MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Submitting to Getty Images  (Read 9661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 16, 2015, 06:33 »
0
I'm asking from Getty Images contributors....

Is it worth submitting to Getty Images considering both time and efforts? How is your overall experience with them? How is the return compared to SS and other agencies? What do they sell most?

Thanks for your replies in advance  :)


« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2015, 06:56 »
0
I'm asking from Getty Images contributors....

Is it worth submitting to Getty Images considering both time and efforts? How is your overall experience with them? How is the return compared to SS and other agencies? What do they sell most?

Thanks for your replies in advance  :)

Well for starters how are you going to be accepted by Getty?

Have they invited you?  Otherwise you'll have to enter one of their "Work with us competitions" and hope they select you.

Someone I know is in Getty they make quite good sales (about $600 on a less than 50 image portfolio) though the royalty returns as I recall are 20%

« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2015, 08:09 »
0
I'm asking from Getty Images contributors....

Well for starters how are you going to be accepted by Getty?

Have they invited you?  Otherwise you'll have to enter one of their "Work with us competitions" and hope they select you.

Someone I know is in Getty they make quite good sales (about $600 on a less than 50 image portfolio) though the royalty returns as I recall are 20%

Seems you are not a Getty contributor? Have you every tried to become one?

shudderstok

« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2015, 09:26 »
-1
asking anything about getty images on this forum will yield mostly negative replies and misinformation. if you think you have the goods, then contact getty, simple as that. they are quit a bit more stringent in terms of applying than any microstock agency, they will want to see a very tight consistent body of work, unlike the microstock sites that will take anybody and turn them into an instant professional. the sales on getty can be very good.

« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2015, 09:31 »
0
But I know there are some Getty contributors here. Hopefully, they will share some useful info.

« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2015, 09:43 »
0
I have a friend who has had a house contact at Getty for years. He shoots editorial and commercial stock and does very well. Very difficult to get in now. Aside from the crazy competition, they pretty much have to recruit you. There are sports opportunities for experienced sports shooters, but everything else seems to be pretty tight. He was telling me that experienced stock shooters he knows trying to move over from other agencies were having a difficult time getting in.   

ultimagina

« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2015, 09:44 »
+1
I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity.
Even if I get more per download from GI, the overall RPI/year is ~30% lower than what I get by spreading my photos over 5 non-exclusive agencies.

shudderstok

« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2015, 09:48 »
-2
I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity.
Even if I get more per download from GI, the overall RPI/year is ~30% lower than what I get by spreading my photos over 5 non-exclusive agencies.

since when does GI require exclusivity??? i have been with them since the beginning and they have never required exclusivity.

ultimagina

« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2015, 09:55 »
0
I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity.
Even if I get more per download from GI, the overall RPI/year is ~30% lower than what I get by spreading my photos over 5 non-exclusive agencies.

since when does GI require exclusivity??? i have been with them since the beginning and they have never required exclusivity.

Here is an extract from my contributor agreement:
Quote
Exclusivity: All Content submitted to Getty Images is on a Content exclusive basis. This means that Content submitted to Getty Images and
any other content that is substantially the same (a Similar) may not be licensed to any third party unless Getty Images has
notified you that it has been rejected. However, on a non-exclusive basis, You may use Content and any Similars for your
personal or self promotional, non-commercial use, including sharing Content on photo sharing websites, blogs or social
networking websites for personal or self-promotional/non-commercial use, provided that you do not compete with or limit the
rights granted to Getty Images under the Agreement. Also on a non-exclusive basis, you may use Accepted Content that is
available for license through a royalty-free license model in connection with the sale by you of prints, t-shirts and other retail
merchandise where the Accepted Content is the focus of the product, so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the
Accepted Content for anything other than such merchandising. On a co- exclusive basis with Getty Images you may use Content
and any Similars for limited edition, signed and/or numbered fine art prints (though Getty Images retains the exclusive right to sell
and license prints not signed or numbered).

shudderstok

« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2015, 09:59 »
0
I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity.
Even if I get more per download from GI, the overall RPI/year is ~30% lower than what I get by spreading my photos over 5 non-exclusive agencies.

since when does GI require exclusivity??? i have been with them since the beginning and they have never required exclusivity.

Here is an extract from my contributor agreement:
Quote
Exclusivity: All Content submitted to Getty Images is on a Content exclusive basis. This means that Content submitted to Getty Images and
any other content that is substantially the same (a Similar) may not be licensed to any third party unless Getty Images has
notified you that it has been rejected. However, on a non-exclusive basis, You may use Content and any Similars for your
personal or self promotional, non-commercial use, including sharing Content on photo sharing websites, blogs or social
networking websites for personal or self-promotional/non-commercial use, provided that you do not compete with or limit the
rights granted to Getty Images under the Agreement. Also on a non-exclusive basis, you may use Accepted Content that is
available for license through a royalty-free license model in connection with the sale by you of prints, t-shirts and other retail
merchandise where the Accepted Content is the focus of the product, so long as you are not licensing or giving away rights to the
Accepted Content for anything other than such merchandising. On a co- exclusive basis with Getty Images you may use Content
and any Similars for limited edition, signed and/or numbered fine art prints (though Getty Images retains the exclusive right to sell
and license prints not signed or numbered).

perhaps you have confused "exclusivity" for "image exclusive", in that sense then yes GI does require "image exclusivity". world of difference.

« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2015, 10:00 »
+1
I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity.
Even if I get more per download from GI, the overall RPI/year is ~30% lower than what I get by spreading my photos over 5 non-exclusive agencies.

Thanks a lot for your info.

BTW, you still have a nice collection in GI
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 10:08 by 60D »

ultimagina

« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2015, 10:05 »
+2

perhaps you have confused "exclusivity" for "image exclusive", in that sense then yes GI does require "image exclusivity". world of difference.

From the quote I posted above, it is very clear, that an image submitted to GI, cannot be submitted to other agencies.
Where is the confusion?

shudderstok

« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2015, 10:30 »
+1

perhaps you have confused "exclusivity" for "image exclusive", in that sense then yes GI does require "image exclusivity". world of difference.

From the quote I posted above, it is very clear, that an image submitted to GI, cannot be submitted to other agencies.
Where is the confusion?

"I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity."

was your quote from above, and the contract also posted above is very clear in saying "image exclusive"

and they are worlds apart.

ultimagina

« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2015, 10:35 »
0

perhaps you have confused "exclusivity" for "image exclusive", in that sense then yes GI does require "image exclusivity". world of difference.

From the quote I posted above, it is very clear, that an image submitted to GI, cannot be submitted to other agencies.
Where is the confusion?

"I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity."

was your quote from above, and the contract also posted above is very clear in saying "image exclusive"

and they are worlds apart.

Yes, indeed. That's what I meant by exclusivity or exactly the title of the paragraph I quoted, above, in GI own words: "Exclusivity: All Content ... "
What do you mean by Exclusivity?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 10:41 by ultimagaina »

shudderstok

« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2015, 11:03 »
-3

perhaps you have confused "exclusivity" for "image exclusive", in that sense then yes GI does require "image exclusivity". world of difference.

From the quote I posted above, it is very clear, that an image submitted to GI, cannot be submitted to other agencies.
Where is the confusion?

"I'm a Getty Contributor, but I stopped submitting since they require exclusivity."

was your quote from above, and the contract also posted above is very clear in saying "image exclusive"

and they are worlds apart.

Yes, indeed. That's what I meant by exclusivity or exactly the title of the paragraph I quoted, above, in GI own words: "Exclusivity: All Content ... "
What do you mean by Exclusivity?

"exclusive" as in IS got you by the balls strangle hold where you can't submit any of your work to anyone else for all your RF work. ugly. even if your content has been rejected you still can't submit it anywhere else as RF UGLY UGLY UGLY

"image exclusive" as in GI they have you by the balls for that image only, but you can still submit your other work elsewhere provided it is not the same image or a similar as per their guidelines of what a similar is. reasonable. if your content has been rejected then you can submit elsewhere. REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE.

« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 11:06 by shudderstok »

ultimagina

« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2015, 11:14 »
0
Ok, the topic was about GI, and I mentioned that I'm not happy with the GI exclusivity.
I didn't say anything about exclusivity as seen by IS or some other agency.
It might be reasonable, indeed, maybe even preferable for some, but not for me, since I lose 30% of my income by complying with the way GI defines exclusivity.

« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2015, 21:56 »
+1
I got into getty through their flickr program. Have a small port there that has given a good return last year...  Nothing so far this year


« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2015, 03:18 »
0
I got into getty through their flickr program. Have a small port there that has given a good return last year...  Nothing so far this year

Flicker-Getty deal is not there anymore, right?

Can you directly submit to them now?

« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2015, 03:41 »
+1
I got into getty through their flickr program. Have a small port there that has given a good return last year...  Nothing so far this year

Flicker-Getty deal is not there anymore, right?

Can you directly submit to them now?

To answer your question no I don't submit to Getty I have entered their competitions "to work with them" but was never succesful.

The Getty contributor I know joined them through the old Flickr program and now submits through their various picture calls.

Apart from an invite the only way to join them is through the competition route

« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2015, 03:48 »
+2
Contibutors from the Flickr/Getty deal can directly submit.

New contributors have to apply to House collections (very difficult) or to Moment collections in some of there regular competition.

They select the images they want, the collection and licence, the images are exclusive (and similar), we do the keyword, and they demand theire model release template.
From my experience, they sell few images and most of them not at the regular prices, 80% of my sales are sell at micro prices. Sometimes I have a good RF sale.

The word is that Stone and Taxi collections (all RM licence) is where the money are, but is very difficult to be accepted to that collections.

I only keep uploading to Getty because the bad performance of microstock agencies, they are also selling less and giving less royalties.

« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2015, 04:37 »
+1
I got into getty through their flickr program. Have a small port there that has given a good return last year...  Nothing so far this year

Flicker-Getty deal is not there anymore, right?

Can you directly submit to them now?
Yup that deal ended.... I can directly submit to them and they take a load of time to analyze and give a go ahead to an image. As i said last year was good with some great sales.... This year is a big 0 so far

ultimagina

« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2015, 09:35 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 09:38 by ultimagaina »

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2015, 09:45 »
+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.

ultimagina

« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2015, 10:02 »
+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.

This is a misconception.

As someone mentioned above, we also have a lot of micro-sales on GI as well.

The big sales are not so much different than the big sales we get from Alamy. And Alamy is listed. I get SODs from SS that are more valuable than the "big" GI sales.

See some examples from my February GI statement:

License Fee    Royalty Rate   Gross Royalty
$5.78             20.00%          $1.16
$10.17           20.00%          $2.03


How is it different than microstock?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 10:07 by ultimagaina »

« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2015, 10:03 »
+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?

« 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

« 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

« 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

« 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

« 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

« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2015, 23:24 »
0
Congratulations 60D

No reply here from corbis, offset politely refused and told me to sell in shutterstock.

Btw which are these distributors that sell in getty, corbis and all? And how does one get in touch with them?

« Reply #51 on: May 30, 2015, 08:43 »
0
Same for me with corbis and offset.

« Reply #52 on: June 01, 2015, 06:28 »
+4
Btw which are these distributors that sell in getty, corbis and all? And how does one get in touch with them?

Well. I can see you have 400 images on iStock after 3 years and 50 images on Shutterstock. Most of them look like random snap shots (no offense, I do a lot of those as well - but I know that those belong into microstock and not on premium sites). There is no point in asking this question at this point. Distributors will look for people who are able to provide a certain volume of images that warrant a premium price on a regular basis.

« Reply #53 on: June 10, 2015, 07:09 »
0
Btw which are these distributors that sell in getty, corbis and all? And how does one get in touch with them?

Well. I can see you have 400 images on iStock after 3 years and 50 images on Shutterstock. Most of them look like random snap shots (no offense, I do a lot of those as well - but I know that those belong into microstock and not on premium sites). There is no point in asking this question at this point. Distributors will look for people who are able to provide a certain volume of images that warrant a premium price on a regular basis.
Thanks for the honest feedback. I'd love to learn more about how to get my shots to the level that they are sought after by these distributors


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
5052 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 07:44
by scottbraut
66 Replies
23168 Views
Last post March 07, 2014, 09:01
by Ron
18 Replies
4738 Views
Last post July 27, 2012, 18:31
by spike
5 Replies
2376 Views
Last post May 29, 2015, 13:28
by Stu49
10 Replies
2156 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 12:40
by theendup

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results