Anybody upload to Getty's (not iStock)?

[helloitsme]

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/ArticleView.aspx?article_id=688

or is it the same as iStock?

Their price is very expensive like almost $5,000 for TV use.  How much royalty does a contributor get?  Exclusive only? 

Anybody knows?

[helloitsme]

So, nobody right?

[cobalt]

I think most of the content comes from istock exclusives. They also have individual contracts with larger studios and smaller agencies.

The list prices on their website don�t tell you anything about what the customers really pay. With photos it is not uncommon to get less than one dollar for a photo that is priced at 600 dollars.  They also have higher downloads of course, but the list price gives you no indication how much you can really earn there.

If you want to submit, but don�t want to be istock exclusive, have a look at their list of partners and suppliers for video. Then ask there if you can work with them and join their distribution network.

You can also write to Getty directly, maybe for video they are more open to work with individual artists if you have specialized content, than with photos.

At the moment they say that all 4k files coming from istock will also be mirrored on Getty. But this means you have to accept the really low income from istock, 4-7 dollars for hd

Maybe somebody with more video experience can give you a better suggestion.

[MartinD]

I'm uploading to Getty.

The royalty rate varies between 20% and 35%.

This clip was sold for $2000 and with the royalty rate of 30% i've earned $600.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/hamburg-airport-hyperlapse-stock-video-footage/456862780

Also stills can be valuable.
This one was sold for $455. $91 (20%) for me:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/frankfurt-city-skyline-royalty-free-image/553926373

Sometimes you can get there even really high earnings, like $10.000 for one single picture. I myself didn't experienced it yet, but maybe sometimes...
But Getty has also a program called "Premium Access". That allows companies like "AOL" to download stuff for pennies. I'm going crazy every time my footage was sold for $15 or something like that!

iStock exclusive content is mirrored to Getty.
And yes, exclusive only.

Best regards,

Martin

[op]

I'm working as well with Getty Images. RR is 30% and RF is 25%. Exclusive only.

I don't think their TV use price is expensive when you compare it with a tvc total budget. If I was the client or production company, I would be very happy to use stock footages instead of hiring an all director+crew. But except for advertising and corporate, I do think that all their others prices are too expensive.

[helloitsme]

I'm uploading to Getty.

The royalty rate varies between 20% and 35%.

This clip was sold for $2000 and with the royalty rate of 30% i've earned $600.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/hamburg-airport-hyperlapse-stock-video-footage/456862780

Also stills can be valuable.
This one was sold for $455. $91 (20%) for me:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/frankfurt-city-skyline-royalty-free-image/553926373

Sometimes you can get there even really high earnings, like $10.000 for one single picture. I myself didn't experienced it yet, but maybe sometimes...
But Getty has also a program called "Premium Access". That allows companies like "AOL" to download stuff for pennies. I'm going crazy every time my footage was sold for $15 or something like that!

iStock exclusive content is mirrored to Getty.
And yes, exclusive only.

Best regards,

Martin

Thank you for the info!  That's a great hyper lapse.  I see some video clips on Gettys that aren't great quality too.  So, I may try them to see if they accept my work.  If they do, I'll try uploading exclusive clips for Getty.  Do you upload to Shutterstock and Pond5 as well?  Those high price commission is great, but if they don''t sell as often as in Shutterstock and Pond5, it really doesn't mean much.

[helloitsme]

I'm working as well with Getty Images. RR is 30% and RF is 25%. Exclusive only.

I don't think their TV use price is expensive when you compare it with a tvc total budget. If I was the client or production company, I would be very happy to use stock footages instead of hiring an all director+crew. But except for advertising and corporate, I do think that all their others prices are too expensive.

If you also upload to Shutterstock or Pond5, how's the total sales at Gettys compare to them?  Is it more efficient there or at SS and P5?

[Rage]

Getty is exclusive content right. So can't send my P5 and shutterstock videos there?

[op]

Yes, you cannot.

I only work with Getty so I don't know how it would have been at SS and P5 but indeed it is far from microstock's volume of sales.

[helloitsme]

Yes, you cannot.

I only work with Getty so I don't know how it would have been at SS and P5 but indeed it is far from microstock's volume of sales.

Do you have any clip that sold like 5 times in a year?

[op]

Yes, but at the same time, I have a huge number of clips that never sell.

[helloitsme]

Yes, but at the same time, I have a huge number of clips that never sell.

85% of my clips never sell either.  I think it's normal that way.

[helloitsme]

Yes, but at the same time, I have a huge number of clips that never sell.

Do they sell the clips for Getty for much cheaper on iStock or other sites?

[Rage]

Seems like I'll need to figure out the new Getty ESP thing for video.

[op]

Yes, but at the same time, I have a huge number of clips that never sell.

Do they sell the clips for Getty for much cheaper on iStock or other sites?

No, Getty's contents are not on iStock, only the other way around for iStock exclusives. And it seems that they use partner sites as they call them "Partner Portal" in countries where they don't have a representative office @ whenever I have sales in Turkey, Romania, Cyprus.. Prices in Turkey are same as GI US but Romania and Cyprus are way cheaper. I don't mind about that.

[helloitsme]

Yes, but at the same time, I have a huge number of clips that never sell.

Do they sell the clips for Getty for much cheaper on iStock or other sites?

No, Getty's contents are not on iStock, only the other way around for iStock exclusives. And it seems that they use partner sites as they call them "Partner Portal" in countries where they don't have a representative office @ whenever I have sales in Turkey, Romania, Cyprus.. Prices in Turkey are same as GI US but Romania and Cyprus are way cheaper. I don't mind about that.

Great.  Thanks for the info.

[Ronib]

 How on earth someone can buy one video  with 455$ ?
No offense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pkphotos]

How on earth someone can buy one video  with 455$ ?
No offense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

$455 was for a photo not a video, but clients will pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for a video. That's the thing that many new photographers, or those only familiar with micro don't understand. Before micro came along clients would pay thousands for photos, usually for advertising purposes. At agencies like Getty it's still possible to make several thousand in commission from one photo license, however this happens less often than ten to twenty years ago. The main reason for this is the digital age with over supply and the fact that everyone has jumped on the micro bandwagon, happy to make whatever they can from their photos. Therefore there is a generation of micro shooters out there who believe $28 commission for a photo is a great result. I think collectively photographers have shot themselves in the foot by offering too much to microstock especially the very high quality content that is not generic enough to have high turnover sales. The problem now is that it's almost impossible to get into Getty and although Alamy sales can be much higher value than micro, their highest value sales fail miserably in comparison to Getty.

[Ronib]

I am not exclusive to istock and i get 7$ per video.
The highest price i get today per video is at videoblocks 42$



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage]

Same here, the highest still remains less than 50$. I've heard stories of 1000$ commissions but that's like the loch ness monster

[op]

Those commissions are impossible in microstock. There is no point for a comparaison here, the two business models are at the opposite.

[helloitsme]

Those commissions are impossible in microstock. There is no point for a comparaison here, the two business models are at the opposite.

So, Getty is not a micro stock?  I don't understand the difference.  You get commission as you sell your clips, right?

[pkphotos]

Those commissions are impossible in microstock. There is no point for a comparaison here, the two business models are at the opposite.

So, Getty is not a micro stock?  I don't understand the difference.  You get commission as you sell your clips, right?

Getty is rights managed (RM) or macro as well as royalty free (RF) micro. However photos sold as RF at Getty can often get a lot higher commission value than the typical micro site.

Generally speaking micro photos/footage is high turnover for low value sales. Macro (RM) is low turnover but for higher value sales. Therefore when you have photos/footage of obscure animals or any subject matter that is unlikely to be in high demand, it is pointless submitting it to micro. However these days RM agencies are few and far between and Alamy is the go to agency for most. Unfortunately Alamy struggles against the power of Getty so sales figures from Alamy have always been poor.

[helloitsme]

Those commissions are impossible in microstock. There is no point for a comparaison here, the two business models are at the opposite.

So, Getty is not a micro stock?  I don't understand the difference.  You get commission as you sell your clips, right?

Good point.  85% of my clips never sell.  So, putting the niche clips on Getty if they accept is a good tactics.
Getty is rights managed (RM) or macro as well as royalty free (RF) micro. However photos sold as RF at Getty can often get a lot higher commission value than the typical micro site.

Generally speaking micro photos/footage is high turnover for low value sales. Macro (RM) is low turnover but for higher value sales. Therefore when you have photos/footage of obscure animals or any subject matter that is unlikely to be in high demand, it is pointless submitting it to micro. However these days RM agencies are few and far between and Alamy is the go to agency for most. Unfortunately Alamy struggles against the power of Getty so sales figures from Alamy have always been poor.

[JimmyC]

"I think most of the content comes from istock exclusives. They also have individual contracts with larger studios and smaller agencies."
Getty recently emailed and invited me to submit, based on things they found on my commercial site, and I'm a little guy. Thank you all who take the time to comment, this is what I have been thinking about for some time. My ignorant, (inexperienced) thoughts are that if you have content that is some what unique, give Getty a try. Thanks again.