Should I go exclusive with IS?

[winther]

With over 500 downloads and 70% approval rate I'm qualified to become exclusive on IS.
I�m currently registered on all big 6 sites, but most of my income comes from SS � 6700 downloads since February (from only 300 images)
510 downloads from IS in 5 months, but only 70 images.
In the long term I�m wondering if I can be more successful on IS as an exclusive contributor � eventually becoming a gold contributor with the option of entering Gettys portfolio.
For those of you who went exclusive with IS � did you notice an immediate sale increase, and how long did it take before you earned more than on the big 6?
Any advice appreciated

/Henrik

[michealo]

Henrik, you can apply to submit to Getty once you hit silver 2500 DLs.

I suspect that going IS is the best option and this is the path I will be choosing very shortly but its worth bearing in mind that the worlds most successful micro stock photographer is non exclusive.

[Sean Locke Photography]

its worth bearing in mind that the worlds most successful micro stock photographer is non exclusive.

Why? 

Most successful in what sense?

[Xalanx]

its worth bearing in mind that the worlds most successful micro stock photographer is non exclusive.

Why? 

Most successful in what sense?

For example ... money...? Among a lot others.

Pesonally i find upload method of IS very obstructive. I haven't uploaded anything there in ages, because of this. It's extremely difficult to grow my portfolio. By the time I reach 1000 photos on IS even with 100% acceptance rate, I already sold a few thousand dollars on SS. Maybe more.
So you can add this one too - the worlds most successful agency doesn't offer exclusivity. 

[leaf]

well since you got 2 replies from 2 exclusives I guess i should promote the other side

I think should come down to some sort of calculation where you figure out how much you are making total and how much you would loose by dropping the other sites.  The amount that people gain in earnings by going exclusive varies. I have heard anywhere from 0x to 4x earnings.... which is right who knows.

Other things to consider is putting all your eggs in one basket - is it worth it?  How hard / or easy would it be to change your mind later.  Sites change how they work, perhaps istock won't be the #1 site in a year or two, or perhaps a change in the search engine will affect you negativly.
How much time will shooting and uploading only for one site save you?
What will you do with the images that istock rejects, since you can't upload them anywhere else - are they now worthless?

I don't think there is any right answer, but i am pretty happy submitting to all the sites... and obviously there are happy istock exclusives.

And for your reading enjoyment - here are a few 'exclusive debating' threads.
Exclusive Emails
Istock Exclusivity for a Vector artist
Exclusive or not?
Makes me want to be exclusive
Reason for going exclusive
Exclusivity Vs. Multiplicity
Istock poll about Exclusivity

edit for accuracy - thanks grp_photo

[grp_photo]

What will you do with the images that istock rejects, since you can't upload them anywhere else as RF.  You could upload them as RM somewhere but they can't be from the same series obviously.

As far i remember it's even not allowed to upload rejected files as RM because iStock reserved its right that they maybe accept or use them anytime later.
I know this sound very strange but this was the rule about two years ago and an admin confirmed this at the forums at this time. It's possible they changed that as i don't care much about istock anymore.

[leaf]

What will you do with the images that istock rejects, since you can't upload them anywhere else as RF.  You could upload them as RM somewhere but they can't be from the same series obviously.

As far i remember it's even not allowed to upload rejected files as RM because iStock reserved its right that they maybe accept or use them anytime later.
I know this sound very strange but this was the rule about two years ago and an admin confirmed this at the forums at this time. It's possible they changed that as i don't care much about istock anymore.

now that you mention it, i think your right.

[michealo]

One major consideration is that once you have shot, postprocessed and keyworded an image then uploading it to a new site or sites is only an incremental cost in terms of time/money so any earnings are essentially pure profit

If you are on one site then your margin is likely to be lower.

Say it takes $40 to create a sale-able image, if you are exclusively on IS you only make a profit when you sell more than this. If you submit to 6 sites your cost is spread over those. Admittedly higher commissions will help on IS.

I think many stock photographers fail to evaluate what they do in business terms.

Though many of the people here do, see RPI, etc threads and stats

[yingyang0]

With over 500 downloads and 70% approval rate I'm qualified to become exclusive on IS.
I�m currently registered on all big 6 sites, but most of my income comes from SS � 6700 downloads since February (from only 300 images)
510 downloads from IS in 5 months, but only 70 images.

I'm exclusive and if I was in your shoes I wouldn't go exclusive yet. With those numbers it wouldn't make since until you're gold or at least silver. I'd be working on building up your portfolio at IS so you can better compare them with the others.

[Sean Locke Photography]

For example ... money...? Among a lot others.

Are you sure?  Sales, maybe.  Net, maybe not.

What others?  Downloads?  Pretty easy to get a lot when you're spread across subscription sites where the cost per image is almost nothing.

I'm just saying, don't judge your situation by comparing yourself to anyone else.

[helix7]

I'm just saying, don't judge your situation by comparing yourself to anyone else.

Solid advice. Everyone here is different, has different images, different sales figures, etc. For some, istock represents the vast majority of their microstock income and so exclusivity makes sense. For others, istock accounts for less than half of their micro income, and so going exclusive could potentially result in a loss of earnings. But again, it all depends on personal factors.

I haven't exactly made it a secret that I find many flaws with the exclusivity program, and that istock could make a few fairly minor changes that would make it more appealing to many people who are on the fence about it. At this point I couldn't possibly even consider exclusivity until I hit Diamond, and even then I would really need to take a good hard look at my numbers to make a decision. But that's just me. Some people report istock earnings representing 70% or more of their total monthly microstock earnings, and for them it's pretty much a no-brainer. It all comes down to your own personal stats regarding whether you go exclusive or not.

[yingyang0]

Are you sure?  Sales, maybe.  Net, maybe not.

What others?  Downloads?  Pretty easy to get a lot when you're spread across subscription sites where the cost per image is almost nothing.

I'm just saying, don't judge your situation by comparing yourself to anyone else.

Ah, superman and his arch enemy lex lutharcurs. Personally I'd rather have more profits than more sales and considering the production costs of the "most successful photographer" I'm guessing that Lisa (exclusive at iStock) has made more of a profit over the years.

[jsnover]

I can't tell you anything about the swtich to exclusive after nearly 4 years as an independent as it only happened on Monday

I'm also surprised that sjlocke didn't give his usual answer to the "should I become exclusive question" - No.

What I would say is that for a substantial portion of the time I was independent, IS earnings were more each month than SS earnings with only a slightly larger portfolio at SS. Unless I were exclusively selling vectors (and fairly complex ones, not the simple stuff that dominates at SS) I don't think I'd consider exclusivity at bronze. Look again when you're silver and in the meantime fill up your IS upload slots as much as possible to build your portfolio there - some people have a big honeymoon at SS but find it hard to sustain the level of income over time.

[louoates]

 All the talk about being able to maximize profits with any given number of images needs to be weighed with the risk of tying yourself to one outlet. You've got the risk (actually certainty) of rejected images returning 0 income.

And suppose some disgruntled employee turns the image servers into toast. Stranger  things have happened in business besides fire, data theft, data damage, etc.

Suppose someone offers you a hundred thousand dollars to buy out your best-selling category? Suppose you get a great idea to market your images in an exciting new way? How many hundreds of manufacturers have gone out of business after the goods they sold exclusively to Walmart were dropped from their shelves?

End of ranting. Sorry to re-cover the same ground as other threads. Just the way I see it. Too old (experienced) to change my views on this one.

[bittersweet]

I can't tell you anything about the swtich to exclusive after nearly 4 years as an independent as it only happened on Monday

Just in time for 100% royalty day! Lucky girl! 

[cdwheatley]

 Being nonexclusive gives you a better chance to see what type of images sell. You might have one image that is doing well on Istock because it has good best match placement. If its not selling fairly well elsewhere across 6-7 sites, than you know you just got lucky.

Basically, you will have a better chance to learn what works for you by submitting at multiple sites. I'm sure most of us have had good images slip through the grill on istock that sell really well elsewhere and vise/versa. If you already have some experience and you know what works and what doesn't, than I guess it doesn't matter.

Another thing is: not everyone sells well at istock, its probably a good idea to figure out where your portfolio works best.

You can always choose to go exclusive at a later date, just watch the 3-6 month lock-in clause at some of the sites.

[lisafx]

I can't tell you anything about the swtich to exclusive after nearly 4 years as an independent as it only happened on Monday

Congrats on your crown JoAnn!  I knew you were working on it but didn't know it had come through already

It's still pretty rare for someone who has been at this so long to become exclusive (can only think of one other - Jim Jurica).  I would be very interested in hearing your experiences regarding increased sales and/or search placement after you have some time to see how that is affected.   If you don't mind sharing such info with us folks who remain curious about exclusivity...

[jsnover]

I would be very interested in hearing your experiences regarding increased sales and/or search placement after you have some time to see how that is affected.   If you don't mind sharing such info with us folks who remain curious about exclusivity...

Not a chance. You should all remain independent!!

I think the busy fall season will be a decent test of the financial consequences of the switch. I'm not one of those stats freaks though so I don't track the details image by image and hour by hour. Anyone who's curious can ask me again early next year

And as far as the luck on making 100% royalties day, that was good timing. Although if the gods really loved me they'd have had the two ELs from Friday and Sunday wait until Monday so I could really celebrate!

[rene]

All the talk about being able to maximize profits with any given number of images needs to be weighed with the risk of tying yourself to one outlet. You've got the risk (actually certainty) of rejected images returning 0 income.

And suppose some disgruntled employee turns the image servers into toast. Stranger  things have happened in business besides fire, data theft, data damage, etc.

Suppose someone offers you a hundred thousand dollars to buy out your best-selling category? Suppose you get a great idea to market your images in an exciting new way? How many hundreds of manufacturers have gone out of business after the goods they sold exclusively to Walmart were dropped from their shelves?

End of ranting. Sorry to re-cover the same ground as other threads. Just the way I see it. Too old (experienced) to change my views on this one.

My thoughts too. I love IS, it's my best earner (2-4 times more than second one - SS).  I hope one day IS will give us possibility to upload exclusives images and 80% of my portfolio will go there.

[Xalanx]

For example ... money...? Among a lot others.

Are you sure?  Sales, maybe.  Net, maybe not.

What others?  Downloads?  Pretty easy to get a lot when you're spread across subscription sites where the cost per image is almost nothing.

I'm just saying, don't judge your situation by comparing yourself to anyone else.

Indeed, the cost of sub sales is less than pay per download. However, for a lot of photographers (myself included) the huge amount of sales adds up so that at the end of the day the sub sales win. In SS case, of course. It illustrates perfectly the concept of microstock. Huge sales for cheap money.
There are the other options there too. Dreamstime, Stockxpert, Fotolia, etc. The big 6. I had the curiosity of counting how many sales would Yuri have in a few days, at DT. Because DT shows the number of sales in the user profile. So I checked Yuri, Andres and Iofoto. Well... more than 1.000, each one of them. In a few days. That's only from DT. Imagine adding the sales from the other sites and tell me how would be possible to make the same amount of money in IS only, net.

It's a shame that IS doesn't have an easier way of uploading images, i would have beared with the 1-week time for review since I got quite a good acceptance rate (about 70%). But that uploading... it's killing me.

You're one of the top sellers at IS I think, judging after your stats - I just checked. Really impressive. So yea, for you it's really worthy, the exclusivity that is.

Cheers.

[digiology]

I can't tell you anything about the swtich to exclusive after nearly 4 years as an independent as it only happened on Monday

I'm also surprised that sjlocke didn't give his usual answer to the "should I become exclusive question" - No.

What I would say is that for a substantial portion of the time I was independent, IS earnings were more each month than SS earnings with only a slightly larger portfolio at SS. Unless I were exclusively selling vectors (and fairly complex ones, not the simple stuff that dominates at SS) I don't think I'd consider exclusivity at bronze. Look again when you're silver and in the meantime fill up your IS upload slots as much as possible to build your portfolio there - some people have a big honeymoon at SS but find it hard to sustain the level of income over time.

Congrats on going exclusive at IS. I noticed Hatman went exclusive recently as well. I will miss the advice you both provided about other agencies. Your insight is always very helpful and much appreciated. Good luck to both of you!

[Freezingpictures]

For example ... money...? Among a lot others.

Are you sure?  Sales, maybe.  Net, maybe not.

What others?  Downloads?  Pretty easy to get a lot when you're spread across subscription sites where the cost per image is almost nothing.

I'm just saying, don't judge your situation by comparing yourself to anyone else.

As far as I remember Yuri ones post his stats in here. I do not know where the thread is. But he earned like 40% at iStockphoto as far as I remember. I could be wrong though. If he goes exclusive he should earn 80% right away and is much faster in uploading the 5000+ files at iStock which in turn will increase his earnings faster. And do not forget the best match which seem to favour exclusive. So I think it very well can increase Yuris income. However thats all speculation.
 In fact for me my earnings have to increase like 120% until it makes financial sense to consider exclusivity. Honestly I sometimes wish I could go exclusive.

Indeed, the cost of sub sales is less than pay per download. However, for a lot of photographers (myself included) the huge amount of sales adds up so that at the end of the day the sub sales win. In SS case, of course. It illustrates perfectly the concept of microstock. Huge sales for cheap money.
There are the other options there too. Dreamstime, Stockxpert, Fotolia, etc. The big 6. I had the curiosity of counting how many sales would Yuri have in a few days, at DT. Because DT shows the number of sales in the user profile. So I checked Yuri, Andres and Iofoto. Well... more than 1.000, each one of them. In a few days. That's only from DT. Imagine adding the sales from the other sites and tell me how would be possible to make the same amount of money in IS only, net.

It's a shame that IS doesn't have an easier way of uploading images, i would have beared with the 1-week time for review since I got quite a good acceptance rate (about 70%). But that uploading... it's killing me.

You're one of the top sellers at IS I think, judging after your stats - I just checked. Really impressive. So yea, for you it's really worthy, the exclusivity that is.

Cheers.

[yingyang0]

So I checked Yuri, Andres and Iofoto. Well... more than 1.000, each one of them. In a few days. That's only from DT. Imagine adding the sales from the other sites and tell me how would be possible to make the same amount of money in IS only, net.

I think sjlocke was also making the point about how much it cost to produce those 1,000 downloads. From what I've seen the top selling IS exclusives don't have huge payroll costs and tend to be more frugal so that their net profits are most likely higher than some of the top microstock photographers that have $25,000 large format cameras and $100,000+ payrolls.

[grp_photo]

For example ... money...? Among a lot others.

Are you sure?  Sales, maybe.  Net, maybe not.

What others?  Downloads?  Pretty easy to get a lot when you're spread across subscription sites where the cost per image is almost nothing.

I'm just saying, don't judge your situation by comparing yourself to anyone else.

As far as I remember Yuri ones post his stats in here. I do not know where the thread is. But he earned like 40% at iStockphoto as far as I remember. I could be wrong though. If he goes exclusive he should earn 80% right away and is much faster in uploading the 5000+ files at iStock which in turn will increase his earnings faster. And do not forget the best match which seem to favour exclusive. So I think it very well can increase Yuris income. However thats all speculation.
 In fact for me my earnings have to increase like 120% until it makes financial sense to consider exclusivity. Honestly I sometimes wish I could go exclusive.

Indeed, the cost of sub sales is less than pay per download. However, for a lot of photographers (myself included) the huge amount of sales adds up so that at the end of the day the sub sales win. In SS case, of course. It illustrates perfectly the concept of microstock. Huge sales for cheap money.
There are the other options there too. Dreamstime, Stockxpert, Fotolia, etc. The big 6. I had the curiosity of counting how many sales would Yuri have in a few days, at DT. Because DT shows the number of sales in the user profile. So I checked Yuri, Andres and Iofoto. Well... more than 1.000, each one of them. In a few days. That's only from DT. Imagine adding the sales from the other sites and tell me how would be possible to make the same amount of money in IS only, net.

It's a shame that IS doesn't have an easier way of uploading images, i would have beared with the 1-week time for review since I got quite a good acceptance rate (about 70%). But that uploading... it's killing me.

You're one of the top sellers at IS I think, judging after your stats - I just checked. Really impressive. So yea, for you it's really worthy, the exclusivity that is.

Cheers.

[helix7]

...I think sjlocke was also making the point about how much it cost to produce those 1,000 downloads. From what I've seen the top selling IS exclusives don't have huge payroll costs and tend to be more frugal so that their net profits are most likely higher than some of the top microstock photographers that have $25,000 large format cameras and $100,000+ payrolls.

Let's not make this out to be a "top non-exclusives need a staff of workers to compete with top istock exclusives" sort of thing. I know that's not exactly what you said, but I can see the conversation quickly going there. Obviously non-exclusives spend more time uploading, but time spent keywording is the same, and uploading to other sites is so much faster and easier than at at istock, so it's hardly an issue.

Guys like Yuri and Ron are quite the exception to the rule, and it is pretty silly to compare anyone to them. Same for Lise and other top istockers. Not exactly good comparisons. Keep in mind that microstock is just part of Yuri's and Ron's businesses, so the staff is necessary for a variety of reasons. But aside from them, how many people employ a staff? I don't recall hearing of any others, and if there are others I bet that there are very few of them. So the idea that being a top non-exclusive requires so much extra time and cost is a bit silly.

Comparing any of the top most successful microstock people to each other or anyone else really says very little about the business. To get any sense of which path is more likely to lead to the highest profit margin, you would need to sample contributors at some other levels of income and profit. Let's say those who earn around $100,000 from microstock annually. In that category, I doubt you'd see much difference in production costs between exclusives and non-exclusives, and percentage of profit would likely be similar. Just a guess, of course, but I think it makes more sense than the notion that exclusives are more profitable. 

[yingyang0]

I don't recall hearing of any others, and if there are others I bet that there are very few of them. So the idea that being a top non-exclusive requires so much extra time and cost is a bit silly.

Comparing any of the top most successful microstock people to each other or anyone else really says very little about the business. To get any sense of which path is more likely to lead to the highest profit margin, you would need to sample contributors at some other levels of income and profit. Let's say those who earn around $100,000 from microstock annually. In that category, I doubt you'd see much difference in production costs between exclusives and non-exclusives, and percentage of profit would likely be similar. Just a guess, of course, but I think it makes more sense than the notion that exclusives are more profitable. 

I've hear of many others that do have a staff (and none of them are exclusive), but they're not as high profile. You make a good point about it being hard to compare the most successful microstockers and the need for a better sample size, but I disagree with you on the extra time and cost. The large portfolios require a lot of time to get uploaded, and time cost money. That time spent by non-exclusives uploading at other sites could be used to produce more photographs. It's about allocation of capital and resources.

I do think that if you're a top performing, high volume, non-exclusive than your costs are going to be higher because you would need a staff to keyword and upload to the multiple sites.

[Pixart]

If they are paying by the hour, the salaries should be considered part of the initial production expenses, while the royalties will be collected on forever.   Their break-even points will be extended much farther than a solo shooter - but they also have a team that (I am speculating) gets the photos live much faster than the solo photographer.

All photos have to be edited, keyworded, and submitted.  For every hour that Yuri or Ron spend shooting they would have to spend another nine preparing their files.  They do what they do best, and they must see much better returns shooting all day than fiddling around on the computer.   Especially after sessions reach their break-even point.  It's profit thereafter.

[helix7]

I've hear of many others that do have a staff (and none of them are exclusive), but they're not as high profile. You make a good point about it being hard to compare the most successful microstockers and the need for a better sample size, but I disagree with you on the extra time and cost. The large portfolios require a lot of time to get uploaded, and time cost money. That time spent by non-exclusives uploading at other sites could be used to produce more photographs. It's about allocation of capital and resources.

I do think that if you're a top performing, high volume, non-exclusive than your costs are going to be higher because you would need a staff to keyword and upload to the multiple sites.

Assuming that's true (costs are higher for top non-exclusives), then it would just come down to individual site performance. Even employing a staff, it can still be more profitable to stay non-exclusive. Of course this is all subjective, and varies from one artist to the next. But in the case of a top artist like Andres, who reported istock earnings in April represented 13% of his total microstock earnings, even if he employed a staff (which I don't believe he does but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and paying that staff took up half of his revenues (a very liberal estimate), it would still be more profitable for him to stay non-exclusive. Hypothetically, if he was making let's say $20,000 a month from microstock, his istock cut would be $2,600. If he were exclusive, that would be $5,200. Even if you add in some extra for better search results and Best Match as an exclusive, plus higher upload limits and shorter review wait times, at best I think you could estimate that he would still come in with maybe $7,000-$8,000 as an exclusive istock artist. Compared to the $20,000 he could make non-exclusively, even if he had to spend $10,000 a month on a few staff members (probably pert-time), he'd still be better off staying non-exclusive and paying for help.

Of course this is all hypothetical, but generally speaking I think that those who employ a staff do so because they know that for them, non-exclusivity is the best option, even if it means paying for some help. If we're talking about a non-exclusive artist who earns about 25% of their microstock income from istock, and is also currently paying for help, then maybe the math works out that exclusivity is the better option. But I know that for a lot of the top people, istock doesn't represent enough of a percentage of their microstock earnings to justify the switch.

[yingyang0]

But in the case of a top artist like Andres, who reported istock earnings in April represented 13% of his total microstock earnings, even if he employed a staff (which I don't believe he does but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and paying that staff took up half of his revenues (a very liberal estimate), it would still be more profitable for him to stay non-exclusive. Hypothetically, if he was making let's say $20,000 a month from microstock, his istock cut would be $2,600. If he were exclusive, that would be $5,200. Even if you add in some extra for better search results and Best Match as an exclusive, plus higher upload limits and shorter review wait times, at best I think you could estimate that he would still come in with maybe $7,000-$8,000 as an exclusive istock artist. Compared to the $20,000 he could make non-exclusively, even if he had to spend $10,000 a month on a few staff members (probably pert-time), he'd still be better off staying non-exclusive and paying for help.

The most likely reason for the low current percentage (13%) is that Andres hasn't been able to upload all of what he produces to IS given the upload limits. If Andres went exclusive the upload limits go up dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that if Andres had as many images on IS as on the other sites then IS would make up a large percentage of revenue.

[PaulieWalnuts]

Winther - You should run some numbers to see if it makes sense for you. Everybody will be different. For quite a while IS was 70% of my total earnings and 10 other sites made up the remaining 30%. The bronze level exclusive commission increase covered that 30% for me.

I've only been exclusive for a few weeks so it will be a few months before I can see how things pan out over a longer period of time.

[helix7]

The most likely reason for the low current percentage (13%) is that Andres hasn't been able to upload all of what he produces to IS given the upload limits. If Andres went exclusive the upload limits go up dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that if Andres had as many images on IS as on the other sites then IS would make up a large percentage of revenue.

Good point. I didn't take that into consideration. Actually, I just looked at his portfolio on istock and he hasn't uploaded anything new since June. Guess he's on a long vacation.

Still, given his start date with istock and his current supply of images on other sites (over 10k), he should have probably double his current image count on istock.

[phildate]

I don't really think it is any use making reference to Yuri or Andresr - these guys are in a different league to most of us and their situations aren't really a good basis on which to make a decision that suits you.

However, the fact that Andres only has about 3000 images on IS is due to the fact that their uploading procedure takes far longer than any of the other sites. Therefore the argument about time taken to upload to numerous sites never works with me. In the time it takes me to upload 20 images to IS, I have uploaded and finished uploading to all the other sites. I tend to do this in the evening as well so I probably couldn't be using this time to shoot - that argument doesn't work for me either.

For me, one of the reasons I stay non-exclusive is that I like to check all my stats on the different sites, be part of different communities. It fascinates me when I have a great day on one site and the others are slow, when I get ELs on different sites and to see the evolution of different sites. Yes IS has evolved too but I have never really forgiven them for the disambiguation fiasco which cost me so much in time and money to fix.

Financially it would never make sense for me at the moment to be exclusive with IS. I am lucky, I have seem rising royalties with them these past few months when a lot of contributors have seen a downward decline but it is not enough to convince me that I would be better off with IS.

So the decision is yours and is a personal one - don't worry about what others have or would do. Weigh up all the factors - financial, time, management etc and make a decision that suits you.

[grp_photo]

i think there is little doubt that istock is the number one in the microstockmarket but the lost significant market-share in the past years and they will loose more of it. I don't expect them to be number one in five years time.

I agree with Phil that Yuri is a special case but they are non-exclusive successful Top-Contributors which run their business with very little costs and no or nearly no engagement at istock for example nruboc.

But as Phil said it is a personal decision.

[winther]

Thanks for all your thoughts on this subject.
I was sure you need to be gold at 10.000 downloads to be considered for Getty - at 2500 I would think they are flooded with contributors. Where on IS can I read about this?

[RH]

I�ve had cancelled my exclusivity, because istock have too much probs with server and so on. BTW: Without IS you can also have a getty-contract. Read it on there homepage.

[bittersweet]

Thanks for all your thoughts on this subject.
I was sure you need to be gold at 10.000 downloads to be considered for Getty - at 2500 I would think they are flooded with contributors. Where on IS can I read about this?

They are supposed to be opening it up for silver level exclusives some time this fall. I think it was one of the "prestige" announcements a few weeks back. I will see if I can find a link for you.

And of course, RH is correct. You are certainly free to apply to Getty completely independent of istockphoto. You might want to do some research into how many new photographers are accepted there, and the rate of application rejection. There are a couple of "old-timers" around here who have chimed in with some anecdotal evidence to suggest that it might not be very easy to get in.

[yingyang0]

They are supposed to be opening it up for silver level exclusives some time this fall. I think it was one of the "prestige" announcements a few weeks back. I will see if I can find a link for you.

There is a thread on the subject but it's in the exclusive forum.

[bittersweet]

They are supposed to be opening it up for silver level exclusives some time this fall. I think it was one of the "prestige" announcements a few weeks back. I will see if I can find a link for you.

There is a thread on the subject but it's in the exclusive forum.

Yes, but there was a public announcement.

Here's the announcement:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=465

Here's one discussion:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=71579&page=1

[RacePhoto]

Henrik, you can apply to submit to Getty once you hit silver 2500 DLs.

Do you have to be an exclusive to be able to submit to Getty once you reach silver? Does this include being able to upload Editorial to Getty? Most of my photos are not suitable for stock because of copyright issues, but are very suitable for Editorial.

[Sean Locke Photography]

Yes, you have to be exclusive, and no, you can't submit editorial to this collection.

You can always pursue that on your own by applying to Getty or Scoopt.

[Fran]

Yes, you have to be exclusive, and no, you can't submit editorial to this collection.

You can always pursue that on your own by applying to Getty or Scoopt.

I love shooting Editorial (events, concerts, sport) and I applied to Scoopt. They are pretty selective, which is a good thing. I have a handful images online: they appeared in Getty editorial searches.

[grp_photo]

Yes, you have to be exclusive, and no, you can't submit editorial to this collection.

You can always pursue that on your own by applying to Getty or Scoopt.

I love shooting Editorial (events, concerts, sport) and I applied to Scoopt. They are pretty selective, which is a good thing. I have a handful images online: they appeared in Getty editorial searches.

Interesting - any bites yet?

[NancyCWalker]

I just canceled my account at Scoopt last month. I had signed up with them before they were taken over by Getty. I could only get 4 images through QC there but none of them ever sold. I can tell you this. All of my images of celebrities interacting with local political leaders were rejected. It's hard to know what they want because they don't spell it out very well. You'll also want to read the fine print. Image exclusive for a year and after that they can sell it through whoever they want.