MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Jo Ann Snover on January 17, 2025, 20:09
-
A decent month. I have to remember to keep breathing when I see a great license for one of my newer images - $122.xx and beside it 15% of that for my share!
I could double the royalty rate if I went exclusive again :)
-
Looks like you beat me to the forum post - probably while I was fiddling with filtering my RPDs.
Anyway may as well join the conversation here... ;D
December is the slowest month of the year for me. Still December 2024 was a bit better than December 2023 and December 2022.
A quick filter of the data shows video achieved a $3.30 RPD and photos achieved a little over $0.40 (40 cents) RPD.
-
Highest number of sales for many years, but lowish rpd.
Bizarrely, a swathe of GI Single Asset sales, all of the same subject, for 6c per download (each sold twice, so 12c). No idea what went on there, as GI Single Assets normally sell for much more - though I had one for 3c once. ::)
Still, best Dec since 2019.
Also, 2024 overall up from 2023, and indeed best year since 2019, but I made more uploading effort, which has paid off, relatively for my port, for nowadays.
(stills only)
-
Bizarrely, a swathe of GI Single Asset sales, all of the same subject, for 6c per download (each sold twice, so 12c). No idea what went on there, as GI Single Assets normally sell for much more - though I had one for 3c once. ::)
Were those sales by any chance coming from Japan and purchased in two days (25th and 26th of December)?
-
80 dollars, which is an average month for me (around 2000 assets)
One photo sold 11 times, earning 33 dollars, the rest is not interesting.
Oh, and I always hope to sell video (even though I only have a handful of them at istock) to raise my overall RPD. In this case I have one video sale, guess for how much... 13 flippin cents :(
-
I was happy with the month. It confirmed what I was predicting, that I have revitalised my port enough to take my annual revenue back to above pre-2017 levels. One thing that's a bit disappointing is that I have a vector best-seller that seems to be approaching the end of its lifespan. I got randomly lucky with the algorithm and it peaked at 80 DL's per month in April 2024, but now is down to 24 downloads per month. It's still has very high visibility though - it's still on page 1 of a search for "pattern background", so maybe the decline is due to a lot of subscribers having already licensed it, and there not being enough new subscribers?
-
44 dollars reported revenue on stockperformer.
But I am getting a payout with 176 dollars with previous months. At the moment a payout every three months.
I am slowly uploading again, we will see if it helps.
-
Anyone received any AI training royalties for 2024 on Istock??
-
Bizarrely, a swathe of GI Single Asset sales, all of the same subject, for 6c per download (each sold twice, so 12c). No idea what went on there, as GI Single Assets normally sell for much more - though I had one for 3c once. ::)
Were those sales by any chance coming from Japan and purchased in two days (25th and 26th of December)?
First sales on 20th and 21st Dec, 2nd sales of all on 26th Dec, and all from Japan. Subject: sea mammals
-
Anyone received any AI training royalties for 2024 on Istock??
In November, and for me it was 2 files, $3.13 total. ::) Most people who reported seem to be underwhelmed.
They are only going to be reported in the November month sales (reported December) every year.
In Todayis20 they show up as 'Consolidated'
-
Hi. My average income for December is...
by the way, have the "AI Service" payments been made?
I received a message last month.
Date: 12/17/2024 3:59 PM
This month's Connect (.txt) statement includes the first annual, recurring AI Services royalties.
Getty Images believes generative artificial Intelligence (AI) can enhance the creative pursuits of our customers in tandem with the creativity, authenticity, and expertise embedded in our pre-shot creative offerings where your contributions are key. Getty Images also believes generative AI models need to respect and reward long-standing intellectual property rights to protect creators and sustain future creation.
................
..........
.....
-
A decent month. I have to remember to keep breathing when I see a great license for one of my newer images - $122.xx and beside it 15% of that for my share!
I could double the royalty rate if I went exclusive again :)
Congrats, Jo Ann, and I feel your pain.
However - most (maybe [?] not quite all) of these high value sales are via Getty, so only get us 20%, no matter which level we're on. Remember, it's all smoke and mirrors (i.e. hidden in the Small Print) with Getty!
-
Hi. My average income for December is...
by the way, have the "AI Service" payments been made?
See reply #9. You were probably typing while I posted. Although it's listed as "Consolidated" in TodayIs20, it's "AI Services" elsewhere.
-
A decent month. I have to remember to keep breathing when I see a great license for one of my newer images - $122.xx and beside it 15% of that for my share!
I could double the royalty rate if I went exclusive again :)
.... most (maybe [?] not quite all) of these high value sales are via Getty, so only get us 20%, no matter which level we're on. Remember, it's all smoke and mirrors (i.e. hidden in the Small Print) with Getty!
Good reminder!
I did go back to look, and that - as well as some other higher value licenses - were from iStock, not Getty. I take it that your Getty sales section shows 20% in the PDF statement versus your earned royalty rate for the other (non Connect) sections?
The month's RPD was better than many this year, but $0.68 is still pretty low.
Having been exclusive for a few years once before, I have no illusions. When all the agencies are behaving badly, the appeal of dealing with only one miscreant goes up :)
-
<snip>
Good reminder!
I did go back to look, and that - as well as some other higher value licenses - were from iStock, not Getty. I take it that your Getty sales section shows 20% in the PDF statement versus your earned royalty rate for the other (non Connect) sections?
The month's RPD was better than many this year, but $0.68 is still pretty low.
Having been exclusive for a few years once before, I have no illusions. When all the agencies are behaving badly, the appeal of dealing with only one miscreant goes up :)
I don't know about the pdf, but in DeepMeta is shows as Rate, e.g.
-
Bizarrely, a swathe of GI Single Asset sales, all of the same subject, for 6c per download (each sold twice, so 12c). No idea what went on there, as GI Single Assets normally sell for much more - though I had one for 3c once. ::)
Were those sales by any chance coming from Japan and purchased in two days (25th and 26th of December)?
First sales on 20th and 21st Dec, 2nd sales of all on 26th Dec, and all from Japan. Subject: sea mammals
Same here. 7 photos of seals bought twice for $0.045 commission a piece. All GI Single Asset (RF Image). It was through partner portal, COO Agent, it says.
-
not a bad month per se but first month in my istock career that i earned less than the year before.
-
...most (maybe [?] not quite all) of these high value sales are via Getty, so only get us 20%, no matter which level we're on. Remember, it's all smoke and mirrors (i.e. hidden in the Small Print) with Getty!
In case this is useful to anyone else mad enough to be considering iStock exclusivity(!) I thought I'd share my calculations.
I spent a little time today with Google sheets to look at my 2024 downloads and royalties to see what they would have been for an exclusive contributor at the 30% royalty level. I use DeepMeta's online stats but I couldn't see any way to get the information I needed from that.
The hypothetical exclusive royalties, just based on raising my current 15% across the board to 20% for Getty and partner licenses and 30% for iStock licenses would increase by 74%. IOW quite a bit less than double as I had naively been thinking.
Each month the number and $$ value of Getty vs iStock sales varies - a low of 31% Getty sales in October to a high of 51% in November. The Getty RPD was higher every month, but the higher volume of iStock sales more than made up.
With the different increases for the two sections if I apply exclusive rates, iStock goes from 61% in 2024 to 70% in the hypothetical total; Getty's portion drops from 38% to 29%
It's just about impossible to predict what the split would be for another contributor or me in another year, but clearly where the additional sales are made matters - I'd do much better with my December $122 license being sold from iStock (going from 15% to 30%) versus from Getty (going from 15% to 20%)
YMMV
-
(https://i.ibb.co/9c3RQBb/Screenshot-2025-01-19-at-00-29-24.png) (https://ibb.co/xX8Vxw1)
-
It's just about impossible to predict what the split would be for another contributor or me in another year, but clearly where the additional sales are made matters - I'd do much better with my December $122 license being sold from iStock (going from 15% to 30%) versus from Getty (going from 15% to 20%)
It wouldn't surprise me if the sales agents aren't incentivised to encourage buyers to commit to the system which allows Getty to take 80% of the royalties, rather than 70% or less. I don't know that's happening, I just wouldn't be surprised.
As well as the "RF sales" (highest value down to very low value) being @ 20%, so are all (AFAICS) the 'Premium Access Time Limited' sales.
As the "royalty distribution by transaction type" chart shows, like dls and $$, the different types of sale vary a lot from month to month, like you said, and presumably from person to person.
It's really impossible to predict what's going to happen. Will Getty do away with exclusivity altogether? Will any number of possible scenarios happen after the merger?
Exciting times! :o ::)
-
I think if there is a strong influx of new fully exclusive istock producers, there is a real risk, that getty might reduce toyalty payouts on istock. There would still be the advantage of higher prices, plus having files moved into even higher priced exclusive getty collections.
But I don't think any changes like these would happen quickly.
They first have to digest the merger, which might take 3 years to complete.
Also they really need to work an a midjourney killer app. Adobe has the advantage it can offer photoshop tools combined with ai, but Getty does not have that.
So if clients start doing more content with midjourney and then amend that to their needs with adobe photoshop ai, they lose these clients.
They also need to have their own beautiful and very high quality ready ai collection for customers to buy.
And since they will want a closed loop system of only accepting content from properly licensed ai, it will probably require producers using their own ai app only.
They will then also make a lot of money from hopeful ai producers who will have to pay getty for this new app every month.
But if the quality is better than midjourney, they will be able to attract a lot of people.
For the general public it will also require building a community to making the app more addictive and gamefying it.
They might also try to buy some ai apps and communities.
-
Getty Images is not a very large company. They also have some dept. I don't think that Getty Images will be able to develop, or buy any important AI Companies.
Not very large means, i am working for a company with about 3 billion cash just for Europe to buy some Companies.
We could buy Getty Images just with cash if we wanted.
Its not only about the software engineers, there would be also tens of billions needed to built data centers running ai software at a professional level.
Getty Images is just to small to be a big player at ai.
I think Getty Images won't change much at istock / GI. They ar driven by authentically images. Maybe Shutterstock will open ports to ai images. So if costumers want ai images they can buy from Shutterstock.
-
What about Nvidia?
You think they are big enough to build a midjourney killer app? Or buy a company?
And then release it together with getty, or getty does the market for designers?
-
I'm new to using DeepMeta for iStock/Getty. What are "connect" downloads, and why does iStock seperate them in the TXT reports?
-
I'm new to using DeepMeta for iStock/Getty. What are "connect" downloads, and why does iStock seperate them in the TXT reports?
https://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century (https://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century)
If you load these into DeepMeta 4 (online) you'll see that the amounts are very, very small for Connect royalties.
-
I'm new to using DeepMeta for iStock/Getty. What are "connect" downloads, and why does iStock seperate them in the TXT reports?
From what I can work out Connect are not "real" downloads, they are pay per view. EG the slide show on your windows machines that shows up when you boot up. They show up one day and then a different one the next. As such they are separated out in the report.
I also had a set of images downloaded twice, casssowaries in my case. I saw someone mention before that it was possibly "Sony" .... but it does smell rather like AI training :(
December was one of my best for the year for downloads but worst for RPD.
-
for questions considering possible istock exclusivity
did you consider that also prices will be higher? the real value imo is not just from a higher royalty but higher prices.
i do think with the merger considering exclusivity with one media type will become interesting again for many, especially those that see stock more as a hobby.
uploading to only one place is certainly easier.
for me the ship has sailed, i would never want to give up adobe.
but i do have a few exclusive agencies or distributors like bb.
-
i'm with cobalt on this one. i don't see why i would want to be exclusive with the 3rd best agency. maybe the higher rate will make them the 2nd best agency and it'll be slightly less effort to upload to 3 agencies but there's no reason to believe they will do well enough to cover the earnings from AS/SS.
-
I believe that exclusivity can lead to lost revenue regardless of the agency.
-
I believe that exclusivity can lead to lost revenue regardless of the agency.
I wouldn't say that. Focussing on one agency and their customers can give very reliable results, hence so many people who only work with getty, especially when they have a house contract.
getty has a huge amount of partner agencies across the world and now with the merger...i wouldn't be surprised if those doing organised people shootings and exclusive getty/istock on average make more than those doing the same but sending everywhere themselves.
To balance, you then really need an exclusive partner who...often distributes to gettyimages...
I think the real goal for those interested in macrostock/people lifestyle is either getting a House contract for exclusive content or getting into a high end macrostock agency that distributes to getty.
This way you get to enjoy both, you can have a huge port on Adobe, some content on all micros and still get a good revenue from exclusive macrostock.
But...it all requires a lot of work and is usually only useful for those who do stock full time.
-
I believe that exclusivity can lead to lost revenue regardless of the agency.
Totally agreed; For the life of it I can't figure why anyone would want to be Getty exclusive in particular. As usual cobalt lives in fantasy world with little grasp on reality of microstock industry.
Only way I'd be consider exclusivity is if Adobe and Alamy would merge
-
You have amazing entertainment value. :)
After all, I am not the one doing stock as a hobby.
Please remind us - for how many years did you make a full time living from stock photography?
-
Jasmine, I believe you when you say that exclusive contributors at Getty can earn more than those who submit to multiple agencies.
If I were to choose an exclusive agency, I would likely select BB. However, it’s important to note that they aren’t truly exclusive since they submit to most agencies. 😊
I’ve started uploading to iStock, and I’ve found the disambiguation process to be cumbersome. Nevertheless, I think it’s a valuable exercise for improving my overall keywording skills.
-
As far as I understand IS exclusive files are not more expensive, the contributor just gets a bigger percentage. Exclusives do however get the chance to have files designated S+ and they are mirrored to Getty, the indie files do not have that advantage.
I dont know if it still happens, but a google search of my files pointed me at Getty and then it said it was "not available to purchase" and did not point you to IS (that was really annoying)
-
The S+ files cost 3 credits, the normal files 1 credit. So S+ is three times more expensive. And in addition it gets mirrored on Getty.
Obviously you need good quality but the pros get a lot of their files into S+.
In addition many exclusives also have a separate contract with Getty house and can upload to only Getty if they want to.
That will then open the option of having your content included into more expensive collections. In my days Digital vision was very profitable, no idea which collection is the most coveted now.
Customers on istock can also choose to look at s+ only, which then shows them only high quality exclusive content.
A lot of people who are fully exclusive to istock/getty still make a full time income and can afford good quality lifestyle production.
-
Hi. My average income for December is...
by the way, have the "AI Service" payments been made?
See reply #9. You were probably typing while I posted. Although it's listed as "Consolidated" in TodayIs20, it's "AI Services" elsewhere.
Thanks. Only $2
I finally learned how it is.
1- download November 2024 connect txt from export at getty
2- open deepmeta 4 from online https://www.deepmeta.com/ (https://www.deepmeta.com/)
3- click statement , and add November 2024 connect txt file..
4- and click info.. you will see the text "ai service".
-
The S+ files cost 3 credits, the normal files 1 credit. So S+ is three times more expensive. And in addition it gets mirrored on Getty.
Not quite, Signature, and Signature Plus cost 3 credits sometimes*.
Sig+ get mirrored to Getty, and the plussing seems to depend solely on which inspector randomly inspected your batch, I can't see any other reason why some of mine get plussed and why some others, which IMO are better, not in the same batch, don't (we can't nominate files to be plussed nowadays, though for a while we could).
Sig+ files, and Signature editorial files get mirrored to Getty, where we all get bumped down to a 20% commission. Some of these sales are high value, more are very small,: whichever, we get 20%.
*However, they only cost three credits if they buyer is on a Basic plan.
If they're on a Premium plan, all stills are one credit, but the credits cost more.
If they're on a Premium Plus plan, all files, stills and video are one credit, but the credits cost more still.
https://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing (https://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing)
-
I dont know if it still happens, but a google search of my files pointed me at Getty and then it said it was "not available to purchase" and did not point you to IS (that was really annoying)
It does still happen. The message is:
"RESTRICTED ASSET
Sorry, we are not able to license media #123456789 due to country, company and/or publication restrictions."
Which makes the 'asset' look very dodgy. Although I thought it was untrue, I guess 'company restrictions' means the company Getty restricts the buyers they sell it to, as Premium Access buyers can buy all assets, iStock or Getty from one account, and maybe soon also Shutterstock.
I also think putting our iS editorials into Getty as "Creative Unreleased" rather than 'Editorial' reads 'dodgy'. It's not that Editorial means 'hot news' - I just checked some photos of a chainstore. Mine, for example are 'Creative Unreleased', but other equally non-specific photos of the chain can be "Editorial".
I'd think it must also be annoying to buyers to click on an image and get that Getty message. For example, the one I just checked is a locally well-known waterfall, with legends. It's not known nationally or internationally, but it's very specific. On that page are loads of other waterfalls, but none of them is this waterfall, and if someone wants a photo of this specific waterfall, they're going to waste a lot of time clicking on the others to check.
Also, I don't like my image being used as a bait and switch, to lure people to other images, if they want a generic waterfall photo - they clicked on my file in e.g. Google, why can't they buy it? You'd think that even if they don't want to send people to iS from Getty, they could at least say, "Sign up to Premium Access to buy this file".
-
The S+ files cost 3 credits, the normal files 1 credit. So S+ is three times more expensive. And in addition it gets mirrored on Getty.
Not quite, Signature, and Signature Plus cost 3 credits sometimes*.
Sig+ get mirrored to Getty, and the plussing seems to depend solely on which inspector randomly inspected your batch, I can't see any other reason why some of mine get plussed and why some others, which IMO are better, not in the same batch, don't (we can't nominate files to be plussed nowadays, though for a while we could).
Sig+ files, and Signature editorial files get mirrored to Getty, where we all get bumped down to a 20% commission. Some of these sales are high value, more are very small,: whichever, we get 20%.
*However, they only cost three credits if they buyer is on a Basic plan.
If they're on a Premium plan, all stills are one credit, but the credits cost more.
If they're on a Premium Plus plan, all files, stills and video are one credit, but the credits cost more still.
https://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing (https://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing)
do only exclusive contributors get into signature? are all exclusive images automatically signature? i've seen some sales through getty (i believe) though i'm not exclusive.
-
s and s* is only for the exclusives
non exclusives can have sales via getty, I had a few editorial sales last month.
but our content is not added to the prestige collections.
-
I've seen some sales through getty (i believe) though i'm not exclusive.
I 'think' these are via the Premium Access program, but I'm not 100% sure.
From this Getty promotion video, at 1.08, you can see iStock images included along with (surprisingly few) Getty images on a Premium Access search via Getty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvbrlBcwapc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvbrlBcwapc)
-
@Shady Sue I agree that it makes the files look dodgy. You would think that a company as big as Getty would want to keep the buyers within the umbrella of themselves. However showing them an image then not showing them "how" to buy it is ludicrous. The buyer wont head over to IS and "hope" they can find it. They are more likely to look elsewhere.
All independent files are put into the "Essentials" category. "Unreleased creative" (illustrative editorials or editorials on other agencies) are mirrored to Getty and get us the 20% if you get a sale there. Though 20% of "not much" is "not much". "Unreleased creative" as a term can be very confusing to buyers even if it makes TPTB feel more comfortable with it.
-
@Shady Sue I agree that it makes the files look dodgy. You would think that a company as big as Getty would want to keep the buyers within the umbrella of themselves. However showing them an image then not showing them "how" to buy it is ludicrous. The buyer wont head over to IS and "hope" they can find it. They are more likely to look elsewhere.
All independent files are put into the "Essentials" category. "Unreleased creative" (illustrative editorials or editorials on other agencies) are mirrored to Getty and get us the 20% if you get a sale there. Though 20% of "not much" is "not much". "Unreleased creative" as a term can be very confusing to buyers even if it makes TPTB feel more comfortable with it.
Agreed.
I also wonder if Unreleased Creative was to keep the Getty house editorial photographers happy. Remember back in the day they said that all exclusive editorial pics were going to be mirrored at Getty, and started the process. Then with a smallish percentage of editorial photos mirrored, they stalled the process for quite a while, certainly weeks not days, maybe even into months.
There was speculation at that time that it was because there were murmurings among Getty togs - I can't remember whether that was pure speculation or whether it was confirmed. Anyway, the earlier photos went up as Editorial on Getty, but after the hiaitus, they were 'Creative Unreleased'. ::)
I wonder if anyone has been keeping an accurate timeline of what has gone on with iStock/Getty over the years. My mind gets different things muddled, and my timeline isn't clear.
-
A lot of people who are fully exclusive to istock/getty still make a full time income and can afford good quality lifestyle production.
Same like all these people that play lottery and win jackpot. In land of Rainbows and Unicorns. And Cobalts.
-
Anyone have a clue why Getty just sent me 0.24$ to my PayPal? (I didn't reach the payout this month).
-
Anyone have a clue why Getty just sent me 0.24$ to my PayPal? (I didn't reach the payout this month).
You should have had an email stating: Pictoright Collective Licensing Payback 2024 H2. It's a Dutch institution. Google it if you want more information.
-
Ok, the troll is blocked.
Some people really only come here for nonsense and have zero interest in actually making money.
Also just saw he has only been here since 2021, so real newbie with no experience and no port dedicated to make money.
But of course he has an opinion.
-
Ok, the troll is blocked.
Some people really only come here for nonsense and have zero interest in actually making money.
Also just saw he has only been here since 2021, so real newbie with no experience and no port dedicated to make money.
But of course he has an opinion.
It seems that defeatists are everywhere, even in microstock. To make a living from microstock, one needs to be a hardworking optimist. Pessimists and quitters wouldn’t succeed in any endeavors.
-
Have you received your payment for December yet?
-
Yes - last week. I think Jan 22
-
Thanks Jo Ann Snover