MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Accepted at Getty  (Read 36661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2009, 23:36 »
0

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. 
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 23:39 by Danybot »


« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2009, 00:23 »
0
I agree - placement fee is something I can not get my mind around. I don't think I'll pay anything at all - maybe submit these 10 free images and see how it will go... so far I am quite unimpressed though. I submitted a couple of images - just as a test run. About a month to review. Then they appear with no relevant keywords. Apparently, they take another month to add keywords. They are in complete control of keywords, some that appeared are not even relevant. These guys are not in a rush anywhere. Emailed contributor relationship twice with some questions, no reply. Support form on the site does have a person on the other end, so at least that was helpful. I learned that I can not remove the images that have been accepted ever - "under no circumstances". Nice. You pay 50 bucks, then if they just sit there, you can't even remove and sell somewhere else. Not even after some time.
Placement fee goes on top of all the production costs of an image - I wonder how they think photographers will make money, providing they have lowered their prices and introduced "high volume", i.e. subscription, sales model.
So, am having second thoughts about participating at all. Like I said, maybe those free ten... the thing is, a good image can bring me hundreds on microstock, so by taking it out I'll be actually losing money...  :-\

« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2009, 01:24 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2009, 09:00 »
0
Thanks for sharing your experience Elena.  This doesn't sound promising at all.  Makes me think the grass isn't so much greener on the other side of the fence...

lagereek

« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2009, 03:01 »
0
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

« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2009, 09:11 »
0
I have 21 images with Getty under the pay for placement. The first 10 cost me 250, paid another 450 for for 7 and have recently placed 2 free from the sell one place one free policy. (that wasn't in place for the first year of my images so my initial sales didn't earn me a free placement) anyway, total placement costs 700 and earnings 1363. Cost paid for productions around 200. So not a great profit so far but technically on a per images basis better than all the micros. The caveat is that about half of my images have not been licensed so the $50 per image fee is a gamble. However, I am pretty sure a few of my images that were licensed probably would have been rejected at istock. I'm still trying to make up my mind about sending Getty more, with the economy, my sales at Alamy are down and so I worry about wasting money at Getty. hope this info might help. 10 for free, might as well, and then for each sale, place another for free and if you're good you might not have to ever spend any money for placement.

Dook

« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2009, 12:11 »
0
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?

« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2009, 11:19 »
0
Hey there,
just found this thread - sorry for being late. I did send my first test submission to getty on Feb. 10th and didnt yet receive a reply.
How long did you have to wait for an answer from getty?

Thanks,
Wolfgang

« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2009, 10:23 »
0
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.

« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2009, 11:31 »
0
I have 21 images with Getty under the pay for placement.

What type of images are those? Commercial RF type that does well at micro (girl w headset etc), glamor/fashion or editorial?

« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2009, 11:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2009, 14:00 »
0
Congrats Elena and thanks for the tips on Getty Stock Shooter.

Im also having a hard time wrapping my head around that $50 placement fee.

Dook

« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2009, 03:12 »
0
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!

« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2009, 10:13 »
0
This is not a scam guys. Getty wants your credit card for future submissions, because they have an automated, online submission system. It's a policy for all contributors. Getty is the giant of the traditional stock agency they are not "scamming" anyone, they are a legitimate business, they have been around a lot longer than any micro agency, probably around for more than 20 years and are the biggest / best earners for most of the top professionals. Most any pro you hear about if he/she shoots stock they have images with Getty. You don't need thousands of images like you do with Alamy. Read my post above, I profit (on average) about $53 per month from 20 images. Not great, but that's an average of about $2.65 per image per month and that's subtracting the placement fees, so my average will rise as time goes on assuming I keep making sales. My micro images earn me about $1.25 per month (that is a total from six agencies). So you see from my figures I'm not a micro star, i don't spend money on productions, I rarely shoot people, just business and food still-life's. So if my numbers hold up to yours (that is a big "IF") then a good guess would be whatever you earn through the micros, you'll earn twice that through Getty, on a per image / per month basis.

My images with Getty are not amazing images, no cost productions. Some simple food photography, drink images, fruit dropping into water, a few badly lit lifestyle images. Nothing cost me any money except one shoot of a friend (three of the 20 images) and I rented a battery pack for a light which cost me $100 and it was a waste, didn't really need it. So if you're doing better than me at the micros (most are) then you should profit well from Getty. Granted the $50 submission fee is horrible but if you can submit 10 for free by all means do it. For every one you sale within a year, you can place one for free, if you do well you may never have to pay.

Getty's pay to place images are not edited. They do a quality control check but do not reject for any reason other than quality control issues. So they have to charge otherwise they would turn into Alamy. They probably don't want that, they don't want to / cant afford to deal with that volume of images. It takes one month to six weeks for submissions to be accepted and online, and then another month for the keywords to show up. BUT you don't have to keyword! That to me is huge because i submit and keyword for six micro agencies.

« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2009, 12:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2009, 15:53 »
0
Elena I have no vested interest in you submitting to Getty, I couldn't care less. And I don't dispute that it isn't necessarily the best way, I'm still on the fence myself about sending more work their way. However, the comment was made that Photographer's Choice is a scam and that is incorrect. The PC collection existed long before Getty opened the door to new photographers who weren't accepted under a different collection. PC started as an option for previously accepted Getty photographers to other collections to get images in that Getty edited out. Turns out it did pretty well, showing that the photographers knew what they were doing and the "experts" at Getty who decided what images were allowed in sometimes didn't. I suspect this is why, at least in part, Getty decided to open their doors to everyday photographers.

I know one photographer who makes 250,000 a year from 600 images on Getty. He then takes all of the Getty rejects and places them on Alamy and earns another $50,000 from those 3000 or so images. He's was accepted to Getty 20 years ago so he's not a photographer's choice photographer however, he does submit some of his images that he feels strong about under Photographer's choice.   Your work is infinitely better than mine and so my measly earnings shouldn't deter you. But if I had to upload and keyword 1/6 less and earn twice as much, I'm not sure how that is a bad thing. Besides, I wasn't talking to you directly when I mentioned that you may never have to pay, of course if you want to earn a lot of money from Getty you'll have to spend money on placement fees, but again my $50 per month from 20 images is AFTER deducting the placement fees, I've only been with Getty for a little over a year, so if sales continue for a few more years that number will rise. Another way to look at it is I'm making $5.00 per image, per month for 15 months, not subtracting the placement fees. And my images are lame, really, not special in any way, very pedestrian. I'm surprised Getty didn't offer to let you in under one of their non paying collections. I contacted Masterfile and they were interested in my images that were on my website, however those images were already placed with Alamy or Getty so I had nothing to submit to them. Having a little knowledge of what some people make on Masterfile, Corbis, or Getty I believe you should look around and be a little patient before just dumping such high quality images with the micros. I'm sure you have heard that before. Just MHO.

« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2009, 18:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2009, 18:58 »
0
However, the comment was made that Photographer's Choice is a scam and that is incorrect.

No, my remark was that Elena's report "sounded more like a scam". She said that Getty requested payment for image placements that were promised free, and they needed her credit card. I never said it is a scam. I don't have all the facts.

« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2009, 20:17 »
0
I wouldn't touch it either. Sounds like a good way to throw money down the toilet.

« Reply #44 on: March 27, 2009, 15:22 »
0
Quote
No, my remark was that Elena's report "sounded more like a scam". She said that Getty requested payment for image placements that were promised free, and they needed her credit card. I never said it is a scam. I don't have all the facts.

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. I suppose I should have replied more specifically "the comment was made that Photographer's Choice sounds like, could be, might be, a scam.." "someone used the word scam" splitting hairs. Point is it isn't a scam lest anyone get the wrong impression.

« Reply #45 on: March 27, 2009, 18:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #46 on: March 27, 2009, 18:18 »
0
Getty bought Istock for 50 million. Getty was bought for 2.4 Billion. Why do suppose that is?

« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2009, 21:33 »
0
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:)

« Reply #48 on: March 27, 2009, 21:51 »
0
Case closed:)

Yap. Thanks for your experiences, and also those of "stock shooter". Apparently Getty has several collections, and PC is one of them. Basically I'm ignorant about Getty so I was just listening in. I don't grasp their strategy at all. My photography partner in Cagayan is a "Flickr star" and he told me he got an invitation. His shots look great on web resolution but crap and noisy on full 4MP size. He would never get on microstock with his snapshotcam. I just don't grab Getty's strategy. I thought it was for the real top photographers and celebrity shooters. But never mind.

« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2009, 10:34 »
0
If I can't have it now, why bother?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
7943 Views
Last post February 12, 2007, 05:06
by leaf
3 Replies
2582 Views
Last post February 08, 2007, 06:42
by Daneel
15 Replies
6809 Views
Last post April 22, 2007, 03:09
by Mellimage
11 Replies
5871 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 13:13
by mwp1969
6 Replies
6095 Views
Last post February 15, 2016, 09:48
by stockVid

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors