MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Got invitation from Getty on Flickr  (Read 11090 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 10, 2009, 14:07 »
0
They want 12 of my pictures. Only half of them has not been submitted to microstock. I filling forms now and I guess if I can exclude other images later. Also what similar means? If I got photos from same location but different time would it qualify as similar? I guess this is pretty wide term form me.


« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2009, 14:28 »
0
There is document in the Getty contributors site but I think you need to get a password to enter. It explains sistering according to Getty there.

e-person

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2009, 14:38 »
0
Congratulations!

If those photos are not making you lots of money on microstock I would consider removing them and try Getty. They are the biggest agency. Only problem being yours will be 12 in a few millions globally. You probably need many more to actually make money.

Similar means from the same session.

« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2009, 13:13 »
0
I made my Flickr account private a couple of weeks ago, for fear of image theft. Heard a lot of stories. I generally have better images there than I do with my microstock images. In a dilemma about it. Don't know whether to make the images public, I hear that even if I uploaded the images at 500 pixels, there are still programs which can make decent prints from this. Anyone, got any information on this? Thanks. Sorry to steal your post melastmohican, well done by the way.

e-person

« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2009, 14:38 »
0
I made my Flickr account private a couple of weeks ago, for fear of image theft. Heard a lot of stories. I generally have better images there than I do with my microstock images. In a dilemma about it. Don't know whether to make the images public, I hear that even if I uploaded the images at 500 pixels, there are still programs which can make decent prints from this. Anyone, got any information on this? Thanks. Sorry to steal your post melastmohican, well done by the way.


It depends on what they print for.
For fine art, forget it.
For newspapers, web, and posters (they print them with golf ball size pixels) it could probably be OK.
The answer is small size and watermark. But it really depends on your goals. Many legitimate viewers could get upset and avoid your photos on purpose. It is a real dilemma.

« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2009, 17:20 »
0
I also got an invitation and 10 files selected by Getty but two or three of the photos are already on micro. Of course I would disable them on micro and put them on Getty as RF, but the problem is that you cannot choose the license for your images, the editors do. And since I'm not sure I can mention anywhere to the editors that the photo was available as RF on micro, there's a risk they will be assigned a RM license.
What to do? No idea yet but I'll probably contact support before submitting.

As for similars, you can use photos from the same shooting session as long as the composition, angle, feeling, model's outfit/makeup/etc is different. Once you create your account, there's a guide available on similars (with examples) and you can also find it explained in the agreement.

« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2009, 08:33 »
0
Magda, that's the risk that they are taking with choosing photos from Flickr, which can even be downloaded for free. The more I think about it, the more I think it is kind of a desperate move by them. Not that I'm not happy for you and others who have had their photos chosen. If I were you I would disable the micro pics. in question and let them take all the images that they have chosen. This is just my opinion, however I can see how this would be a bit of a predicament. Thanks for the info. before e-person.

« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2009, 09:11 »
0
Actually, after reading again on their site, this is what I found:

"Only you will know if the image or its Similar is subject to any active licenses, including those rights you may have granted when the image was part of Creative Commons. That means it is important that you are aware of your image histories so you can be certain that you really are able to grant us exclusive licensing rights. When we select an image that is or has in the past been made available under a Creative Commons license, we know that in order to protect exclusive, rights managed licensing, we can only select that image for royalty free licensing. We are working on ways for you to be able to alert us to image history, more information will be available as we progress. Until then, you will need to delete from the image prep tool any image we select for rights managed licensing if there is any chance that it may be subject to any active license."

So, briefly, I may disable the images from micro then submit them to Getty and hope they will select them as RF. In case they attach a RM license, I will have the option to delete them. Good to know.

Komar, I agree, I have no idea why they chose Flickr but I won't complain at all  ;D
As for "downloaded for free", that's only for non-commercial use in case of a CC license. I believe Getty only chose Flickr images with a license attached, whether is CC or all rights reserved. For all my images I have the download option disabled, they're "all rights reserved" and the only way to grab them is to make a screen caption which will get you a 500x500 px maximum jpg at 72dpi, pretty useless in my opinion.

« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2009, 11:35 »
0
......

So, briefly, I may disable the images from micro then submit them to Getty and hope they will select them as RF. In case they attach a RM license, I will have the option to delete them. Good to know.



I would think that if you have an image on micro and it is downloaded even one time, then there is an "active liscense" on the image and would not be permissible per the Getty directions that you have indicated.

« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2009, 12:05 »
0
check out this post

One of the things Getty has changed recently is that if they selected one of your images on Flickr.....and you've already sold it elsewhere as royalty free.....then you can still submit it and simply remove it from other sites from this point forward.

That freed up about a dozen images for me that I removed from other sites and made exclusive with the Getty Flickr collection.

We'll see how it goes.....but 20% of a $80 to $350 sale seems a tad bit higher than the same percentage on a $10 sale elsewhere.

« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2009, 12:10 »
0
Too bad, too late. I submitted 2 of 12 and deleted rest.

« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2009, 15:13 »
0
Bit of a conflict of interest for Getty, they own Istock and you could be deleting images from Istock so they can have them as RF on Getty.

David

« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2009, 11:49 »
0
this is interesting - they are browsing Flickr for images to add to their collection?... boy they must be desperate...:-)

« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2009, 11:58 »
0
I am a little bit surprised that microstock people patronize Flickr users exactly like stock photographers do them. There is much more variety on Flickr than in microstock which means there from bad snapshots to art and everything in between.

« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2009, 12:04 »
0
Oh, no offense meant - I am sure there are many wonderful images to be found on Flickr. It just tells you something about Getty - looks like the number of high quality images offered to them through traditional channels is going down, otherwise why would they do that.

« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2009, 12:09 »
0
I think it's actually brilliant business move from Getty. They got exclusive access to one of the largest repository of images on internet and they can go and cherry pick there. At them same time many Flickr users has no experience selling photos so they would agree on any conditions given. Notice that there is no way to submit photos. Only Getty can select.

vonkara

« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2009, 12:15 »
0
this is interesting - they are browsing Flickr for images to add to their collection?... boy they must be desperate...:-)
LOL true. But the agencies are always trying to add more images to their collection. It's the way they try that is "unusual". Maybe they look for unusual images also, in hope the quality follow. Stock images stay static and common because of the quality requirements


« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2009, 23:28 »
0
 I just spent some time browsing through their collection. There are some good images there. Most of them though seem to be really overprocessed  - from blurs and color oversaturation to really darkening the image by screwing up the histogram. Which in some cases does achieve some dramatic effect. However, I don't think quality is even a consideration here, at least in traditional sense. It looks like the entire collection is about this darkened oversaturated oversharpened look which I heard is quite in vogue right now. So, some advice for people who want their photos choosen - move levels sliders way over to the right, same with saturation, apply even more dark around the corner of the image, them apply and blend in about 5 layers of gaussian blur and you have big chance to be selected! ;-)
I also saw quite a few classic microstock staples. And a lot of pet pictures, some of them a good, some ... well just pet pictures:)
Some stuff is plain weird. Not "wow weird", just ... strange. I am too lazy to post some here, there are some real "gems" over there , but you can always go enjoy them for yourselves:http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx/1/creative?brands=fkm,fkf,fks#

I remember a while ago big macros were trying to distinguish themselves from microstock by saying that they have good quality and micro stuff is crap. I guess it doesn't work anymore - quality standards on micro are ridiculously fierce, I wish the guys had some common sense and stopped this nonsense. But microstock quality is pretty good these days. So now the macros have to come up with something different - like stocking up some really creative shots and who cares about quality:)

It looks like what Getty is trying to do is to stock up some really unusual images - the price also makes sense, too - if you're looking for unusual, you should be prepared to pay a lot. Which makes sense, they have to offer something different to survive the competition with micros. Be prepared though, your quirky stuff may never sell, since there are not that many buyers that look for very unusual. On the other hand, if it just sits on flickr and not earning anything, it's much better to have it sitting on Getty:)

I wish microstock admins allowed more creative stuff in, why not have it - really dudes hard drive space is dirt cheap these days. And yes, a closeup of some guys's front in underpants with cooked spagetti stuffed into them (Creative (RF) #85153696 Flickr) is not going to sell as many times as one of Yuri's business teams, but again - why not have it? Maybe someone will need it someday, although really I can't imagine what for:)


« Last Edit: March 15, 2009, 22:34 by Elenathewise »

« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2009, 03:52 »
0
yes sounds like a really desperate move. Maybe they are trying to discover new talent and looking at potential places like Flickr..

« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2009, 11:49 »
0
May be they are trying to move on or as Chase Jarvis wrote, get more creative at post production:
 
http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2009/02/scotts-guest-blog-creative-post.html

« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2009, 22:29 »
0
At the end I sent only two for review but they were accepted. I guess contributor website is big mess now cause they are no longer shown when I log in. I thought photos were rejected but when I open page on Flickr I see little icon for licensing on Getty Images. When I click it goes to my photos on Getty's site.

Weird but previews  generated by Getty are worse than Flickr originals:
1. Flickr

2. Getty


« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2009, 17:34 »
0
Sales via the Flickr Getty deal are starting to show up in contributor's account listings.  Most people (including me) are reporting one sale during the month of March (reported at the end of April).  However, the payoff is nice - I earned almost $80 on one RF sale.

Still very early to tell if this is going to take off, but if you're invited, it might be worth a bit of your time.

« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2009, 18:51 »
0
Sales via the Flickr Getty deal are starting to show up in contributor's account listings.  Most people (including me) are reporting one sale during the month of March (reported at the end of April).  However, the payoff is nice - I earned almost $80 on one RF sale.

Still very early to tell if this is going to take off, but if you're invited, it might be worth a bit of your time.

Out of curiosity: Are you only able to send them the pics they chose from Flickr also for the future? Or can you upload to them more, once they want some of your Flickr stuff?

« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2009, 19:55 »
0
Out of curiosity: Are you only able to send them the pics they chose from Flickr also for the future? Or can you upload to them more, once they want some of your Flickr stuff?

It's by invitation only, and you have to list an image there exclusively for two years. You can list images as RF or RM.

« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2009, 20:13 »
0
Out of curiosity: Are you only able to send them the pics they chose from Flickr also for the future? Or can you upload to them more, once they want some of your Flickr stuff?

It's by invitation only, and you have to list an image there exclusively for two years. You can list images as RF or RM.


sharply_done, I think I worded my question wrong.

Once they select some of your images and you are represented by Getty. Will you have an active account with them that allows you to upload more imges straight to them?

Maybe this is better formulated...

« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2009, 20:58 »
0
Up to today, they selected the images they want from your Flickr portfolio.......but just a couple of hours ago they announced that all the Flickr contributors who have already been chosen by Getty could submit five of their own picks from their Flickr portfolio to add to the Flickr Getty Collection.

« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2009, 21:22 »
0
sharply_done, I think I worded my question wrong.

Once they select some of your images and you are represented by Getty. Will you have an active account with them that allows you to upload more imges straight to them?

Maybe this is better formulated...

I understood your question the first time, and the answer is still the same. The Getty Flickr Collection is by invitation only. Getty selects the images from your Flickr portfolio, which you then submit for review. Apart from the bonus five images jeffclow just mentioned, you cannot make additional submissions. So no, you cannot upload more images straight to them.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 21:25 by sharply_done »


« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2009, 00:36 »
0
Congratulations. If nothing else it gives you a good sense of purpose finally getting into Getty. I am jealous.

« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2009, 23:17 »
0
Getty has just sent an unlimited submission invite to Flickr / Getty photographers for Aug / Sept 2009.
"there is NO LIMIT to the number of images you can submit!"


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
15365 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 14:03
by tan510jomast
6 Replies
4492 Views
Last post July 25, 2008, 12:48
by anjo J
18 Replies
6948 Views
Last post January 24, 2009, 10:40
by stock shooter
9 Replies
3954 Views
Last post November 21, 2012, 18:09
by madelaide
9 Replies
13885 Views
Last post December 30, 2014, 12:46
by shudderstok

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle