Shared publicly  - 
 
Yay!  Thomas quit Getty!  I quit them over two years ago because it is HIGHWAY ROBBERY!  It's basically Internet Slave Labor where they have skilled photographers all over the place taking photos then KEEPING 80% in most cases!  It's shameful what Getty does to photographers.  

Most of you know I Wish Google would let me sell my 5000+ images directly and they can keep a small percentage.  But they have other fish to fry... until then, I'm going with +Stocksy United , just like Thomas below.
242
24
Elizabeth Sheppard's profile photoKalpak Shah's profile photoChris Allard's profile photoSam Doyle's profile photo
24 comments
 
Yes, yes, Google please start some kind of selling program for us. 
 
G'day Trey, have you any experience with Alamy, positive or otherwise?
 
Great points to hear from you Trey and Thomas Hawk, I've just been reading about this for the last half hour. I just went on Stocksy and answered their call to become a contributor. I doubt my HDR pictures are the direction they are heading, according to their pinterest page, but hey a closed mouth doesn't get fed! Just in case those Stocksy guys read your thread, I'd like to remind them that my portfolio site is www.halewoodphoto.com, just in case you missed it first time :-)
 
In some ways, it sounds like Getty Images is to photographers what Spotify is to musicians. 
 
Thanks for sharing. Good to know. I will check out Stocksy
Translate
 
I'm still in 2 minds as to the whole Flickr/Getty thing. I have a few dozen images in the library and, while I feel robbed getting only 20% of the take on any license, my pictures actually sell there. On Alamy, where I get 75% (I think), I've yet to sell a single license in the 3 months I've had pictures posted. Getty may be screwing people but, for those of us with very much lower internet profiles, they do get eyes on our pictures. I definitely prefer 20% of something over 75% of nothing :-)
 
istockphoto only gives me 15%. Am I being robbed!? Maybe if I ever sold some pictures there I'd know... 
 
They should charge a flat fee per transaction or by image size (Mb) or something, since that is how their costs are and you get whatever's left, plus some way for you to set the price.  Am I wrong? I'm not in the industry. 
 
+Trey Ratcliff - Question: You handle all your own licensing (if I recall correctly), so I can understand why you would have ditched Getty a few years ago, but I'm not sure I understand why you are going from handling your own licensing (where you get to keep 100%) back to having someone else do it (even if they are giving you a better cut than Getty did).

I think many of us who are Getty Artists would really love to get more than 20-30% of the cut, so I hope that Stocksy really takes off and also allows more artists in.
 
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I occasionally use stock photos for projects, and will check out Stocksy in future.

I don't feel comfortable supporting a business model that gives so little back to the artists that create the work.
 
About time someone decided to be fair about this.
 
I think 60% is reasonable but 80% is ridiculous. Considering the number of competitors and how quickly competition can raise 50% would be the logical choice. How many companies can compete with that ? 
 
if u have quantity..only then u can produce quality ... 
Translate
 
Don't you just love the careful answers that corporate big cats give you like a computer is answering you.Could even be a computer.Have to investigate this.
Add a comment...