istockphoto or Getty Flickr collection?

Sir Snaps-a-LotSir Snaps-a-Lot Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
edited March 23, 2011 in Mind Your Own Business
Hello,

Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this question, I'm kind of new around here.

I was thinking of selling some of my travel photos through stock photo sites, so the first company I tried was Getty images. They took about 2 months to reply with a "Thanks, but no thanks".

I thought that was it, but they then sent me another e-mail suggesting to apply to their Flickr collection:
Though your material is not in line with our Creative needs for the Getty House collections, we would be delighted to offer you the opportunity to submit to our Flickr collection. First we need to be able to select your images however.

Here’s what you need to do…

<instructions on how to create Flickr collection and submit, etc, etc>

Next, simply email dublincreative@gettyimages.com with the subject heading ’Flickr Gallery: (Your Full Name)' and include the link to this gallery.

Once the editing teams have made their selects you will receive an invite via Flickrmail to join the Flickr Collection on Getty Images. The Flickrmail will detail the images that Getty Images editors feel would do well as part of the collection and introduce you to the enrollment process.

My questions here:

1) Are they offering me anything special here, or are they simply "inviting me to apply"... i.e. can anyone do the above to apply to their collection, or are they saying that I passed some sort of preliminary approval process?

2) Should I go for this, or try istockphoto.com? I think maintaining two accounts would be too much of a hassle, since I don't do this for a living, just for fun/motivation. Any experienced stock photo sellers with an idea of which collection is more popular/more likely to result in sales? Mostly my images are landscapes in cities/nature areas, and wildlife.

I'd appreciate anyone with experience to chime in.

Thanks,
Snaps-a-lot

Comments

  • Sir Snaps-a-LotSir Snaps-a-Lot Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited March 15, 2011
    Not even a little bit?
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited March 16, 2011
    Everyone has vacation photos they think other people would want to buy. So, if that's all you have, you're not going to make anything worth your time on iStock, if they accept you with just that.

    I think everyone can do the flickr thing. They just cherry pick what they want from there and are looking for strange and unusual stuff they wouldn't normally see.

    "since I don't do this for a living, just for fun/motivation" . Why not find some other outlet for fun/motivation?
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited March 16, 2011
    aside, but iStock is owned by Getty. Different processes for applying, but photos in the iStock will show up in Getty images too (depending on the type). just random aside.
    //Leah
  • Sir Snaps-a-LotSir Snaps-a-Lot Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited March 16, 2011
    I know that istock is owned by Getty, but Getty Flickr is not Getty. IStock photos will not show up on Getty Flickr, nor vice versa. That's why I was looking someone experienced/knowledgeable with these sites, to get an idea of which one is worth spending an effort to get into. In other words, which one does more business/easier to use, etc.

    I guess there's no one like that here, so I'll try another forum.

    @orljustin I'm happy with photography right now for fun/motivation, but if I decide to find some other outlet, I'll be sure to check back here for your opinion first.
  • OffTopicOffTopic Registered Users Posts: 521 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2011
    Before deciding what stock agencies you want to apply with you need to decide if you want your business model to involve mostly Rights Managed or Royalty Free licenses, and that really depends on the type of images in your portfolio. iStock only does Royalty Free, and once an image is licensed RF it can NEVER be licensed RM and you need to be aware of that. If you want to do strictly RM licensing it doesn't make sense to apply to an RF-only agency. Depending on your portfolio even if you choose to go RM, you'll probably have some images that would do better as RF and may want to submit them to a different agency to keep your RM and RF portfolios separate. Then there is the dreaded microstock...

    You need to make sure you are well versed in model and property releases as many agencies will not accept images that do not have the proper release(s) while others may accept them for editorial use only.

    Re Getty Flikr - anyone can apply http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/
    Images placed with Getty Flikr cannot be placed with any other agency, they require exclusivity. They must remain with Getty Flikr for two years and if you want to cancel your contract you need to do so in writing or it will automatically renew.

    If what I am talking about is greek to you, it would really serve you well to learn a little about the stock photo business before deciding on what agencies you're going to apply to because what you do today could bite you in the butt tomorrow.
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2011
    catspaw wrote: »
    aside, but iStock is owned by Getty. Different processes for applying, but photos in the iStock will show up in Getty images too (depending on the type). just random aside.

    Aside, no they won't, at least not normal images. The two higher priced collections are now getting ported up to Getty proper.
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2011
    @orljustin I'm happy with photography right now for fun/motivation, but if I decide to find some other outlet, I'll be sure to check back here for your opinion first.

    If you don't want to hear from other people, don't post and bump on an internet forum.
  • catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2011
    orljustin wrote: »
    Aside, no they won't, at least not normal images. The two higher priced collections are now getting ported up to Getty proper.

    er? we're agreeing here, not disagreeing. I said that iStock WILL get ported to Getty proper, at least specific collections - yes the higher classed ones.
    //Leah
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2011
    @orljustin I'm happy with photography right now for fun/motivation, but if I decide to find some other outlet, I'll be sure to check back here for your opinion first.

    Why so snippy? The suggestion you look into other places than stock photography to peddle your photos isn't a bad suggestion at all. Microstock is just an exercise in frustration. You'll be dragged through the trenches to deliver photos of high standards in order to get pennies in return.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • Sir Snaps-a-LotSir Snaps-a-Lot Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited March 18, 2011
    OffTopic wrote: »
    Before deciding what stock agencies you want to apply with you need to decide if you want your business model to involve mostly Rights Managed or Royalty Free licenses, and that really depends on the type of images in your portfolio. iStock only does Royalty Free, and once an image is licensed RF it can NEVER be licensed RM and you need to be aware of that. If you want to do strictly RM licensing it doesn't make sense to apply to an RF-only agency. Depending on your portfolio even if you choose to go RM, you'll probably have some images that would do better as RF and may want to submit them to a different agency to keep your RM and RF portfolios separate. Then there is the dreaded microstock...
    Good info here, thanks. I read about the two licensing models. I think most of my photos would be RF, but I don't like not having the option of ever going RM if I want to. So Getty Flickr probably wins out here.

    I just wish I knew how much business each of these sites did (in terms of number of customers, web traffic, etc.). I'd rather try to apply for the more popular site.
    OffTopic wrote: »
    Re Getty Flikr - anyone can apply http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/
    I know anyone can apply, I'm just wondering if the e-mail they sent me (see my original post) means they've already preapproved me. Otherwise why would they be instructing me to "simply email dublincreative@gettyimages.com with the subject heading ’Flickr Gallery: (Your Full Name)' " etc., etc. They could simply say "here's the link, apply through Flickr" and provide your link above.
    OffTopic wrote: »
    Images placed with Getty Flikr cannot be placed with any other agency, they require exclusivity.
    Meh, that's fine I wouldn't want the hassle of dealing with multiple agencies anyway (part of the reason why I'm trying to find one on which to concentrate my efforts).

    Anyway, thanks for the input.

    By the way, are you (or have ever been) a contributor of one of these agencies? If so, what has been your experience in terms of effort vs. income?
  • Sir Snaps-a-LotSir Snaps-a-Lot Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited March 18, 2011
    orljustin wrote: »
    If you don't want to hear from other people, don't post and bump on an internet forum.
    Sage advice, thanks. You know, from the wisdom you have imparted unto me in this thread, I can see that your towering intellect would be better utilized solving problems like the quest for world peace, or eradicating world hunger (rather than helping me with my provincial pursuits).

    So, should you choose to stop posting in this thread and deprive me of your clarity of insight, I will grudgingly accept that reality. After all, you're humanity's only hope.
  • Sir Snaps-a-LotSir Snaps-a-Lot Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited March 18, 2011
    mercphoto wrote: »
    Microstock is just an exercise in frustration. You'll be dragged through the trenches to deliver photos of high standards in order to get pennies in return.

    I'm interested in stock because
    1. I can work on my own schedule (i.e. I can stop for a month or two if the "real job" gets in the way
    2. By all accounts, it's possible to maintain some "decent" income. By decent I mean enough to buy a new lens every once in a while.
    Is there a better alternative you could suggest with this in mind?
    mercphoto wrote: »
    Why so snippy?
    Because I found his reply to be devoid of any useful information and full of condescending BS. I asked for opinions on Istock vs. Getty Flickr, and he replies with:
    orljustin wrote: »
    Everyone has vacation photos they think other people would want to buy.
    and:
    orljustin wrote: »
    Why not find some other outlet for fun/motivation?
    If it makes you feel better, my final reply was much more moderate than the one I originally intended to post :D
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    Sage advice, thanks. You know, from the wisdom you have imparted unto me in this thread, I can see that your towering intellect would be better utilized solving problems like the quest for world peace, or eradicating world hunger (rather than helping me with my provincial pursuits).

    So, should you choose to stop posting in this thread and deprive me of your clarity of insight, I will grudgingly accept that reality. After all, you're humanity's only hope.

    I will chalk this up to your newness - after a while, though, you will realize that this forum is different, that we generally don't speak to each other this way on D-Grin.

    Good luck with your project.
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,938 moderator
    edited March 21, 2011
    sara505 wrote: »
    I will chalk this up to your newness - after a while, though, you will realize that this forum is different, that we generally don't speak to each other this way on D-Grin.

    What Sara says.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited March 21, 2011
    If it makes you feel better, my final reply was much more moderate than the one I originally intended to post :D

    Sorry, I've re-read his reply to you, in its entirity, and still can't figure out what you took offense to. Chill....
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • Sir Snaps-a-LotSir Snaps-a-Lot Registered Users Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited March 21, 2011
    I created this thread to discuss stock photography. Very little of that is happening -- it is instead turning into a back and forth about some asshole on the internet.

    So, I'll wrap it up with this post and then stop responding, since I'm sure we can all put our energy into more productive use.
    sara505 wrote:
    I will chalk this up to your newness - after a while, though, you will realize that this forum is different, that we generally don't speak to each other this way on D-Grin.
    How I respond to people is based on how they respond to me. It's got nothing to do with my "newness" or which forum I'm on.
    mercphoto wrote:
    Sorry, I've re-read his reply to you, in its entirity, and still can't figure out what you took offense to. Chill....
    I'm totally chilled. I tried to give you examples in my last reply -- maybe you could reread carefully?

    In case you think I'm biased, here is his reply to someone else in this thread (emphasis mine):
    orljustin wrote:
    catspaw wrote:
    aside, but iStock is owned by Getty. Different processes for applying, but photos in the iStock will show up in Getty images too (depending on the type). just random aside.
    Aside, no they won't, at least not normal images <snip>
    Notice the mocking use of "aside"?

    After your responses, I thought I might be overreacting or misreading his tone. So, I looked into his posting history. You'll notice the same disrespectful attitude in this thread, which got him this reply:
    WillCAD wrote:
    But no matter what Wally decides to do, his outrage at having his intellectual property stolen is completely justified, IMHO, and denigrating his work with your comments was insulting and unnecessary.



    So, in conclusion:
    1. He is habitually insulting, based on (at least) 2 independent opinions.
    2. My dismissive response to him was appropriate.
    If I haven't managed to convince you with this, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited March 21, 2011
    Bought a lens yet with the proceeds from your vacation shots? ;)
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited March 21, 2011
    orljustin wrote: »
    Bought a lens yet with the proceeds from your vacation shots? ;)

    I've just about had it with you. Your constant snippy, inappropriate responses to people on this forum earned you a banishment recently and I'm of the mind to do it again.

    Snaps-a-lot never spoke of vacation shots and who are you to tell anyone what their hobby should or shouldn't be?

    For someone with no portfolio of his work or who has never posted a photo you sure are full of opinion, albeit acidic.

    If you don't have anything of value to add to a thread then do everyone a favor and simply say nothing. deal.gif

    Snaps-a-lot: I apologize for not nipping this in the bud earlier. I had been watching this thread hoping it wouldn't flame out. And I think the last few posters misread some of the thread but my admonition to you would be similar. We welcome your participation but there's no need to fuel the flames when another posts something foolish or rude. :nono
    Just move on and appreciate the responses containing good information. The mods will cull the garbage as necessary. thumb.gif

    .
  • OffTopicOffTopic Registered Users Posts: 521 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2011
    mercphoto wrote: »
    Microstock is just an exercise in frustration.

    Microstock is an exercise in stupidity as far as I'm concerned, but neither of the two sites mentioned are microstock sites. There is a big difference and I'd be one of the first people to beg someone not to do microstock. RM stock photography sales still can bring in real money, not the pittance that microstock sites license images for, and so can a good RF image that is licensed in volume. Both of the agencies the OP inquired about license images for fair prices. The commission percentage the photographer receives might not be the best in the industry, but that's a different story.


    Like any other venture, in order to be successful you need to have a plan and that's why I encouraged you to learn a little about it first. You can't just submit images to an agency and sit back waiting for the money to come in because it's not gonna happen that easily.

    Landscapes and wildlife are very tough because there are many, many photographers submitting those images. If you can find a niche that is under-represented and you market it yourself you have a shot at making it work. If you just upload the same types of images that everyone else uploads and rely on the agency to do all of your marketing you will be disappointed.

    The things that make a good stock photo aren't always the same criteria that we use to critique images on in this forum - you need to think about having room for copy, you need to think about page size and layout when shooting, try to always grab the horizontal and vertical when appropriate, crop loosely because if it's cropped as tightly as you would for a framed print it will not have as many uses, etc. Take time to look through magazines to find images (editorial and advertising) similar to yours and see how they are used, ask yourself why that specific image was chosen, get a feel for the 'look' that is popular and think about those things when you are shooting or selecting what images to send to an agency. Deciding whether you think an image would do better as RF or RM is one of the challenges. Each stock agency has specific requirements on how your file needs to be prepared and you need to be intimately familiar with their QC process. If you don't examine every inch of every single image at 100% every single time, don't even think about submitting it.

    By the way, are you (or have ever been) a contributor of one of these agencies? If so, what has been your experience in terms of effort vs. income?

    No I'm sorry I don't have any experience with either of those agencies. I know that flikr in general gets a lot of attention but the rampant image theft scares me off...it's a great way to get your work out there and seen and I think all the time about what I might be missing but the risk isn't worth the reward to me right now (not to mention that I don't have the time to maintain yet another portfolio site), and I'm not familiar with iStock at all.


    Pick three of your images that you think would be appropriate for Royalty Free, make your initial application with iStock, go through their on-line tutorial and take the test. If you pass the knowledge test your images will go through QC. I guarantee you'll learn a lot just by going through the process. If you pass, you'll have an agency for your Royalty Free images and you can use what you learned in the process to find a different agency for your Rights Managed images. You've only sent them four images and you can just leave it at that if you want. If you fail, at least you get a good idea of whether or not you want to work on getting accepted the next time around. You won't get the same kind of direct feedback with the Getty Flikr process from what I understand.


    And just to clarify the RF/RM issue because it sounded as if you thought I meant that your entire portfolio has to be one or the other and once you choose RF or RM you can't change; it's only if a specific image has actually been licensed as RF, someone has actually purchased an RF license from you, that you can't then license that specific image as RM. If it's never actually been licensed you can change the type license that you are offering. That's an oversimplification because RM licensing can get complicated when you get into issues like exclusivity and having to make sure you don't have conflicting terms when you license an image more than once.
  • sara505sara505 Registered Users Posts: 1,684 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2011
    Angelo wrote: »
    I've just about had it with you. Your constant snippy, inappropriate responses to people on this forum earned you a banishment recently and I'm of the mind to do it again.

    Snaps-a-lot never spoke of vacation shots and who are you to tell anyone what their hobby should or shouldn't be?

    For someone with no portfolio of his work or who has never posted a photo you sure are full of opinion, albeit acidic.

    If you don't have anything of value to add to a thread then do everyone a favor and simply say nothing. deal.gif

    Snaps-a-lot: I apologize for not nipping this in the bud earlier. I had been watching this thread hoping it wouldn't flame out. And I think the last few posters misread some of the thread but my admonition to you would be similar. We welcome your participation but there's no need to fuel the flames when another posts something foolish or rude. :nono
    Just move on and appreciate the responses containing good information. The mods will cull the garbage as necessary. thumb.gif

    .

    Well, said and well done, Angelo.
  • orljustinorljustin Registered Users Posts: 193 Major grins
    edited March 23, 2011
    Angelo wrote: »
    I've just about had it with you. Your constant snippy, inappropriate responses to people on this forum earned you a banishment recently and I'm of the mind to do it again.

    Snaps-a-lot never spoke of vacation shots and who are you to tell anyone what their hobby should or shouldn't be?
    .

    I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've never been "banished" here.

    "Travel shots" normally = "vacation shots". ie., "things I took pictures of while traveling on vacation". "Travel shots" just makes them sound more important. If he was a real travel photographer who primarily went to countries to photograph, spent time doing research and interacting with the locals to get real "travel shots", he probably wouldn't be asking about if he can sell enough of his work to buy a lens. Real "travel shots" tend to show a personality of the people in the area, or an insightful look at things or places found while taking time to become a part of the area. "vacation shots" are "here's my cruise ship from the mountain side as we drove up at 40mph". I don't believe the OP provided any examples to one facet or the other.

    I don't believe I said anything about what their "hobby should be". What the OP said was "since I don't do this for a living, just for fun/motivation" and I said "Why not find some other outlet for fun/motivation?" meaning, to be clearer, that if you are just looking for "fun", why not join flickr or one of those other sites where there is constant praise, and little contest groups and stuff. Creating a viable stock portfolio takes work, and people who tend to start with their vacation images because it looks "fun" tend to drop away quickly and vanish, and it turns out it wasn't that fund or motivating after all.
Sign In or Register to comment.