No to be discouraging, but the micros have a lot of those images. So, they may get rejected. I just saw a thread somewhere of someone complaining about their little sphere headed man images getting rejected for "too many on the site".

I think the number of people here who have the option of submitting directly through Getty are pretty few (a handful if any).. so not sure many people would know how the two compare.

If you do test it out I'd be interested in hearing what you find

I'm not sure where you're coming up with this 'distribution' distinction.  You're either licensing RF at micro or macro prices through an inspector/editor controlled channel or RM through an editor controlled channel.  There is no 'self distribution'.  Anyways, Getty won't likely be interested in simple 3d renders.  There's plenty of all shapes and sizes on the micros as anyone in the world with a computer can make them.  Which is why I don't waste much time on 3d anymore.

I never submitted to Vetta back when I was exclusive, but they did randomly select some of my prior images / new normal submissions from time to time, and I let most of them stay there just to test it.  They did indeed sell fairly well (back then, it may have changed... this was about a year ago or more).  In fact a large decrease in my income when I rescinded exclusivity was due to my vetta files becoming normal files, which represented about as much of a decrease in earnings as did my royalty reduction.

Take my word for it. Unless you can get into the main-core of the Getty-RM, just forget the entire venture and the Getty-main RM, is today almost a closed shop, unless you are either famous or have unique material beyond belief.
All the rest, RF, etc, is just too much work for too little.

best.

is today almost a closed shop, unless you are either famous or have unique material beyond belief.

I'm glad you put the word "almost" in. I'm not famous, and my material isn't unique beyond belief. But I got accepted as a contributor to Getty house collections. But you have to have a reasonably strong portfolio within your subject matter, AND a proper website � not a 'community based' website. Presentation is half the job, as we all know...
When I applied, I sent them an e-mail with a link to my website. Took a while, but two months later I got a reply from one of their editors & was sent the contract by email.

So what do you call it, if a photographer decides to send the same set of images to a number of stock agencies � on a non-exclusive base, of course.
If I upload an image to iStock, dreamstime, fotolia, shutterstock,... then I (!) am distributing the images, hence I call it "self-distribution".

Call it whatever you want - self distributor, independent contributor.  Point is, there's no difference contributing to Getty or IS.  They are both submit, approve, put up.  Maybe you just wrote the thread title in a confusing way.

Hi BelIblis,

 In Macro agencies you cannot submit the same work to different agencies the Macro market asks for exclusivity of your image. Maybe Alamy does I'm not sure but again that isn't Getty or Corbis. All the major agencies will only take your images as exclusive and they will not let you redistribute any similar images from the same shoot anywhere else even if they didn't accept some frames from your shoot. Even those extra frames they didn't take cannot be redistributed by you with the exception of Fine Art sales directly by yourself and that is not the case with every agency. I hope this helps explain the difference in the Micro and Macro world of stock.
 A third party agency that is represented by Getty would be one route to gain access, many of these agencies distribute your work through many of the top agencies ( 100+ ) as they have the ability in their contracts to do so but as a single photographer that option is not available. The third party option offers a very broad market for your work and can quite often return higher sales than being signed to a single agency. Keep on shooting

Good Luck,
Jonathan

Quote from: BelIblis on October 25, 2011, 05:53

So what do you call it, if a photographer decides to send the same set of images to a number of stock agencies � on a non-exclusive base, of course.
If I upload an image to iStock, dreamstime, fotolia, shutterstock,... then I (!) am distributing the images, hence I call it "self-distribution".

Point is, there's no difference contributing to Getty or IS.  They are both submit, approve, put up.  Maybe you just wrote the thread title in a confusing way.

There is a very big difference between contributing to Getty or IS: Getty wants exclusivity. With most Microstock, exclusivity is an option.

Ah, we've finally arrived at the question you were trying to ask.  I doubt you'll get many simple things into Getty in the first place, so you're more likely to get acceptances going non-exclusive with them.

Hi Cobalt,

 Good question and I wish I could answer it simply for you. Multi distribution in Macro RF did not start until a about 8 years ago before that everyone sold their own content directly. or they were purchased by a larger agency and then those images was exclusive with the new agency until the photographer original contract was up and then the new owners would send out a new contract and offer the original shooter a chance to sign on and keep selling their work.
 Some agencies that started multi distributing their Macro collections were a bit frowned upon at one point by the large agencies. Eventually I think the big agencies realized if another agency with professionals doing the key wording and the editing as well as building a corral of contributors that are very good at what they do made their job much easier.
 A third party agency sends in very relevant imagery and key wording taking some of the work load off the large agencies shoulders. To offer this to every photographer on an individual basis would create a lot of work with no extra reward to the major agency. The big agency now no longer has to keep as big a staff and the supply of strong selling content makes it worth their while to let those agencies multi distribute.
 Another angle is these niche agencies are just that, focused on a particular angle and if that angle is of interest to the larger agencies it makes for a win/ win situation. The larger agency is having all the work more or less outsourced and it does not cost them much to add the content. That is far from the same as individuals coming in thousands to someone like Getty. If they can get the best content without having to spend a lot to organize and produce the content then their overhead per image drops dramatically.
  A give and take of sorts and when you launch an agency the big agencies will offer you a better cut if you go exclusive with them. That is one of the decisions an agency owner has to make, will one big agency bring my contributors as much revenue as 100. You would think that is a simple question but it really isn't. Building a niche stock agency is more work than most would ever imagine but it can be done if you know the recipe. I hope that helps a bit, long winded as usual but a tough question to give a straight single answer to.

Best,
Jonathan
'