Flickr and getty images?

StuartH

StuartH

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,507
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
Just had a message on flickr saying getty images are interested in 43 of my pics?? Whats the crack do they just pay a fee to use them once?Sorry new to this..:bonk:

From:

Flickr HQ

Subject:

An Invitation From Getty Images


Hi StuartHowePhotography,

Flickr has partnered with the fabulous Getty Images to offer an invitation-only service for Flickr members to license their photos for commercial use.

The Getty Images team has noticed your work on Flickr, and is pleased to offer you an invitation to enroll with them. They have selected 43 of your photos for possible inclusion in the program. Here are a few of them:
 
as far as i know...having been asked but not going ahead so far.

its as per normal getty except they take even more of a cut,60% if i remember correctly(on my phone so hard to check) and you can only licence in certain ways.

you upload to there site and if the.pictures are sold, they take there cut and send yours every month.
 
I got a similar email a few weeks back for some of my images. I went ahead and clicked to allow, and started to fill out the required info on their site ... I ran into so many stumbling blocks I just gave in. You need model releases for any image with so much as half a face in, and they want full res versions of amy images they have interest in, so you#'ll have to go rooting through your old folders if you resize, as many do, for Flickr ...

You have to do each image individually too.

If you're nored, want to kill time, and don't mind all the rooting about ... but, end of the day, you still may never make a cent from the images.
 
I've got about 20 images on Getty through Flickr and have made about £300. Not much, but more than I would have otherwise.
Most licenses are RM, so can be bought multiple times, you get a (small) cut.
 
Thats a shame some of the ones they have chosen I dont have the originals for anymore.No probs with model release though as most were snakes!
 
I had same problem which is why I sort of gave up. My printer is busted atm, so model releases would be a problem to email to them - even though the ones that required the releases were of my own kids! And some of the images they chose were some of my earlier ones on flickr, taken with a bridge cam [who says they only take images shot with expensive dslrs!?] but I no longer have the full res originals, 3 pcs later.
 
So is that me buggered unless I can find the full res original?
 
Well the snakes seem happy to ssssssssign..:D
 
When you release your photos to Getty how do you know when anyone uses them?It's a big planet.In short what it amounts to is they get to sell your photos and they tell you which ones have been used.:nono:
 
You only allow them use ones you are willing to have used for advertising/web sites etc ... It's down to you end of the day what images of yours they can sell. You can decline, and not have that worry.

Stuart, aye, if they are low res versions they won't accept them.
 
kestral said:
When you release your photos to Getty how do you know when anyone uses them?It's a big planet.In short what it amounts to is they get to sell your photos and they tell you which ones have been used.:nono:
Click to expand...

That is the stock photography business. Getty are the largest game in town, and you know what - they actually know how to run their business, as do Corbis, as do Alamy, and as do the 100's of specialist agencies out there.

They sell, they tell you, they get paid, you get paid.

It isn't flawless, but it certainly isn't some market trader in a corner street or some 12 year old chancer with a clickpic website. Nor is it as hap-hazard as dealing directly with a publisher (particularly national press).

Images on Getty are likely to get you more return per image per year than any other general agency - if you have been invited then it would be worth the effort to sort - particularly if it is only 43 images.
 
think the minimum file size is around 2500 pixels.. have uploaded at that size and had them accepted

you get 20% of a sale from RF images and 30% for RM

I joined, don't regret it :)
 
I've been a stock photographer along with other types of photography for quite a few years now and yes the agencies belonging to BAPLA are very creditable. There have been a few in the past that have gone under but that's the way of things nowadays. I have absolutely no complaints about my agency and get paid out most months. It is slow and should be seen as such too, this is not a get rich quick scheme more an addition to other incomes. The more you have with them the more chance you have of selling images.
 
Musicman said:
Up to 25% less than yesterday (well, from January) in the case of Alamy.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...k-agency-alamy-cuts-photographers-commissions
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean they don't know how to run a business .... All of the other major agencies pay between 15% and 40%.

Actually the percentage reduction is less significant than the general decline in the fees for stock photography which have dropped in some cases to 25% of previous levels from just 10 years ago - now getting $50 for an image which would have previous been sold for $200 for the same usage.

As Phil says (and IIRC Phil and I were part of an agency some time ago that did disappear) this is a long term numbers game. You are very very unlikely to get a retirement worthy single sale out of 50 stock images - but with a few thousand good images available for sale you should get regular monthly payments. I do personally know people who live on stock photography alone, and I know a lot more for whom it is a part of a mix of photography that delivers a good monthly turnover. All of those people understand the effort involved in both planning what to shoot, submitting and keywording.
 
Last edited:
meonshore said:
Doesn't mean they don't know how to run a business .... All of the other major agencies pay between 15% and 40%.

Actually the percentage reduction is less significant than the general decline in the fees for stock photography which have dropped in some cases to 25% of previous levels from just 10 years ago - now getting $50 for an image which would have previous been sold for $200 for the same usage.

As Phil says (and IIRC Phil and I were part of an agency some time ago that did disappear) this is a long term numbers game. You are very very unlikely to get a retirement worthy single sale out of 50 stock images - but with a few thousand good images available for sale you should get regular monthly payments. I do personally know people who live on stock photography alone, and I know a lot more for whom it is a part of a mix of photography that delivers a good monthly turnover. All of those people understand the effort involved in both planning what to shoot, submitting and keywording.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
 
meonshore said:
That is the stock photography business. Getty are the largest game in town, and you know what - they actually know how to run their business, as do Corbis, as do Alamy, and as do the 100's of specialist agencies out there.

They sell, they tell you, they get paid, you get paid.

It isn't flawless, but it certainly isn't some market trader in a corner street or some 12 year old chancer with a clickpic website. Nor is it as hap-hazard as dealing directly with a publisher (particularly national press).

Images on Getty are likely to get you more return per image per year than any other general agency - if you have been invited then it would be worth the effort to sort - particularly if it is only 43 images.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.The fact is you do not know if they use your picture.It could be in any country or publication in the world.YOU have to rely on them saying they have used your photo and that they are paying you the correct rate.You dream on if you want but you are deluding your self.:cuckoo:
 
The internet really does drive out the foil hat wearers doesn't it...

If you don't trust the company don't sign on but any contract or business relationship requires an element of trust on both sides.
 
kestral said:
Rubbish.The fact is you do not know if they use your picture.It could be in any country or publication in the world.YOU have to rely on them saying they have used your photo and that they are paying you the correct rate.You dream on if you want but you are deluding your self.:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Just how long do you think their business would last if it became knowledge that they sell images and not pay their contributors? And it would get out!
 
PSILVERMAN said:
Just how long do you think their business would last if it became knowledge that they sell images and not pay their contributors? And it would get out!
Click to expand...

That business model seemed to work very well for the major record labels for many years. :suspect: :D
 
kestral said:
Rubbish.The fact is you do not know if they use your picture.It could be in any country or publication in the world.YOU have to rely on them saying they have used your photo and that they are paying you the correct rate.You dream on if you want but you are deluding your self.:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out above there is a contract, and it is a legitimate business. I accept it isn't flawless and that some usages are not reported by the papers on subscription and that some stuff will get missed when licensing 10,000's of images but to suggest that Alamy and the other major agencies are operating in a deceptive illegal manner - without I would assume a shred of evidence - is not only irrelevant to the discussion we were happily having, but is also potentially libellous.
 
meonshore said:
As has been pointed out above there is a contract, and it is a legitimate business. I accept it isn't flawless and that some usages are not reported by the papers on subscription and that some stuff will get missed when licensing 10,000's of images but to suggest that Alamy and the other major agencies are operating in a deceptive illegal manner - without I would assume a shred of evidence - is not only irrelevant to the discussion we were happily having, but is also potentially libellous.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even waste anymore time arguing mate. I'm not, I'll just get on with my next submission to the agency and leave him with his own little conspiracy theory.
 
kestral said:
Rubbish.The fact is you do not know if they use your picture.It could be in any country or publication in the world.YOU have to rely on them saying they have used your photo and that they are paying you the correct rate.You dream on if you want but you are deluding your self.:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Really? :cuckoo:
They are one of the biggest stock agencies on the planet.. They have thousands of professional photographers shooting just for them, along with many others that they licence on Flickr and elsewhere.
Why in the name of chuff would they sell and image and not tell you?
If that was the case, they'd just rip it off flickr and miss out the enitre editorial processes you need to go through.

I guess I need to check that the sausages Im about to eat are actually infact 80% pork, cos damn those pesky buchers skimping on me..
And I'd better check the beer Im about to drink contains exactly 5.6% alcohol..
Oh and the wood Im burning on the fire was infact seasoned for a year in a barn in Herefordshire...

Get a grip, not everyone in the world is out to scam you, especially not multi million pound international stock agencys.
 
Largely agree although using the defense of the company being a million pound business doesn't really guarantee much. Surprising what gets found out about these companies practices and processes sometimes, banks anyone!

Anyway, I would be happy to sign up and one year I may actually manage a photo that someobdy would actually want :)
 
If you have property or models in your image, then yes you need signed release forms which can be a hassle. Otherwise it is money for nothing as far as I am concerned.
I get regular monthly payments from Getty, for a hobby that I was not expecting to get anything from.
It does take a bit of time to upload them, particularly if they are requesting many images at the one time. However from my experience individual photo sales can add up to a considerable sum for just spending a bit of time at your pc.
There is nothing dodgy about Getty. They give you an invoice each month with details of buyer, buyer's country, how much it sold for and your percentage.
From my experience most of my sales have been with companies abroad that are prepared to spend several hundred pounds on one image. I can't understand why as there are millions of better images than mine:cuckoo: however I am happy to take their money and thanks must go to Getty for displaying around the world.
 
Pain in the star but have about 100 images in there now. Good for run if the mill stuff but j wouldn't put your very best on there as some if the fees they charge are ridiculous. Most I had was about $350 for an image of which they take something like 70% but I've had equally good ones go for about $6 which us a ****ing joke!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top