I just wanted to post an update to those of you who have considered migrating some of your microstock portfolios to the Getty Flickr collection.  Basically, you have to remove the RF image from other sites and get it approved by the Getty editors for use in their RF Getty Flickr collection.  This was a change from when they originally launched and initially weren't taking anything that had been sold RF elsewhere.  And getting them approved is harder now (2010) than it was in 2009.

I know this was hotly debated when the collection launched mid-year, but I've not seen much in the way of conversation since then.

My own experience has been very positive.  I was invited to post about 60 images in their collection by one of the Getty editors last April and have slowly been adding more images every month or two - first through their nomination process where you sent them a link to a set with images you thought might be approved, and then lately through their "Artist Picks" group on Flickr.  I've now gotten almost 400 images approved and up for sale and have been averaging $500 plus in commissions the last couple of months.

They do the keywording, and the lag between approval and keywording can take upwards of 2 months - but I'm particularly pleased that they have so many foreign buyers.  About 80% of my sales come from Europe, Japan, and Australia.

If you've been considering dipping your toe into the Getty Flickr collection....I'd suggest you do so.  The earnings are significantly more than via any of the microstock sites on revenue per image per month.

Jeff,
I still follow you and James Neely on my contact list even tho I dropped the Pro Account status.  I haven't received any encouragement from Getty to submit and don't have the courage (or am just lazy) to submit on my own.  Good to see that you are doing well.  Keep us posted.

PS:  Interesting trip you are arranging for the Tetons.  My wife and I will spend some time in the area starting in late August.  I may be in touch for more tips than are offered by the states' travel guides.

Warren

Question: Minimum upload size is 3MP. Are most of the applicants uploading only 3MP for consideration or is it necessary for the editors to see the whole works?

I'm asking as the images that are being submitted to the group are public and available for download...

As I would try to apply with 10 of my bestest shots I have ever created you could assume that many people would be interested in those images (especially if they are uploaded in full res).

Sounds scary.

... it's only after selection, does your photo have to be 3mp+, with mr and free of any other blemishes. i normally downsize to 800x600, saved at ps image level 4.

Thanks for the quick reply.

It's still a bit weird to hear that Getty editors are satisfied with a 800x600 preview at level 4. I mean it's great for us to make sure the images don't land on somebody's billboard but I wonder how proper quality assessment can be made this way...

I assume they re-review the full size image once they show interest...?

It is a very mixed bag...personally I can't see for the life of me why they have most of it on there.

Quote from: click_click on January 27, 2010, 20:16

I assume they re-review the full size image once they show interest...?

sigh, i haven't reached that stage yet. but, yes, that seems to be the case. the initial selection is all about aesthetics, not necessarily quality. i don't send anything typically stock to them. you should check out the getty flicker collection to get an idea.

Here's the link if you're interested in trying out the Getty Flickr collection approach:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/

I've read through all the blurb but the one thing that seems to be missing, or at least is very well hidden ... is the money bit. How much do you get paid per sale, how are you informed, how do you receive payout, etc, etc, etc.

Why do they insist "this is not microstock" when, as you have stated, contributors apparently average about $1 per sale __ just like most microstock agencies. It looks suspiciously like microstock to me even if they try and dress it up and call it something different.

Depends on what you mean by RPI - I was referring to "revenue per image per month".  My revenue per image annually on Getty Flickr last year averaged over $10 per image.....ie, 300 images generated over $3000 in commissions for the year.

They pay you a 20% commission for RF images and 30% commission for RM - not as good as many of the micros as a percentage, but the sale prices are much higher.

To date, the smallest RF "sale" I've made through Getty Flickr is $35 (resulting in a $7 commission) and the largest RM sale was $1400 resulting in a $420 commission.

By the way, I'm not knocking microstock at all - it is how I got my start in stock photography.  I was simply sharing some results since this subject has been discussed (debated) here before....

Well, my RPI monthly in 2009 was actually $1.25 per image per month ($3000 divided by 300 divided by 8 - since I was only up and running starting in early May, 2009).

Nevertheless, it is a very valid point that some microstock sites (and some microstock photographers) do better than that.  When I look at my own microstock earnings prior to Getty Flickr, I was averaging under 80 cents per image per month...so for me the Getty Flickr approach has been more profitable per image per month.

It would be interesting to see if any others from this group are participating in Getty Flickr - and to see what their results are to date.

Thanks for the info, this is encouraging to me. I have 21 images with Getty, Photographers choice collection, and my earnings per image are much better than my micro images as a whole. However, with only 24 images, it probably isn't a valid comparison. If I had as many images with getty as I  do with the micros I may not do as well, and at $50 per placement I could never afford to find out. But I've recently been accepted to Getty / Flickr, and am currently processing a few hundred recently shot images so I probably will submit them to Getty / Flickr first, rejects (with no similars) will go to the micros. My sales are down across the board the last few months and I'm sooo tired of keywording images for the micros. This Getty / Flickr thing may be just the ticket. Fingers crossed.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  If you have a Flickr account, you can submit ten images to their "Call for Artists" pool - and if an editor invites you, you'll then become a Getty contributor.

The group link is here - with all the details spelled out on the home page:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/

Quote from: jeffclow on January 30, 2010, 11:01

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  If you have a Flickr account, you can submit ten images to their "Call for Artists" pool - and if an editor invites you, you'll then become a Getty contributor.

The group link is here - with all the details spelled out on the home page:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/

Another question...I have a flickr account but there are only a few photos on there. Do the ones you submit for the Getty/Flickr...have to be on Flickr before you submit them?

Yes, the photos you submit to the Getty Flickr Call for Artists group have to be on Flickr and marked "public" - not private - so the editors can "see" them. You can put a low resolution photo up and then if it is accepted, you can upload the higher resolution photo directly to Getty.

what's the average time it takes to get the invitation/nothanks mail?

Anywhere from two weeks to two months from what I have read....as you can imagine, there are a lot of photos being submitted.

Hey all,

I was invited by Getty via flickr a few weeks ago, and am finishing off a few submissions.

Does anyone know:

* The best way of submitting future images? The 'Call for artists' was a one time submission to gain an invite to submit, from what I understand. Do I just upload future images to flickr and hope that an editor sees them??

* Will it affect my Gettyimages account through iStock? Do they just merge? Is there any conflict in having both of them?

Much appreciated,

Josh