For what it's worth here is my experience. November of 2007 I sent 10 images to Getty at the introductory rate of $250 for 10 (half price). Six months later I submitted nine more. So I spent a total of $700 in placement fees. Back then the images had to be Rights Ready, and the collection was Lifesize. Now lifesize is gone and incorporated into their existing PC collection. Also, now you can submit RM or RF (RR is leaving soon). Also now they have a deal that for every image you sale within a year of submission, you can submit another for free. Initially they didn't offer that otherwise I would have submitted more.

 Anyway, in one year with 19 images (10 for six months and the other 9 for six months) I have earned $1363 subtract the placement fee and my net is 663. My production costs were low, about $200 total. My guess is that if my images were RF I would have earned more, and I believe for now on I will place most images as RF. So $663 from 19 images in a year. For me that's better than Alamy, Acclaim, or any of the micros. 

One more question - these 19 images - what subject they are? (if you don't mind my asking)
Thanks,
Elena.

Anyway, in one year with 19 images (10 for six months and the other 9 for six months) I have earned $1363 subtract the placement fee and my net is 663. My production costs were low, about $200 total.

Adding my voice to Elena, what is the kind of shots that are successful at Getty? It's totally acceptable you like to stay anonymous, but could you perhaps describe the type of shots? Thanks!

Elena, after looking at your images, I cant imagine that you wouldn't do great at Getty. Your stuff is much better than what I have produced so far so definitely go for it.

Elena, after looking at your images, I cant imagine that you wouldn't do great at Getty. Your stuff is much better than what I have produced so far so definitely go for it.

Thank you for your kind words:) Will try it out, hope I'll have some statistics to post at the end of this year.

I can see no reason why Elena would not get accepted. Her files are among the best in the world.

congrats! I hope you do well there.   I would be interested in hearing how it goes.

Congrats Elena - wish you the very best there!

Does anyone know if they accept illustrations (raster images)? They certainly have lots of them on sale, but their application form only mentions photos.

Thats' a very good point I have lotza those!`+&%~```���

Congratulations Elena, now each month you can enjoy an email telling you that your estatement is ready and look at it in complete amazement as to why they chose that image!

thanks to all again:) I was also confused about the size of the images for test submission, so what I did just set up a page off my webpage (www.elenaphoto.com) where I posted 40 web-size images that are not currently selling anywhere, and sent that link. It looks like they don't examine the technical quality of your photos from the test submission, just the creative quality.

yup i heard about that before - i think there is even a law suit against Getty for selling images for such low prices (RM ones I think). I think it happens when a buyer gets a large number of images at once, kinda volume deal, similar to subscription model. Still, wouldn't that sale allow you to upload one more image?

Frankly, I am amazed to learn that Getty wants to charge photographers such a steep fee for submitting.   It's not as if there is a big cost for them to store these photos.   There is no way I would upload anything to them if I had to pay for the privilege.   It seems totally unfair, since they are the ones in control of how the photos get exposed to customers, and how well they sell. 

Why not give it shot? The potential at those price levels is much greater than in micro. Wouldn't it be nice to play on both sides of the fence? Hopefully you get a few sales at some point in the near future to cover any costs and then a few more to put a smile on your face. 

I put in an application a couple of weeks ago, waiting. Hopefully I get a chance to try this. Why not? worse case scenario I lose a few images and few dollars, I can live with that. If you don't try you will never know.

Hi Lisa!

Easy to think!  grass is greener, etc, but we all know its not, right?  fact with Getty is:  you will only ever make any money there, if youre with the Getty-RM, the main-core and thats it really.

We all might as well resume to the fact that todays world of photography is so incredibly over-populated with suppliers and pictures that no matter who youre with or where you belong, agency this or that, its a struggle.

Im slowly embarking on a new road:  to actually narrow down my picture-outlets. Im not all that convinced anymore that spreading around all shots, same shots too much is any beneficial?

Im in the process actually to single out and remain with just three or four agencies ( inclusive of RM and Micro), and try to devote more constructive time with these, rather then wasting it on the ones that simply cant deliver.

all the best.  Christian

thanks to all again:) I was also confused about the size of the images for test submission, so what I did just set up a page off my webpage (www.elenaphoto.com) where I posted 40 web-size images that are not currently selling anywhere, and sent that link. It looks like they don't examine the technical quality of your photos from the test submission, just the creative quality.

Lisa,
I want to try Getty, also, making a link to thumbnails on a website and my question is: Can I make sumbission to Getty with pictures that were selling elsewhere before, but have I deleted them in the meantime?

For the test submission review I had to wait about a month. I am having more and more second thoughts though. After I have been accepted they told me I can submit 10 images free. So I submitted 2 just to test the waters. Guess what they tried to charge me for that. I didn't have my credit card info with them, so they emailed me saying I owe them money. We did clear up the issue  - I had to dig up their initial email with "10 free" and send it back to them, so they dropped the charge but they still want my credit card info. Which I am not giving - I think I had enough of "testing waters", it's pretty clear to me that this program is just to suck money out of contributors. You'd expect if you're paying them to represent you, you can at least expect excellent customer service. Instead, their service can not even be called mediocre, it plain sucks. And no, I didn't make any sales with 2 files online, you have to be in the thousands to make at least some money, so economically it just doesn't make sense. I am convinced now that this is just a myth, they are trying to capitalize on their brand name, but don't offer anything of the value to their contributors in return. Well good luck to them, I am out of there. Waste of time.

I am convinced now that this is just a myth, they are trying to capitalize on their brand name, but don't offer anything of the value to their contributors in return. Well good luck to them, I am out of there. Waste of time.

That sounds more like a scam.

Thanks for informations, Elena.
It sounds really disappointing.
The Flickr deal looks even worse to me. They are not taking photographers, they are taking pictures. What a cruel deal. Some time ago, when they bought Jupiter, Superstock etc, I thought they would need a lot of photographers and I thought there is a chance for all of us. I thougth they would offer  some more fair conditions for representing us. But, I was wrong! They came up with this Flickr idea and we have to actually beg them ti get us in. Just read that Flickr blog - people are beging them to let them in!

Well I am not saying Getty is bad for everyone, I am sure there are people who make very nice money with them. I am speaking for myself and this "Photographer's choice" collection. Let's do some simple math. Let's say I submitted 10 images for free. It will take them 2 month just to online.  When you sell one, Getty allows to to submit another one for free only next quarter (!), and only once (i.e. if the same image sells again, no "freebie" this time). So, in a year I can only submit 10 more for free if every single image sells. Now after a year I have 20, after 2 years 40, after 3 years 80 and so on. That is without investing any money in it. If I reinvest all the money I make on Getty back into placing images with them, I can submit some more images, so maybe I'll get to 200-300 in 3 years (and not see a penny of profit meanwhile). Remember all the images have to be exclusive to them, too. So, after 3 years I have 300 images with Getty if I am giving them my best images and also get extremely lucky. Now - wow, I have a potential of making what? about 750 dollars a month (if I am making $50/month with 20 images).
That is after 3 years of making nothing. Keep in mind, images have their own "shelf life" and 3 years is probably half of it (unless you're shooting landscapes, but then forget about these kind of sales). So some of them will "go out of style" and will stop selling.
Now let's say I submit the same 300 excellent images to microstock or other non-exclusive "mids" and "macros". They will start earning me money right away, and by the end of 3 years each of them will easily generate more than 300 dollars. (300*300)/36 month = 2500 per month. No waiting. Plus, I have freedom to submit more images and hit some unexpected bestsellers, which happens quite often. 
So, my conclusion is that "photographers' choice" placement is not a good way for me to make money. It maybe good for someone who doesn't produce a lot if images, and doesn't rely on stock for income. I don't care if I can make twice as much per image on getty than on micros if my monthly total is 50 bucks:) or even a 1000 for that matter, I have bills to pay:)
I know you can say I can make more with good images on Getty, but if I am not able to submit large number of images in reasonable time without investing ridiculous amounts of money, I still don't get the income I need. Would be different story if they weren't exclusive, but they are.
Now if you're invited to shoot for some other Getty's collections, that's a different story. But I heard it's practically impossible to get into that these days if you're an outsider.

Thank you stock shooter for the kind words about my work. But the truth is, Getty didn't offer me placement in their other collections, and Masterfile was not interested in what I do. Maybe they don't like microstockers, or maybe they just don't want the kind of images I produce. So I am grateful to microstock which allows me to do what I like and support my living. If I had a reasonable offer from the macros, I'd take it - it's just I don't think PC is reasonable at this point.

I wouldn't touch it either. Sounds like a good way to throw money down the toilet.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, when someone says something to the effect of "sounds like a scam to me" they're essentially calling it a scam.

Well I'm sorry if it sounded to you like I was telling it was a scam, when I was just telling it sounded more like a scam to me. That was not my intention since I don't know the facts and circumstances. Both Getty and Elena have an excellent reputation, so this report (below) must have been based on "bad communication".

After I have been accepted they told me I can submit 10 images free. So I submitted 2 just to test the waters. Guess what they tried to charge me for that. I didn't have my credit card info with them, so they emailed me saying I owe them money. We did clear up the issue  - I had to dig up their initial email with "10 free" and send it back to them, so they dropped the charge but they still want my credit card info.

When I started this topic all I wanted to find out if it's worth participating in Getty's "Photographer's Choice" collection and paying placement fees for images. I also promised to report my experience, which I did truthfully. I do not like being asked for my credit card info upfront before I even decide to pay for something or being charged erroneously, I don't think anyone does. However, I offer no opinion on Getty as a company or give anyone advice to participate or not. My own opinion is that at this point I don't consider "PC" a good way to expand my business. It would either take too long or too much money to build considerable presence there. Case closed:)

If I can't have it now, why bother?

Interesting Elena, thanks for reporting. Small sample size obviously but by the sound of it those images would probably have generated far more income on micro, and for a lot less hassle. One good sale at Getty would completely change the picture though.

Good to know. Thanks

Thanks for information. Why do not you put(pay) at least few pictures every month, just to see what will happen?

Dear Elena, you first comment was:

Is it even worth trying out? With prices going down and sales being slow, will I ever see my 50 bucks per image back? Anyone has experience with this?
All comments are welcome,

I wander so often in the stock, how low the photographers have economically gotten and how high their quality of work is.

Read your line, it says : will I ever see my 50 bucks back.

So is this the level on wich stock photographers are wiling to work now? if they see their money back, and maybe a couple of hundred dollars per year for a dozen photos?

I honastly must say, it is time the artistic league  is geting some kind of association that sets some kind of humane ground, like minimum sallery , cost profit equations etc. Suggestions here are welcome. Lisas4aethotmaildaetcom

If a photograhper has 10.000 Dollars, puts the 10.000 on a bankaccount, the intrest lets say 5%, that is what you get on a online long terme savings account, the intrest is 500 Dollars.

What about your investment, depreciation of cameras etc, model cost, fuel car, shoelaces, etc.

Why is it generally accepted, that a stock photographer, that works 6 hours per day on photography and uploading etc, shouold not make a decent income to live a compfortable life?

I can only say, we need some type of lobby, because if this trend continues, not only the photo industry will deminish and look like a dynamically positioned, plastic ,vivid and sterile clean scam, no, the entire creative community will suffer, no photos with meaning and reallity no more, no photographers with thought and weight no more. Only surface conceptual messages out there, like bad salespeople, that try to sell you something you don't need, like a man, who hits on you with lame and old jokes.

Photographers, try to be yourself, make dark and  light pictures sharp and unsharp, do not mold your creativity into this stock requirements cage, try to be what you are supposed to be, artists and don;t sell yourself short.
Look around yourself, if there are some businesses, offer them your work, you can moke easy 300 to 500 dollars per shooting, put this on your account and earn intrest, dont waste your time with * rich website owners, with their imbalanced concepts.
But honastly its not the websites that are so bad, they have to compete, it always end with the leak of protection for the artist, no lobby that iniciates laws for an photographer. A kindergarden teacher has more rights than a photographer.

The scam is, first the websites claimed, to host only amateurs, than they entered into professional quality but left the protection of the professional out. And the dumm photographer complied, provided higher and higher quality, but unfortunately the demand kept beeing steady. Ok, one website makes more this year, but you will find others making less. the number of consumers is more or less steady.

I could write hours about this pulling one after the other point to describe the situation, at the end, Lisa, you make great photos, well tuned to the microstock comunity, do you really believe, your work, from envisioning a photo to finding the model and incredients for your envisioned shot, to realising it, paying the downpayment on the equipment, touching up and keywording to uploading and submitting, do you realy think, all this effort of yours is worth so little?

Add all your cost together, than add the hours worked on a decend hourly sallery, than you have your basic internal cost. Add insurnces, retirement payments rent and leases, and than double this number, than you have the money you shoould earn. Thats the sales price of your work.
But again, the market salesprice (equilibrium), - value of a product is generated by supply and demand.

Submitting more and more, selling licensed is the real sceam. The demand in relationship to the supply is suddenly minimal, and the market value of stock photos is close to nothing.

Its like you sell a car, but when the owner pics it up, istantaniously a clone of the car falls from the sky. So there are infinite cars. The cars are worth nothing no more, all factories go bancrupt and people have to look for new jobs.

Ok, lets offer a solution. The divers have padi, they make the rules and make sure there is always a market.
We need some kind of rule setting association, that controles the handling of rights. Licensed images need to be limited in their resale. For example one photo can only be licensed ten times. Than the rights are sold, to those ten people. Wait, everybody should screme now, whaaat.
Photogrphers, please take some time, a photo is not a unique diamond, its manufactured by a photographer. You can always make a similar one again. The difference is only on the surface, because by limiting their license photos suddeny become a valuable comodity, and their equilibrium price rises in the relationship the supply decreases.
Photograpers, you are making photos anyway, the trick is to get the phots as fast as possible off the market, to get back a balance of work and income visa equilibrium price.

This little change would suddenly create a big result and a new foundation for photographers to leave a decent live again.

Thank you very much

Lisa

Wondering what the percentage payouts are at Getty via the Photographers Choice?
Are they 20% for RF and 30% for RM?

It's 20% RF 40% RM.

"Pay for Placement" .... "Pay to Play" .... gotta say no... never... not in this lifetime or the next. 

Sorry I read this 3 pages on the fly. Is here story about to bee stupidest dog in park but with money?
EG I'am the worst photographer in the world but my rich mom and daddy finance me to be "wanabeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" the best so they pay my placement to Greedy images and with that I am the in round of 10 or 100 best world photographers??
If it is so, I really must to puke now...

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you understand the photo market and want the extra exposure you could get from Getty and are willing to invest the money in it.

Not to mention the OP is one of probably the top 25-30 sellers in the microstock business, so she already could reasonably claim to be one of the top stock photogs in the business...

It's true... the OP has a wonderful portfolio and a giant portfolio...  I'm inspired by the artistry and work ethic of the full timers at this site.  No one gets 10,000 images on line by being lazy. 

Am I the only one to think that it's worrying that such a successful microstockerSis only offered the Getty 'pay as you go' deal....

Once they even told Art Wolf and Franz Lanting,  sorry guys but too many elephants, we have already got plenty. They do whatever they want and with anybody.

Quote from: lagereek on May 29, 2010, 08:33

Quote from: joingated on May 29, 2010, 08:27

Am I the only one to think that it's worrying that such a successful microstockerSis only offered the Getty 'pay as you go' deal....

Once they even told Art Wolf and Franz Lanting,  sorry guys but too many elephants, we have already got plenty. They do whatever they want and with anybody.

Remember the Nature catalogue?  From what I heard when TSI was sold they wanted to can the Nature catalogue but had to go with it. It turned out to be one the best sellers ever.

Thats right!  greatest nature catalogue ever and with the worlds top wildlife photographers and it brought in just about more money then anything else.

Real stock photographers doesn't need to pay to get their images online.
Think about that!

That should be "don't". I'm curious what do you think the 50%-80% of the net sale retained amounts to?

Hi Lisa4,

 I just wanted to add in that my RPI over the life of an image is ow between 300-400 dollars per image in it's life time. I spend an average of 50 dollars an image returning about out 6 to 8 times my investment through their sales. In the old days it was $1500 dollars an image over it's life but with the drop it is now down to the 3-4 range. I still find that quite a reasonable return on my efforts. If I produce 40 images in a day for Getty it costs me $2000 and within the life of the images I will return $12,000-16,000 from that days work. I think that is still pretty good money in Macro stock. P.S. That is almost all RF Macro work.

Best,
Jonathan