Hi - wonder if you could give me some advice as a newbie to iStock and Getty et al.

I had a photo published in The Statesman, an Indian newspaper with a circulation of 180,000. It is credited with "Getty Images". www.thestatesman.com/news/world/egypt-saudi-arabia-agree-on-joint-military-drill/57812.html [nofollow]

iStock are saying that my payment for this is 28 cents.

This would mean that as a newbie they would (in theory) have sold this to the newspaper for $1.86.

I find this rather suspect - I know photos go cheap these days - but $1.86?

When I queried this (after 8 tickets and much obfuscation) I was informed "Please note that your images are not on gettyimages.com and are therefore not subject to the prices on gettyimages.com. As a non-exclusive contributor, your files would be available for license on iStock.com and thinkstock.com. The files in quetsion were purchased for $0.28 via image subscription on istock.com. It sounds like the copyright credit used on the image is what is causing confusion. The proper credit for an editorial image is: ��iStock.com/Sans-Film� but since we are a division of Getty, clients have used the credit "Getty Images" instead. Additionally, a select group of premium Getty clients have a premium access login where they login to one Getty property (what we call GettyPlus) and can access all content on istock.com, thinkstock.com and gettyimages.com in one place, which may also be another reason they used credit "Getty Images".

Just wondered whether, in your experience, this information is correct and that the princely sum of 28 cents is all I am due for this shot for this usage?

I'd appreciate your thoughts - thanks

You need a print run of 500,000 on iStock to get an extended licence. CR didn't give you a fully correct answer as your iStock images are available to a portion of Getty buyers under the GettyPlus scheme, for which you could earn from a few cents to a worthwhile number of dollars.
Also be aware that even files sold via Getty can earn disappointingly low rate, nothing like the rate shown on file pages.

I suppose what seems slightly strange is that you sign up to a site to sell your work but have no idea how much you will be paid.

I think some buyers think it's more prestigious to put Getty. It's a pity CR didn't say they were going to tell the buyer to use the required credit format in future.

Mickey,

I think you are being very optimistic if you think its possible to know what you will  get for all your sales....sad but true

It is confusing, sometimes I think IS uses confusion and over complication as a method of control, but I think if you are selling your own images you need to do more than make assumptions, you need to know how it all works.
[/quote]

I agree entirely; but it is very difficult to get a straight answer to a query from iStock - it seems to be a series of regurgitated quotes and links regardless of the question originally asked - which is often completely ignored.

Anyway - big wake-up call - thanks for your help and advice everyone

You're right; after  buying the camera, lenses, tripod etc. the computer software, hour of processing, keywording, caption and description writing, re-sizing and uploading and the travelling, putting myself in danger to get that shot; they pay me 28 cents and helpfully told me after 8 ticket queries what I'd "made" on the sale.

Yep - it's win / win tickstock - I'm so grateful to them ... very happy with it - who wouldn't be?

Hey; really - I don't have a problem here - I simply asked if this was the right remuneration for this type of use - I got my answer - which is fine ... thanks.

I thought Getty Image stuff paid more; seems there was a "misunderstanding" and that's that - time for a re-think!

Hey; really - I don't have a problem here - I simply asked if this was the right remuneration for this type of use - I got my answer - which is fine ... thanks.

I thought Getty Image stuff paid more; seems there was a "misunderstanding" and that's that - time for a re-think!

Getty Image stuff does pay more but as a nonexclusive you have very limited access to it and the access you do have is to some of their biggest customers with sometimes large discounts.  Your image was not sold on Getty Images it was a subscription sale on iStock which is where a majority of your sales are going to come from so you should expect a majority of your sales to be for that amount.

Bottom line is why should Istock care how much you've spent?

My point was that the dough we all get - not just me - is a joke given the outlay we all make to get those shots on the sites.

I agree that what I spent is irrelevent to iStock - but costs vs. profit is pretty basic to all of us and it would seem to be somewhat loaded against the photographer in terms of fairness and returns.

It's just an observation - not a critiscism or whinge - from a newbie who is simply surprised at the levels being so low.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 12, 2015, 12:43

More correctly,  Getty images can pay more,  but not necessarily.

On average I get 2 or 3 times more per sale from GI than iStock.

As often, our experience is different. Many of my Getty sales are below $3, and I've read often of sub 50c sales by exclusives.
That's why I said 'not necessarily'. I qualified what you wrote;  I didn't negate it. Some of my Getty sales have been well over my normal iS rate.

Funnily enough some of my highest earners actually cost only my time to produce the other costs being fixed OK some petrol but I have to get out of the house anway! (My best SS seller was taken 200 yds away). The tricky bit - is deciding what pics are worth actually spending money to collect. I have some nice pics using models but only one set has actually netted me a (very) decent profit. So reluctantly gave up taking pics of pretty girls

My pics would be classed as (very)  LCV but they make me a bit of a profit and they are mostly things I enjoy taking.