pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Should I join Getty Images on Flickr?  (Read 8261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 18, 2013, 13:53 »
0
I have received an invitation to join the Flickr Collection on Getty Images.  According to the Contributor Agreement, all content would be on an Exclusive basis.  Normally, this would be an automatic "no" for me given that I am an indie on many MS websites.  However, most of my Flickr content is vacation/travel, etc, so most of it would not be content already on my MS websites.

The royalty rates are 30% for RM and 20% for RF.  However, I can't find a price list so I'm not sure what my average take would be.

Is this worth my time?  Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Jean


« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2013, 14:07 »
+1
They want exclusivity so your image is locked. I sold one image in two years. You cannot selectively remove images, you have to cancel whole contract.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2013, 14:10 »
0
If you're not selling that content elsewhere now then you really have nothing to lose by giving it a try.  You can always get out of the contract in a year (unless they've changed those terms since I was with them).
Just be sure you don't have any similars on the MS sites.

« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2013, 14:17 »
0
If you're not selling that content elsewhere now then you really have nothing to lose by giving it a try.  You can always get out of the contract in a year (unless they've changed those terms since I was with them).
Just be sure you don't have any similars on the MS sites.

It's the similars that worry me.  When I travel, I might take a handful of my best shots for MS and the rest goes on Flickr to share with friends/family.  So there will most likely be similars on my MS sites.

Thanks for your advice.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2013, 14:22 »
+2
There is absolutely no set amount to what you can get from Getty.
the iStock/Getty sales are dripping in now, and I have two sales from September - one netting me $6.25 and the other, $1.05 (I'm on 20%).
I've had better sales in the past, and too many months with 0 sales.
Don't hear the word 'Getty' and hear jackpot bells ringing, necessarily. There are 'deals' well below the published prices.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 14:29 by ShadySue »

« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2013, 14:27 »
0
Isn't their definition of similar broad enough to include all photos from same session?

« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2013, 14:33 »
+1
They invited me last December and wanted quite many images from my photostream. I didn't sign the contract until today because of the Google Drive situation. They might make them worthless anytime.

I try to reduce my dependance on companies which I don't trust. Right now the crumbling Getty empire accounts for less than 10% of my total photo/video income. I don't want it to be much more than 10%.
I am focusing my efforts on building more sustainable income sources.

« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2013, 14:36 »
+4
Keep in mind, they are the only company I know of that will never let you remove images unless you terminate the whole shebang.

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2013, 14:38 »
0
Isn't their definition of similar broad enough to include all photos from same session?
Yes, and their definition of 'same session' is also surprisingly broad.

« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2013, 15:10 »
0
I may complain bitterly about iStock and their disdain for Exclusive artists, but the Getty programme is really good. I wouldn't pass up the opportunity to put images there.

« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2013, 18:29 »
+2
There are many people who have run into Getty's tight control of the Flickr group and either been banned or left as a result:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gettyflickr-contributors-google-deal/msg295373

You can read one ex-Getty/Flickr photographer's thinking about this as an option here

http://thomashawk.com/2010/06/so-is-the-new-flickrgetty-request-to-license-feature-a-good-deal-or-bad-deal-for-flickr-photographers.html

« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2013, 09:48 »
0
Thanks for your thoughts everyone.  I appreciate tapping into all of your experience.

Cheers,

Jean

« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2013, 21:45 »
+1
i have stopped uploadin. To getty/flickr. I find no set criteria for their images curation. The images which are certain to perform well are not selected and others are selected which dont sell well. I would prefer to go to getty through istock than flickr as at least i can remove my images from IS voluntarily. More over getty/flickr's similar rules are applied km both footage and stills. So the video similar to your getty images can not be sold elsewhere. Further i get timely response from istock support my questions. There is no guarantee that you will get a reply from flickr/getty. I was lucky enough to get their response after 2 months.
My biggest problem is stealing of my images in flickr. When ever i put my images in flickr they as spread most widely through out the world with or without my watermark and getty/flickr never move a single finger to stop that. So for me bye bye to getty/flickr. I have left the images with it once submitted and not submitting any New image.

« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2013, 23:11 »
+1
Isn't their definition of similar broad enough to include all photos from same session?
Yes, and their definition of 'same session' is also surprisingly broad.

Doesn't it encompass the same location at different times and the same subjects at different times, with the final decision about whether images taken five years apart are "similar" resting entirely with Getty?

If  you have 20 good shots of a subject and they accept one, then the other 19 become worthless.

Also, my undertanding of the contract was that cancelling it would not free the images: Getty would no longer be able to license them, but neither could you because it might infringe on some deal Getty had made in the past. Presumably the same logic applies to "similars". I might be wrong about this and I'm not going to waste time reading the contract but it is definitely something to watch out for.

« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2013, 03:44 »
+1
Are 20% royalties enough for you to give up all the commercial rights to those images? I think its clear who really benefits from this arrangement.

« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2013, 09:15 »
0
I think its 15 percent :(

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2013, 09:23 »
0
I think its 15 percent :(
I think it's still 20% for Flickrites; however indies at iS get 15%, IIRC.

« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2013, 09:26 »
0
I've certainly gotten 15 percent on Flickr Getty :(

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2013, 09:39 »
0
I've certainly gotten 15 percent on Flickr Getty :(
Oh, sorry; my info must be out of date.
When they introduced the 15% for iS indies, word on here was that it was still 20% for Flickrites. I guess it was only a matter of time. They'd pay nothing if they could get off with it, and I'm sure some people would still rush there.

dtr

« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2013, 18:16 »
+2
Yes join them, but use with caution. It is very nice to get a few RM images in - then if you ever need to "prove" how much you charge for your images, just show that. It is also to give them images you couldn't sell yourself for whatever reason, or through another more profitable agency. I would keep most valuable images away though. Just my personal advice.

I think its 15 percent :(
I think it's still 20% for Flickrites; however indies at iS get 15%, IIRC.

I have just looked at my contract. It still stands at 20% for RF.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
13315 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 14:03
by tan510jomast
2 Replies
2527 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 13:39
by melastmohican
25 Replies
9342 Views
Last post December 14, 2011, 12:21
by davetee
9 Replies
3603 Views
Last post November 21, 2012, 18:09
by madelaide
23 Replies
12074 Views
Last post June 01, 2015, 10:25
by PZF

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results