ShadySue

« Reply #64 on: November 17, 2017, 07:25 »
+1
Over the nearly eleven years I've been with iStock, I've been astonished at how often they remove a site buyer feature giving the reason that 'only (small figure below 5%) of customers use that feature'.
But a lot of (small figures below 5%) adds up to a lot of disgruntled ex-buyers (why on earth did they remove descriptions?).
At least until a couple of years ago (I have no more recent info), Amazon UK supported users of a small, niche UK OS which could only have had a couple of hundred diehard users at most (and which browsers couldn't use many big websites).

So what? Amazon no longer supports them.
You know that for a fact?
My point was that Amazon don't just drop an extremely small number of buyers.
Presumably if they have found that no-one is using that OS any more they won't be supported, and that might be the case, I don't know (as I said) as I'm not keeping up with that OS any more.

My main point was that iS as run by Getty, don't seem to have any worries about losing small percentages of buyers, multiplied by many increments. I remember once the percentage quoted was "only 8%". I wonder how many other companies would deliberately inconvenience 8% of their customers, knowing there is lots of opposition.
I am talking about a drip over ten years, not several in a month.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 09:31 by ShadySue »

namussi

« Reply #65 on: November 17, 2017, 08:03 »
0
Over the nearly eleven years I've been with iStock, I've been astonished at how often they remove a site buyer feature giving the reason that 'only (small figure below 5%) of customers use that feature'.
But a lot of (small figures below 5%) adds up to a lot of disgruntled ex-buyers (why on earth did they remove descriptions?).
At least until a couple of years ago (I have no more recent info), Amazon UK supported users of a small, niche UK OS which could only have had a couple of hundred diehard users at most (and which browsers couldn't use many big websites).

So what? Amazon no longer supports them.
You know that for a fact?
My point was that Amazon don't just drop an extremely small number of buyers.
Presumably if they have found that no-one is using that OS any more they won't be supported, and that might be the case, I don't know (as I said) as I'm not keeping up with that OS any more.

My main point was that iS as run by Getty, don't seem to have any worries about losing small percentages of buyers, multipoled by many increments. I remember once the percentage quoted was "only 8%". I wonder how many other companies would deliberately inconvenience 8% of their customers, knowing there is lots of opposition.
I am talking about a drip over ten years, not several in a month.

That depends on how good those customers are. Some customers can be so unprofitable or just a pain in the arse that you are better rid of them. (Ditto contributors).


ShadySue

« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2017, 08:59 »
+2
Some customers can be so unprofitable or just a pain in the arse that you are better rid of them. (Ditto contributors).
True, but of older contributors, even those who are supplying high numbers of 'requested' images and are keeping steadyish on sales report that they are taking more than two years to break even on shoots (meaning they can't be sure that current shoots will ever break even). They seem to have lost a lot of good buyers.
(NB, this is from iS, not Getty House)


namussi

« Reply #67 on: November 17, 2017, 09:54 »
+1
Some customers can be so unprofitable or just a pain in the arse that you are better rid of them. (Ditto contributors).
True, but of older contributors, even those who are supplying high numbers of 'requested' images and are keeping steadyish on sales report that they are taking more than two years to break even on shoots (meaning they can't be sure that current shoots will ever break even). They seem to have lost a lot of good buyers.
(NB, this is from iS, not Getty House)

That's very vague.

And, given that iStock has tens of thousands of contributors, I'm not surprised that there are some people who say that. But there could be any number of explanations: perhaps, for example, their shoots aren't paying off because too many other photographers have similar shoots?

Remember that people are more likely to complain when things aren't going well than when things are OK.

Anecdotes are frequently interesting to hear, but without statistical and numerical evidence to go with them, they're not very useful.

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: November 17, 2017, 10:05 »
+8
You've had a couple dozen people explain the perfectly logical hatred for Getty, yet you keep insisting there's no reason for it.

What's up with that?

« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2017, 14:42 »
+4
You've had a couple dozen people explain the perfectly logical hatred for Getty, yet you keep insisting there's no reason for it.

What's up with that?

Namussi just likes to argue the toss.

Either that they are a paid up servant of the Dark Lord Getty

« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2017, 18:16 »
+2
Every agency is free to make personal deals with any partner they want.

Itś called a free market.

In the macrostockworld this is perfectly normal, not just for Getty but for many other agencies as well. I learnt a lot about the industry when I left and started to explore what is out there.

You can negotiate everything with any business partner.

Just like with licenses. Every agency has a huge variety of licenses that they dont advertise on their web page.

So this is nothing specific to Gettyimages, contributors with very high quality content can negotiate their own contract anywhere.

Yuri Arcurs was the most vocal about it, but it really isnt some kind of special industry secret and no, it is not just Getty.

But to be offered a personalized deal by any agency you have to have extremly attractive content and invest a ton of money into your productions.

If you dont want to be bothered negotiating individual contracts with different agencies, then you can become part of a small brand that handles all the licensing agreements for you. Your content is exclusive to them and they deal with rankings and royalty agreements.

There are hundreds of agencies on this planet, the stock industry is huge.

But nobody is going to advertise in public which of the many hundreds is currently the most attractive to be in.

If you have a Getty house contract, they will also distribute their content to many different partners.

But the advantage of getty house is they have no artist exclusivity, just image or series exclusivity.

So you can supply them directly but still go out and shoot other things for anyone else.

If you like Getty, go and apply to become a house artist. But they dont stop you from also supplying offset, or adobe, or stockfood with your other content.

The reason people are now often preferring to upload elsewhere because they get more money.

But nobody will tell you their personal favorite, why should they?

And who knows - maybe there is a huge group of happy Getty contributors that are cheering each other on somewhere?

But since Yuri we havent heard from a big studio going exclusive.

And his exclusivity is not artist exclusive abyway and he can even sell his files on getty also from his own website.

So good for him, he got himself a good personal deal.

ETA: namussi if you like Getty, why not apply for a house contract? You can then work with them with the kind of content they like but also supply the smaller specialized agencies.

The micros are just one part of stock, there is a very big world to explore beyond that.

But if you prefer to be exclusive to istock, by all means go and do it.

Nobody here is standing in your way. You asked us why Getty has such an abysmally bad reputation among artist and that is simply the result of their actions.

Other agencies pay attention how they work with people and have a good reputation as a result. So it is their choice. Nobody else can make their decisions for them.

ETA: Fotolia used to be on the wrong end of the contributor community, especially with their 1 dollar project. But they took responsibilty, realised it was a mistake and have taken many steps to make sure their reputation doesnt suffer again.

Itś all about the management and what is important to them. Some companies care about their repution, some dont. And they are perfectly free to make that desicion, it is their business.

I think every contributor would prefer it if they felt Getty was genuinly interested in reaching out. They could decide we want to have the best reputation in the industry.

Nobody is stopping them.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 18:39 by cobalt »

namussi

« Reply #71 on: November 17, 2017, 22:18 »
0

ETA: namussi if you like Getty, why not apply for a house contract? You can then work with them with the kind of content they like but also supply the smaller specialized agencies.

The micros are just one part of stock, there is a very big world to explore beyond that.

But if you prefer to be exclusive to istock, by all means go and do it.

Nobody here is standing in your way. You asked us why Getty has such an abysmally bad reputation among artist and that is simply the result of their actions.


1) No, that was someone else
2) Thank you for the further explanation about "yu-know-who"

namussi

« Reply #72 on: November 18, 2017, 04:15 »
0
You've had a couple dozen people explain the perfectly logical hatred for Getty, yet you keep insisting there's no reason for it.

What's up with that?

That's not true, is it?

Most of those couple of dozen people have reasonable complaints. There's no need to respond.

One or two of them don't, in my opinion, and so I've pointed that out.

Personally, I've been of the opinion that iStock were a bunch of arseholes since about 2006, when I was banned from the forums for criticising Bruce, Peebert, Lobo, etc.

But then Bruce walked off with $30m  from Getty so I suppose he had the last laugh.



namussi

« Reply #73 on: November 18, 2017, 05:02 »
0
You've had a couple dozen people explain the perfectly logical hatred for Getty, yet you keep insisting there's no reason for it.

What's up with that?

Namussi just likes to argue the toss.

Either that they are a paid up servant of the Dark Lord Getty

Haha.

niktol

« Reply #74 on: November 18, 2017, 08:02 »
+1

Either that they are a paid up servant of the Dark Lord Getty

where can I get that job?

namussi

« Reply #75 on: November 18, 2017, 22:44 »
+1

Either that they are a paid up servant of the Dark Lord Getty

where can I get that job?

First you have to submit your three best pro-Getty forum posts.....

« Reply #76 on: November 19, 2017, 01:22 »
0

Either that they are a paid up servant of the Dark Lord Getty

where can I get that job?

Subscription marketing at Istock HQ


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
989 Replies
82378 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
1 Replies
1586 Views
Last post June 30, 2014, 16:08
by EmberMike
13 Replies
3758 Views
Last post July 17, 2015, 13:53
by izzikiorage
8 Replies
1682 Views
Last post December 02, 2015, 09:51
by Microstockphoto
189 Replies
20235 Views
Last post October 09, 2017, 15:38
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors