If they have cash enough.

I deleted my port and quit with my first sale, 0.05 USD. My pictures are not master pieces, but are not for free.

I was thinking about coming back and how to do it (small port, similar pictures with same keywording...) but I think Getty is not for me.

The way I see this, Getty doesn't care about iStock photographers or Microstock.

They make their money from the archives, entertainment and media licenses. Think of Getty in those terms, not about us.

100%

Getty is a "brand", which they even tried to turn into media, then into "technology company" etc., it didn't work though.
They most probably run IS on autopilot and as an extension of their "brand".

They care more about their "image", red carpets and even Exclusive RM http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-to-push-exclusive-rm than about Microstock. It seems like they've never been interested in micro at all, nor they care about it now.

They might have been interested in beating SS, but it is not the same as moving IS forward, IS was used as "weapon", nothing else. As well as "exclusives", Yuri Arcurs and others...

In my humble opinion.

Microstock originally existed to help photographers sell there work across the World, using a low priced volume business model. It started as a partnership with the Agencies, the crucial point is, it was a partnership with fair commission rates.

What has happened is the wealthy in the guise of big business, have moved in and subverted this business model suckin g the life out of the suppliers of the content and in the case of Getty mortgaging not only the companies future but the talent that supply that content.

The reality is the wealthy are double winners, as not only do they own the shares in the hedge funds that have owned Getty but they will also own the companies that supplied the loans, it's a win, win for them, paying themselves vast dividends on the backs of the talent that supply Getty.

These people who have perpetrated this on the creative talent in Microstock are the same people that have moved in to most internet based companies, a great many of them were originally set up to facilitate an easier way of working while getting paid a fair commission.

The likes of Amazon and Uber operate similar models, it is all about driving down the rates paid to the supplier and increasing the shareholder dividend.

What is really needed is a law to ban shareholder participation in these companies, this will take some defining, but you could certainly make a start with platform based business like Microstock.

The reality is that digital photography has made it easier and cheaper to produce images  therefore creating massive over supply. In addition the web makes international trading and a fully open market possible. That's how capitalism works. The only way to change that is to overthrow the world order. Sure you could maybe Tax the rich a bit more and break up the larger companies and regulate some of the more questionable investment practices. But it wont change the fundamentals.