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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I think its 15 percent

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

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.