MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Submitting to Getty Images  (Read 13894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2015, 10:07 »
0
I'm not sure how to peg getty. Had some sales there that were a month's earning of a SS Or IS...  but last few months mostly were silent


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2015, 10:08 »
+2
This is a microstock group. I know some Getty scales are on the low side of micro, but they don't yet consider themselves a micro agency.

So, what's your point?
That's no doubt a reason why Getty isn't listed on the right.
If Getty was included, why wouldn't all the other macros be there too, which would be disingenuous in a micro group (the clue's in the name).
No doubt there are people who post here re micro issues who submit to a range of macro sites, and no doubt there are other places where these can be discussed.

« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2015, 10:13 »
+1
This is a microstock group. I know some Getty scales are on the low side of micro, but they don't yet consider themselves a micro agency.

So, what's your point?
That's no doubt a reason why Getty isn't listed on the right.
If Getty was included, why wouldn't all the other macros be there too, which would be disingenuous in a micro group (the clue's in the name).
No doubt there are people who post here re micro issues who submit to a range of macro sites, and no doubt there are other places where these can be discussed.

Haven't you seen people talk about photography related topics in this forum which has nothing to do with micro? If you don't like the topic, just don't get engaged.

« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2015, 10:16 »
+4
This is a microstock group. I know some Getty scales are on the low side of micro, but they don't yet consider themselves a micro agency.


So, what's your point?

That's no doubt a reason why Getty isn't listed on the right.
If Getty was included, why wouldn't all the other macros be there too, which would be disingenuous in a micro group (the clue's in the name).
No doubt there are people who post here re micro issues who submit to a range of macro sites, and no doubt there are other places where these can be discussed.


Haven't you seen people talk about photography related topics in this forum which has nothing to do with micro? If you don't like the topic, just don't get engaged.

She's saying that it doesn't make sense to list a macrostock site in the microstock poll results, besides you can only enter $2500 per month so anyone earning a living there will be way over that.  It wouldn't be useful at all. 
You can discuss macrostock here though, there's even a place for it already:  http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/

« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2015, 10:18 »
0
This is a microstock group. I know some Getty scales are on the low side of micro, but they don't yet consider themselves a micro agency.


So, what's your point?

That's no doubt a reason why Getty isn't listed on the right.
If Getty was included, why wouldn't all the other macros be there too, which would be disingenuous in a micro group (the clue's in the name).
No doubt there are people who post here re micro issues who submit to a range of macro sites, and no doubt there are other places where these can be discussed.


Haven't you seen people talk about photography related topics in this forum which has nothing to do with micro? If you don't like the topic, just don't get engaged.

She's saying that it doesn't make sense to list a macrostock site in the microstock poll results, besides you can only enter $2500 per month so anyone earning a living there will be way over that.  It wouldn't be useful at all. 
You can discuss macrostock here though, there's even a place for it already:  http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/


Thanks! I didn't see that before, so I just posted in general-stock.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2015, 10:19 »
+1
This is a microstock group. I know some Getty scales are on the low side of micro, but they don't yet consider themselves a micro agency.

So, what's your point?
That's no doubt a reason why Getty isn't listed on the right.
If Getty was included, why wouldn't all the other macros be there too, which would be disingenuous in a micro group (the clue's in the name).
No doubt there are people who post here re micro issues who submit to a range of macro sites, and no doubt there are other places where these can be discussed.

Haven't you seen people talk about photography related topics in this forum which has nothing to do with micro? If you don't like the topic, just don't get engaged.
Who said I didn't like the topic?
I was offering an opinion about why GI isn't included on the poll on the right.
Who rattled your cage?

« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2015, 10:22 »
-1
This is a microstock group. I know some Getty scales are on the low side of micro, but they don't yet consider themselves a micro agency.

So, what's your point?
That's no doubt a reason why Getty isn't listed on the right.
If Getty was included, why wouldn't all the other macros be there too, which would be disingenuous in a micro group (the clue's in the name).
No doubt there are people who post here re micro issues who submit to a range of macro sites, and no doubt there are other places where these can be discussed.

No one asked to put GI in the list on the right.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2015, 10:28 »
0
No one asked to put GI in the list on the right.
Reply #21 above:
Maybe we should all ask the administrators of the poll on the right side of the page, to add GI to it.
GI is still one of the best known agencies, after all. It is abnormal to neglect it.
I asked once, but I've been told that there are not enough contributors. I suspect we are more than they think, maybe more than for some of those obscure agencies at the bottom of the list.

« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2015, 10:31 »
0
No one asked to put GI in the list on the right.
Reply #21 above:
Maybe we should all ask the administrators of the poll on the right side of the page, to add GI to it.
GI is still one of the best known agencies, after all. It is abnormal to neglect it.
I asked once, but I've been told that there are not enough contributors. I suspect we are more than they think, maybe more than for some of those obscure agencies at the bottom of the list.
oh I see.. my bad.

ultimagina

« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2015, 10:35 »
+3
I asked the admins to include GI in the poll.

Here is the answer:
Quote
You have a point, but I don't think many people on MicrostockGroup are selling on Getty - they are also not crowdsourced like Alamy.  Just anyone can't sign up, there is a pretty tight gate keeper.

1. There are enough contributors.
2. Other listed agencies have a very tight gate (i.e.Stocksy)
3. We get micro-sales from GI
4. We get macro sales from Alamy, SS which are listed.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 10:42 by ultimagaina »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2015, 10:38 »
+1
Another thing about adding it to the poll, people get to Getty from various routes, House, via Flickr (old days), via iStock etc. If for example I, with an unexplained constantly diminishing port there (via iS) input my sales to a Getty poll, it would have little relvance for anyone else.

Above someone mentioned that Alamy's there. I don't poll my Alamy sales. I submit RM on Alamy, but if I posted my low Alamy $$, my exclusive iS figures would be counted as indie.

« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2015, 10:46 »
+1
I guess it makes sens for the small number of people who are  on getty. I know there is a separate subforum for it here but thats almost dead

« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2015, 11:05 »
+4
I don't care if Getty is added to the Poll or not ... those numbers don't tell me mutch.

But, ..., putting Getty (or any macro agencie) in the Microstock Group is looking to the future, all of them sell or will sell in the near future photos at microstock prices.

This forum is about selling photos.

ultimagina

« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2015, 11:11 »
+4
I don't care if Getty is added to the Poll or not ... those numbers don't tell me mutch.

But, ..., putting Getty (or any macro agencie) in the Microstock Group is looking to the future, all of them sell or will sell in the near future photos at microstock prices.

This forum is about selling photos.

The numbers don't tell much, but the relative position of various agencies makes sense to me, being pretty much in line with my personal experience.

And yes, this is how I see this forum as well: selling photos.

BTW, besides GI, I would also like to see FAA and 500px added to the list

« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2015, 21:26 »
0
Adding 500px and FAA is again a little hard. Sales in FAA vary depending on whether you've paid them...  So how do you judge them. 500px is a different  ball game altogether

« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2015, 21:28 »
+3
On a personal note...  What i would want is some help and advise on how to get more money out if getty.

« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2015, 04:25 »
+8
I think adding Getty and even FAA makes this site more useful and valuable.
great idea. 


« Reply #42 on: April 18, 2015, 09:04 »
0
Any idea how long GI takes to review first batch?

« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2015, 14:14 »
0
Getty takes a long time to review files...   My normal submissions take about 2-3 weeks to review...  Plus the uploading process is very cumbersome

Guys who are making money there...  Some tips and tricks please

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2015, 16:07 »
+2
hint : another way to sneak in is to join an agency that is distributed by Getty.

by the way, if we talk about sales i'm hearing better things about Corbis recently.

« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2015, 07:25 »
+3
hint : another way to sneak in is to join an agency that is distributed by Getty.

by the way, if we talk about sales i'm hearing better things about Corbis recently.

Exactly. I have a Getty account from back then when Getty-Flickr was still running. But I don't submit new images. I rather get a smaller share from the Getty sales (as I have to split it with my distributor) but have the same images sell through Corbis, Offset and 120 other agencies. In my sales reports, Getty sales are mostly in the $1 - $5 range with very few exceptions while I get decent royalties from agencies I never heard about. Corbis is doing pretty well for my small portfolio.

« Reply #46 on: April 22, 2015, 23:37 »
+1
Tried to get into corbis based on your post. 3 days, no reply, maybe they did not like my portfolio

www.flickr.com/photos/izzikiorage

« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2015, 06:23 »
0
Tried to get into corbis based on your post. 3 days, no reply, maybe they did not like my portfolio

www.flickr.com/photos/izzikiorage


same here

« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2015, 08:55 »
+3
Tried to get into corbis based on your post. 3 days, no reply, maybe they did not like my portfolio

www.flickr.com/photos/izzikiorage


"3 days"? Seriously?

« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2015, 15:15 »
+3
After weeks,  finally GI accepted my application. Woohoo.... :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6635 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 07:44
by scottbraut
66 Replies
29130 Views
Last post March 07, 2014, 09:01
by Ron
18 Replies
5642 Views
Last post July 27, 2012, 18:31
by spike
10 Replies
3647 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 12:40
by theendup
6 Replies
4751 Views
Last post June 17, 2020, 08:43
by Jens G

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle