http://blog.imagebrief.com/post/74874048707/were-delighted-to-report-a-new-landmark-with-one?utm_source=Approved+Photographers&utm_campaign=27564717d3-Photographer_January_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dedd52bfcf-27564717d3-98440161#.Uulb5fl_uSp

Image Brief licenced for  $28,000 for a single image

'Having a refund would suck really bad'

that would be alamy lol!

My single biggest license was just short of $16,000. I was fairly new to stock photography at the time and figured I was going to be rich. It never happened again.

Sean, I know several photographers who shoot to spec for IB. Where an image isn't shortlisted or selected it goes off to stock..

My single biggest license was just short of $4 ($3.92) on deposit photos thus I know I will always be poor 

Plus it was refunded...

My largest was $25,000 but that was 15 years ago; don't think I've made that in total since then......

Thats huge money for a single image. Although not as much but a few months back, Getty sold an Rm image for 16000 dollars to some Auto technical corporation. It can be done. it was not me though. Most unfortunately.
Well one can only hope

the IB model is pretty fascinating. while sales are not predictable, which I guess can be a deterrent to photographers looking for steady income, the potential is very cool. IB gives designers an apropos alternative to RF stock vs. custom....it's a great compromise, allowing companies to outsource to professional stock shooters for specific image requirements. photographers get 70% of fairly priced licenses.

would it be in violation of an exclusive agreement with IS/Getty if you submitted to a brief?

read your contract/s and find out. or did you just sign it/them without reading it/them?

Not if you submit RM work.

IB deals in RM only, so you shouldn't be submitting images on briefs that are sold elsewhere as RF.

also on some briefs there is a requirement of image exclusivity, but not all...as per this section of the IB Terms of Use:

"(5) Image Providers should be aware that the grant of a right of exclusivity in respect of an image generally means that the copyright owner cannot use the image itself as well as not licensing it within the scope of the licensed usage, territory and license period. An Image Provider must ensure that it complies with any exclusivity or other condition attached to an Image License to which it is a party. It would be prudent for the Image Provider to avoid any form of dispute or complaint regarding exclusivity or other relevant condition by not licensing similar-looking or �end of roll� image within the scope of any exclusivity or other condition affecting a licensed image. "

My single biggest license was just short of $4 ($3.92) on deposit photos thus I know I will always be poor 

Plus it was refunded...

my first sales was in the late 80s and i got paid 5000 


  rupees

Old thread alert

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on January 28, 2015, 16:37

Quote from: Goofy on January 29, 2014, 15:56

My single biggest license was just short of $4 ($3.92) on deposit photos thus I know I will always be poor 

Plus it was refunded...

my first sales was in the late 80s and i got paid 5000 


  rupees

now, fast forward 35 years and we get paid $.29   

well , a little more pennies than 29cts.
but really, no kidding.
we were making tons more when we were the new kid off the block with our new 35mmSLR
not really knowing much considering what we know today.
who was it that wrote that book titled ".... parachute" whatever in those days
telling us what? the more experience we get the less money or more likely we are to be put out into the field like redundant race horses???
then again, it's the same thing for everyone. i remember being told by some pros of microsoft (microsoft, not microstock) that they were earning half of what they were earning 4 years prior.
and this was like 10 years ago when i met those ppl. hate to think how much they earn today.