Getty Images?

[bachamp]

Getty wants some of my shots. But I would like to know a bit more about the licensing etc before I make my move.

Rather than read the fine print I was hoping someone on here can give me a bit of a summary.

Also for those that have images on there already, do you make any money from it?

Thanks
Ben

[kiwi]

Youll need to provide more detail. what do they went them for is a good think to know

[ricktas]

Getty wants some of my shots. But I would like to know a bit more about the licensing etc before I make my move.

Rather than read the fine print I was hoping someone on here can give me a bit of a summary.

Also for those that have images on there already, do you make any money from it?

Thanks
Ben

Read the fine print! Failure to do so, and just use advice from members on AP, will not legally cover you if you do have an issue in future with them.

[bachamp]

Read the fine print! Failure to do so, and just use advice from members on AP, will not legally cover you if you do have an issue in future with them.

I will read the fine print, but currently seeing if its worth going to the trouble, as to see the fine print you need to regiester.

[bachamp]

Youll need to provide more detail. what do they went them for is a good think to know

Getty Images is a stock site. They just want them to be included in there millions of stock photos that they sell.

[MarkChap]

Can I be really rude, no I guess not

Definitely read the fine print, if you are unsure seek proper legal advice.

[bachamp]

Can I be really rude, no I guess not

Definitely read the fine print, if you are unsure seek proper legal advice.

I will read the fine print when I get there. But as said above, there is a process, first regiester, then they send you the contract, then you send photos, then you are locked in.

I want to know, for those that have images on getty images, that have read the fine print, what are the key points.

Also for those that have images on getty images, have you made any money from it?

[kiwi]

Ok, re stock, and its a very general statement based on what I know

To make money out of stock:

You need to load 1000's of images
They need to be different and of high quality (hi res, low iso, sharp etc)
You need to be lucky

So, sure, roll the dice, read the fine print, just dont deposit any $$$ on the Ferrari quite yet

[ricktas]

Ok, re stock, and its a very general statement based on what I know

To make money out of stock:

You need to load 1000's of images
They need to be different and of high quality (hi res, low iso, sharp etc)
You need to be lucky

So, sure, roll the dice, read the fine print, just dont deposit any $$$ on the Ferrari quite yet

Well said. Most stock libraries work on volume. The more photos you have, the more chance someone might want one. Don't expect to make a good income from this, you may make a few dollars each month.

When you consider the number of photographers on stock site and their work what are you offering that is different and will be wanted? Maybe do a keyword search of Getty for the type of photos you intend to upload and be honest with yourself, what is it about your photos that would make a buyer want them over one of the thousands of other similar photos? If you have got a niche, that no-one else has come up with yet, and is in demand, then you might make some money.

[bigdazzler]

im curious as to whether they sent you a personal specific request for images or the generic email they send to squillions every day ...

and if youve ever submitted photos to a stock site, youll know that the images need to be technically FLAWLESS, particularly Getty. Some are more lax.

[Analog6]

Have a look on Flickr, there is some discussion on there in the Getty Images (http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/) group. They have 3 levels, apparently.

One is micro stock (they own 1 of the big micro stock agencies, I can't remember which one) which means you get peanuts for it
One is slightly better
One pays very well

I would not sign up without reading every word of the contract at least twice if I were you.

[JM Tran]

I remembered selling stock images a few yrs ago when I first started out, for istock, image vortex, fotolia and all that rubbish

to actually make a lot of money on Getty, or Alamy at the higher level is very very hard and time consuming. As they require images to be up-rezzed up to like 40-50mb each, noise free at 100% crop so shooting at base ISO all the time is needed, EXIF data intact, I remembered only some cameras were accepted back then, think it has changed a bit now. These are for images that can sell for a few hundred dollars each. Not to mention you need to scan/fax model releases with accompanying photos if there are people in there. A shot of a group of 8 people - thats 8 model release forms you have to scan/fax through:)

Otherwise, your photos will be in the generic bin and sell from 50 cents to a dollar per image.

Waste of time

[davesmith]

I've been asked myself to submit specific images to them, but haven't taken it up since I've been too lazy to go through the fine print, plus I'm aware of how stock works and the pitfalls invovled.

The OP's question is a valid one though. Of course, it still comes down to the fine print, but generic answers here that stock is a waste of time aren't helpful and if someone has had actual experience with Getty itself, that would be useful.

[kiwi]

It's not a waste of time you're right Dave.

But who here hasnt been down the "im going to make a fortune from stock photos only to realise that it's not quite that way" route before ?

But yeah, some people do really well out of it, even FT

[MKemp]

I know someone who shoots for Getty currently. I think they should be ok with you asking them a couple of questions. Ill get their email tonight and post it to you personally.

[kiwi]

For clarity, there is a big difference between shooting for Getty and shooting stock for Getty

Getty can access all flickr for stock now too so i understand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Longshots]

For clarity, there is a big difference between shooting for Getty and shooting stock for Getty

Getty can access all flickr for stock now too so i understand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Spot on Darren. And very valid point.


I know that Dave has already said that generic answers that stock is a waste of time is not helpful, but as the question was actually this:

Getty wants some of my shots. But I would like to know a bit more about the licensing etc before I make my move.

Rather than read the fine print I was hoping someone on here can give me a bit of a summary.

Also for those that have images on there already, do you make any money from it?

Thanks
Ben


Then that final question is utterly valid in answering and far from a waste of time Dave, is my genuine response to that final question. So please bear with me before discarding any negative response as not valid.

Yes I'm approached about 10 or 12 times a year by various stock agencies wanting my work. Seems its an almost constant battle for them to get more and more stock. I've not agreed to any, and I doubt I ever will. Once bitten twice shy. Seems to me that you the photographer supplying stock have absolutely no way of proving wether the stock agency is telling you when one of your images is sold or not.

I had this happen to me with what I thought was a reputable agency. They had my work for approximately 5 years and according to them never sold any of my work. Trouble was that I found a few of my images being used and when I approached the companies using them, all referred me back to the agency. Long story short, all blame was placed on the sacked manager, I never received a cent, and the agency closed its doors one year later.

With so many agencies/libraries dying a slow death (huge famous one in Europe/France went under just last month), it seems to me a bit pointless responding to the constant call for images from different agencies around the world. True, Getty has a nice ring to it, and you would hope that they're up front. But as yet, although I've heard many many stories of people actually making a living off stock, to date, although I've met many many photographers over my time, I have never met that mythical creature of the full time stock photographer. I do know of one photographer who has (in his mind) "done quite well out of stock" (his words, hence the quotes), and after submitting approximately 800 or 900 images, his total sales last year was A$84. Better then a a poke in the eye I suppose, but hardly going to cover the cost of the bank cheque for the Ferrari.

[kiwi]

I listened to an interview of reputadly Americas most succesful ft stock guy, he estimated in the states that there were a total of 6 ft stock photographers, now that's in a population of 200 million




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

I've been asked myself to submit specific images to them, but haven't taken it up since I've been too lazy to go through the fine print, plus I'm aware of how stock works and the pitfalls invovled.

The OP's question is a valid one though. Of course, it still comes down to the fine print, but generic answers here that stock is a waste of time aren't helpful and if someone has had actual experience with Getty itself, that would be useful.

Not Getty, but have experience with Alamy. Yes I made a few dollars (less than $50) for a while, but I think to get the big dollars you have to be very proactive and uploading new stuff all the time. I know someone who has over 10,000 photos on Alamy and they don't make a living from it. It was hard work to get photos approved, and from what I know Getty are stricter than Alamy. Yes stock photography can work, but there are only a select few that make a living out of it, and don't need other income. In 2009 one person made over $200,000 from Alamy, 3 people made over $100,000. There are over 20 million images on Alamy.

Now to put it all in perspective, in 2009 Alamy paid out $8Million to photographers. Remember there are 20 million images on the site. There are a lot of photographers not making much, given these stats. Yes you could be one of the select few that make over $100K, but are you willing to put in all the work needed, to do so?

[stockshots4u]

I submitted my first images to a Melbourne Library in 1987, a slow start followed and just as sales picked up they sold out to their next door neighbour/competitor!!. Many slow years followed until they closed up shop about 5 years ago.

At times I was represented by several Big Libraries world-wide through affiliations, small returns though. Since 2001 I've been in an on-line Library based in QLD, decent start but has dropped right off. I also have my own site, still slow.

I have been tempted to join Micro stock sites and many contributors have done Very Well but most of the images are People oriented. I'm not!!

As has been mentioned, images are every where these days, some computer savvy 'youngster' gets a camera and has hundreds on line before you can say Microstock. If Getty has asked you to submit some then I would do it and enjoy what ever returns you get.

I made around 37K over the years which has paid for gear, Holidays and helped out when Weddings were slow.

John.

Btw, Longshots, did you have quite a few images in the Adelaide Yellow Pages many moons ago, you sound familiar.

[Longshots]

Yes John - very well spotted :) Funnily enough, this is related, its because they were using stock, that I approached Yellow with the suggestion that they commission their own photographer. Best cold call I ever made, as I got an amazing commission to do most of the Yellow Pages "Get About Guides" in the front of all their directories. This removed their issue of all their expensive admin work, and costs paid toto all of the different stock libraries they had been using.

Funnily enough, it was because of that work with Yellow Pages, that gave me the idea for my business name of Longshots :)

Good to hear that some people have made something out of stock. I'll admit to being cynical after being ripped off by the agency that sold my work, but never passed on the income.

[chamellieon]

I've found that agencies such as Getty are usually quite aggressive with their fine print. read it well my friend, read it well..

[Xenedis]

Getty can access all flickr for stock now too so i understand


It's worth noting that Flickr users can opt out of having their images selected by Getty.


I've found that agencies such as Getty are usually quite aggressive with their fine print. read it well my friend, read it well..

I've found that any organisation which wants images (especially for little or no cost) can be pretty damned demanding as far as terms and conditions. More or less "we will give you little-to-nothing, but expect to do what we want, when we want, where we want, and for however long we want".

I'm not commenting specifically on Getty, as I'm unfamiliar with its T&Cs.

However, as usual when it comes to providing images to some other organisation, my advice is to read the find print and decline if the T&Cs result in "irreconcilable differences".

[BBJ]

I have had shots on Getty and was put on via friend and made money out of them but this takes time so don't expect to get your bucks fast as it took months to get some $ out of them after the usage etc.. Do your reading like everyone has said.

[Sheila Smart]

There are three major minuses regarding submitting work to Getty. They have an extraordinarily high commission rate (70 % for RM and 80% for RF), they are image exclusive which means that you cannot sell the images that you upload to Getty on any other stock library and even your own website and thirdly, the photographer has no choice with regards to rights managed or royalty free. That said, I have only five images on Getty (via their deal with Flickr) and they sold one image, twice, within one month of the upload. The first sale was US$770 (commercial) and the second $165.00 (editorial). I am also a member of Alamy (40% commission), Gekko (50%), OzImages (annual subscription), OzStock (50%) and agefotostock but I still sell more through my own website (0%!) than I do all my stock libraries combined. Getty requires their photographers to sign a two year contract. On Flickr, Getty is opening up to all Flickr photographers (rather than actually getting selected by Getty) asking them to place a "Request a Licence" under their images on Flickr. I am still in two minds about this as the same commission deal applies when all Getty is doing is acting as a conduit for the buyers. I assume that the client is directed to Flickr, sees an image that they would like to license, clicks on the Request a Licence, Getty then contacts the photographer and asks if they can license the image. At that point, I guess the photographer has leverage regarding the model, ie RF or RM and in my case, I would also negotiate a price! If the photographer agrees, he/she then uploads high res to Getty and it becomes part of the Getty collection. Flickr does not allow photographers to "commercialise" their images but its OK for Getty to do so. Flickr has never felt the need to justify this anomaly!

Sheila

[Dylan & Marianne]

hmm I was just sent an email saying they wanted 50 of my images from flickr - after reading this , I think I'll politely ignore!

[Xenedis]

hmm I was just sent an email saying they wanted 50 of my images from flickr - after reading this , I think I'll politely ignore!

In your account settings you can disable the option to be asked.