I just got an invite to sell my photos to Getty via Flickr, anybody else?

[Leica All Day]

I just got an email (via Flickr) saying this

"Hi michael bialecki,

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 11 of your photos for possible inclusion in the program. Here are a few of them:"

Under this message were some of my photos that Getty has selected....

I already read about the terms and conditions and I am curious if anybody has sold their photos in this manner.

cheers, michael

p.s. one of the photos they selected is a portrait of me 🙂 I can't even imagine what they would use that one for

 

[segedi]

I'd be cautious as to not sign the right to sell them yourself away. Most of the stock photo companies have very restrictive contracts and the pay isn't that great. It might make sense for someone that has thousands of stock photos, but for 11 photos, it's probably more a benefit to them than to you. Let us know what you decide and how it works out.

 

[FalseDigital]

I got one of those awhile ago. I denied their request.

I agree with the previous poster. If you have thousands of images and you shot them for the purpose of stock then it might benefit you.

However, only a handful of images won't be worth what they give them for you (which is usually $1 or less per image)...and if you shoot anything professionally it will devalue your work.

So I say, don't do it.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[RobGetz]

Do. Not. Do. It.

Getty is leveraging their prestigious name to get images for (basically) free, when compared to what they would have to pay for name brand photographers. Do not be fooled. It is not an honor. A robot probably combed your photos for tags. No one "selected it." What's more, you may sell one or two photos for pennies on the dollar over many years. But you probably won't.

It's called crowdsourcing. And it will slowly put all of us out of jobs. (And I don't mean just photographers).

Someone did have a good idea though. It's a plain fact that technical and aesthetic photography involves little skill--especially w/ digital. So, even if only 0.005% of all amateur photographs are acceptable, if you get 10,000,000 photographs together, or some such as flickr does, you've got 50,000 gorgeous images to choose from.

 

[MichaelW]

I think not only do you get very little money for your photos, but you also give Getty exclusive rights to them forever.

 

[back alley]

are there any getty members here?
and are you making any $$?

 

[EdwardKaraa]

It doesn't hurt to try IMHO.

 

[jsrockit]

It doesn't hurt to try IMHO.

It may if you have something that is worth something and you no longer have rights to use your image in a manner you see fit.

 

[rodt16s]

Yep, I did as well, but have only released a few.
They are very cautious about people pics and request a model release form.
Honestly it massaged the ego for a bit, but looking deeper I ddin't like the terms

 

[yoyo22]

just read that:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128313

 

[Katie]

I did it too. Had to submit loads of model releases - they wanted like 50 of my images, but I only did like 15. Haven't sold anything yet.

 

[seakayaker1]

just read that:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128313

Thanks for the link . . . . .

 

[bensyverson]

Getty set up the Flickr collection to offer photos that are more authentic than the stock photo "lifestyle" category, which is full of phony families. So they tend to ask for photos of friends hanging out, nice snapshot portraits, etc. In the past I've asked friends to sign releases and promised to split any profits with them.

They also like photos that are conceptual / or represent something that clients will be searching for. For example, Getty requested the photo below and tagged it with "risk," "danger," etc:


An insurance agency used it for a report of some kind, and I made hundreds of dollars. It's just a throwaway shot taken with a consumer digicam, so I didn't mind giving them the rights.

They will also ask for the moon (your best images), but I wouldn't recommend it... Your best work deserves a better rate.

Two important points to clear up about the Getty license:

1. You can still use the photo on your site, blog, etc, and you can still sell prints. You just can't license the photo to anyone else.
2. You can terminate your agreement with them at any time. There's a 90 day "wind-down" period during which they may still sell your work (and give you royalties). And if someone licensed your photo from Getty, they can still use it. But you can get out. It's not "forever."

 

[Shirley Creazzo]

I cannot speak from a photographer's point of view. I am - now, pretty much was - a commercial artist. [What they now call 'graphics' but I predate that!] For us it was clip art. [Think the only thing being clipped was the artist] Luckily I never partook. No worthwhile money involved. Even less now for photographers when the whole world has digital cameras.

I guess the link by Yoyo and seconded by seakayaker pretty much says it all. Still, if it makes you feel appreciated I guess it's okay.

 

[kbg32]

are there any getty members here?
and are you making any $$?

I am a long time Getty member. The money, if you have been following the business, is not as good as it was for the last 4 years. Those days are gone and will not return. Flickr/Getty members make less money then regular Getty contract photographers and it is getting worse year after year for everyone.

You can read some things here about iStock - http://www.microstockposts.com/

The business isn't pretty anymore.