Up for me because of a mini-jackpot sale and generally a higher rpd.  More dls last month, but a much lower rpd then.

So sorry to read that my favourite photographer (by a country mile) and all round fantastic guy, Sebasti�o Salgado, has died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2exym29pdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL9YnY4UJsM

RIP

Highest number of downloads, but second-lowest rpd (a shocking 73c) since ESP started.
Highest April total $$ since 2021, but with a proportionately high increase in files in the past year.
(PS that doesn't include Connect files)

- Is there an Image you'd make Alamy exclusive?

The only advantage of being Alamy exclusive is that they can chase up unpaid in-uses. That can sometimes be fairly lucrative, sometimes not so much, and sometimes they can't get blood out of the stone, even if it's in one of the countries they try.

All this time, I thought it was about the subject, composition, colors, keywords, descriptions, and finding areas/ideas that are under supplied, to fill a need. Images that buyers want and need. But apparently (according to some people here) it's all about luck, the search placement and random chance.

Then I'll say, worrying about analyzing what has sold, then making more of what sells, or "Learning from 16 years of stock photos that didn't sell", is a waste of time. It's just all about luck. 

It's not all about luck, it is of course selling what customers want, but (and I can only speak for iS) algorithm certainly has its part to play. I've twice had files which were good sellers (by my standards, i.e. sold almost every day) disappear overnight and I discovered that they had dropped in the Best Match algorithm for their 'most likely to be searched' keywords, whereas they were previously near the top of page one. One of these got no sales for a couple of years, and now gets occasional sales, not enough to take it onto the first page: the second hasn't have one sale since it dropped (a common subject, so away down below page 20 on the best match search now).

Quote from: dragonblade on March 07, 2025, 19:20

I wonder if Alamy are accepting video again. I'm currently about to sign in on their site and I see some video footage being displayed (something Ive never seen before on their start up page.) And there is some text that says: "License your photos, illustrations and videos to the world's leading brands."

In last several years Alamy has dropped the hint in their own contributor Forums that they would be opening video submissions to their contributors.  Has never happened as far as I know.

For sure, they've teased things which never came to pass.
Having their phone upload stockimo, now gone, android compatible was another.
Though IIRC phone submissions are now acceptable to Alamy under certain circumstances, but I haven't looked into it, certainly some Live News submissions.

Rasonably good sales but low rpd - a meh month.

Just realised that a larger than usual proportion of my sales in Jan were via Getty, so 20% instead of 30%. I'd guess, but don't know, that their sales people are incentivised to encourage that.
 

Quote from: fotoroad on February 12, 2025, 17:23

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 12, 2025, 15:03

Quote from: fotoroad on February 12, 2025, 12:08

Last weekend I upload some images to Alamy, before if is one images failed all other images from same submission is also failed. Not at this time. One is failed but other stays online for key wording.
I am not sure it was accidentally or no. I hope, they finally find out it was not smart way before.

If it fails for intake data, error or image size, the whole batch doesn't fail. If it fails QC, the whole batch fails.

As far as I see, no changes to the one fail, all fail rule.

It was Failed QC

I've never seen that. One fail all fail. What was the reason?

To encourage us to check our files more carefully before submission.
Plus it's their ball, their rules.

SpaceStockFootage, I don't respond to nonsense and trolling.

Pot, meet kettle

Especially since I have no desire to engage in your education.

That's the bottom line.
No desire to check facts.
But you're probably just trolling, and that's a MagaNut characteristic that anyone could copy.
The same people that pay for a worthless Trump crypto, but don't notice, or aren't bothered, that the price of eggs has shot up.

The US elections showed the attitude of Americans towards the Democrats and Biden.

Just because millions of people do a stupid thing doesn't make it not stupid.
I say that coming from a country which voted in Bojo.
(But we also, thankfully, have a system that let us get rid of him once even his party had had too much.)

BTW, Keep Musk on your side of the pond

@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.

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".

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! 

<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.