Check your Getty statement

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
March statements are up. Best month for me so far with 7 sales. Pants compared to some of you, but I'm pleased!
 
No sales, but another 24 images requested.
 
I havent looked at it for ages, so no idea how long they have been sat there waiting.
 
They invite you, or should I say invite selected images. I dont think they are taking submissions any more without being invited. There is/was a flickr group where you could submit 10 images for review.
I had already done this about 11 months ago, but they selected a different set of images after this seperatley.
Yesterday I had an email saying my original 10 image submission has been recieved and is being reviewed.
The 24 I found today were again dfferent from the 10 I sumbitted, so I may have another 10 invited soon once they are reviewed.
 
April statements are finally up. I sold one image twice. Not that impressive, but better than nothing!
 
Checked mine yesterday and nothing, but will look again today in hope!
 
Wow buckas and joxby are so inspirational. For them it's so easy to sell their images to the likes of Microsoft, Telefonica, McMillan publishing etc. Maybe they'd be so kind as to explain just how easy it is to sell their images to blue-chip clients. I feel almost stupid having literally hundreds of euros in my PayPal account through my Getty sales now. How naive of me it is earning money every month without even trying. Silly, silly me.
 
Lol, I'd rather have 20% of something than 100% of nothing.
 
Yep it is. I have a hobby, and I get paid for it.. I dont go out pruposely to shoot for money, I just take photos for fun. Some company sees my image of a zebras arse and wants to pay £300 for it...
****in Brilliant.
 
.....its not irrational, sarcastic emo envy though, its plain old wish I sold stuff on Flickr envy...

It must be my age...;)
 
Yep it is. I have a hobby, and I get paid for it.. I dont go out pruposely to shoot for money, I just take photos for fun. Some company sees my image of a zebras arse and wants to pay £300 for it...
****in Brilliant.

Of which you presumably get 60 quid?

Doesn't sound so brilliant.
 
Well thats £60 more than I had before.. Dont see an issue really? :shrug:

It sounded like a professional looking down his snooty nose at an enthusiastic amature that is fortunate enough to make some money from their hobby.
 
Hey don't knock it.

All of the money I have earned from Getty, has gone straight back in to developing my photography. (equipment, software, books etc) It's not loads of money, but then it's a lot more than I would be getting otherwise. (i.e nothing)

The time spent vs profit is pretty good in my opinion.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
It sounded like a professional looking down his snooty nose at an enthusiastic amature that is fortunate enough to make some money from their hobby.

Pretty much sums it up, yep. I'm getting paid for something I do for fun, and have no intention of getting paid for. Sounds like he is struggling to get paid full stop.
 
It sounded like a professional looking down his snooty nose at an enthusiastic amature that is fortunate enough to make some money from their hobby.

Snooty? I'm sitting here in my underpants.

It was actually a professional looking down his nose at Getty, and lamenting the fact that they continue to rip people off.

I get the something-or-nothing argument, but don't agree with it. I'd rather do a bit of extra footwork and get the entire fee for myself. Being an amateur doesn't mean you have to sell yourself short.
 
It sounded like a professional looking down his snooty nose at an enthusiastic amature that is fortunate enough to make some money from their hobby.

I'm not knocking you, bro, just bear in mind that if your shot was good enough to command a £300 price tag, you should've got £300.

If that shot sells 1000 times, Getty make £240,000.

You could buy a house with that, your kickback wouldn't even cover the deposit though.

It's not fair on you.
 
Yes but the kind of organisations that use getty are not likely to go trawling the web looking for the perfect image, then spend ages negotiating on price to buy the image, where as they can log into getty, put in what they want, what they want to use it for and get a list of the suitable images (y) and then just buy it (y) no messing about while

Joe Bloggs, log's on to flickr and gets a message that XYZ want to use there image, then Joe log's on to TP and starts a thread saying how much should they charge for ABC, then goes back to XYZ with the usually over inflated estimation of the worth of what they have on offer, all this taken 12-48 hrs, which is why they go to Getty, find what they want in a few minutes, buy it in a few seconds, create what they wanted to in a few hours and out to market with the day....we're living in a now world people/organisation don't want / cannot afford delays

What that means is agent's like Getty, will make the money because they've invested the money in making themselves an industry leader (y) you can do it yourself, but is the BBC/ITN/Reuters or P&G/BASF/GE going to know that Joe Blogg's has some great pictures that would be just perfect for them :thinking:

Matt
MWHCVT

Matt
MWHCVT
 
One of the bi-products of Getty generously offering a 20% cut of the revenue to Flickr users is that they've managed to slash their editorial rates to 30%, forcing the contract onto working photographers.

Still... Enjoy your pin money.
 
The things I hate about photography are snobbery and the condascending attitudes that prevail. Sadly, too evident in this thread. What you snootily refer to as "pin money" is hundreds of pounds monthly to some people here. If it's good enough for them, then great. But you can take your stinking attitude and shove it.
 
The things I hate about photography are snobbery and the condascending attitudes that prevail. Sadly, too evident in this thread. What you snootily refer to as "pin money" is hundreds of pounds monthly to some people here. If it's good enough for them, then great. But you can take your stinking attitude and shove it.

Uggggh... Grow up.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The things I hate about photography are snobbery and the condascending attitudes that prevail. Sadly, too evident in this thread. What you snootily refer to as "pin money" is hundreds of pounds monthly to some people here. If it's good enough for them, then great. But you can take your stinking attitude and shove it.

The point is that I'm not the one that you should be telling to shove it. If everyone rejected Getty's lowball rates, they'd be forced to pay photographers a realistic percentage.
 
I can see both sides of the argument. Yes, something is better than nothing. But such a small percentage of the something is pretty ridiculous.

eBay facilitates the selling of your products and takes 10-15%. And I always thought that was a lot!
 
I agree that 20% is pretty lame but they are the biggest photo library in the world and a first stop (and often only stop) for thousands of design/pr/news agencies all over the world. And it's because they are the biggest that they can do this. It's not just Flickr images, it's their standard T&Cs for all contributors. You could have your photos on another site (e.g. Alamy) where you get a larger percentage of sales or even sell direct and keep all the money (apart from the tax man's cut of course!) but you just wont get your images in front of as many people. It's just a numbers game.
 
Getty's cut is 80% - Wow! I had no idea! If you consider Apple's 30% cut for effectively offering a similar brokerage service with their App Store (albeit SW not Images), Getty does appear to be milking it somewhat.
 
I would be happy for one photo to sell lol, I don't even know how you get them to notice your photos, is there a group or something?

Matt
 
You can't submit to Getty without being invited. The Flickr group has been closed for a while, the other is for existing contributors.
 
Back
Top