Getty - worth it or not?

Just had an email through Flickr from Getty images saying they have " noticed your work on Flickr, and is pleased to offer you an invitation to enroll with them. They have selected 5 of your photos for possible inclusion in the program"

Of the 5 pics three are of my kids, one is a model which was used on a course I went on and the fifth is a 'generic' shot.

It's quite nice (I think) that I have been 'selected', and obviously they feel they are 'saleable' - now as I understand it I would hand over all rights of the image to Getty, I wouldn't be credited anywhere and would earn very little from it (if anything). On the other hand the chances of me selling any image without Getty is very, very small.

I think I'm ok with the fact that three of the pictures are of my kids. I put them on there and they are publicly viewable so I'm not fussed that people see them. The one of the model I need to check about. What are the rules in the UK regarding model releases? Are they even necessary over here as I know it differs to the States. Before the course I was told that model release forms would be obtained so they could be used for portfolios, but I don't know if it actually happened.

Should I add them or not? What are the possible downsides? Is it a 'good' thing?

tl:dr - Getty images contacted me interested in a few pictures, should I put them on there?

TIA

So you will make almost nothing and hand over all rights to the image?

How could that possibly be worth it?

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16426600
So you will make almost nothing and hand over all rights to the image?

How could that possibly be worth it?

I definitely see where you're coming from, but chances are if I don't hand over rights then I will definitely make nothing from those shots.

I know that's how it works, I make peanuts, they make money for nothing, the company that buys them gets cheap pictures.

I presume a lot of pros would hate Getty as they are effectively taking work away from you guys. One day I hope to be a 'pro' and make some money from pictures - Getty didn't really fit into any of the plans I had - but wouldn't necessarily dismiss it automatically (hence this thread)

You are not going to "hand over all rights of the image to Getty". You're the copyright owner and can sell them elsewhere under the same license model as Getty.

I think its worth it. I have 6 photos up on there, I need to release and approve about 30 more, but in the 3 months I've had the images up I made $57. These weren't gonna make me money just sitting on my hard drive. All how you think about it.

As long as you are ok with them making 80% or more commission off your photos - then it's all good.

bayvillian516 wrote in post #16426631
I think its worth it. I have 6 photos up on there, I need to release and approve about 30 more, but in the 3 months I've had the images up I made $57. These weren't gonna make me money just sitting on my hard drive. All how you think about it.

You'll have the price of lens hood by next April.

sancho1983 wrote in post #16426619
I presume a lot of pros would hate Getty as they are effectively taking work away from you guys. One day I hope to be a 'pro' and make some money from pictures - Getty didn't really fit into any of the plans I had - but wouldn't necessarily dismiss it automatically (hence this thread)

So you want to be a pro someday, but you are happy to throw those pics out for nothing - basically hurting your market to make money in the future.

Those two things don't jibe.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16426994
So you want to be a pro someday, but you are happy to throw those pics out for nothing - basically hurting your market to make money in the future.

Those two things don't jibe.

Well I want to take pictures of other people's kids/families. I don't follow that putting pictures on Getty of my children would hurt that.

Happy to learn though

sancho1983 wrote in post #16427073
Well I want to take pictures of other people's kids/families. I don't follow that putting pictures on Getty of my children would hurt that.

Happy to learn though

Oh, gotcha. It will only hurt other people.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16427151
Oh, gotcha. It will only hurt other people.

Make up your mind.

You say I shouldn't do it as it may hurt my market to make money, now you're saying not to do it as it will hurt other people's market to make money.

You seem very judgemental, I understand your passion to keep the business you're in from being eroded by things like Getty and other stock sites, I will 100% say your work is better than mine, and perhaps you are more qualified to make your opinions heard, however I think you are quite rude.

As someone who is 'starting on the journey' in this business it's nice to be recognised (however small that recognition may be). I'm sure you remember a time when you wanted confirmation that you weren't too bad?

I was asking for good and bad things about doing it, I'm glad you contributed, I'm still undecided, but I don't see why you need to be so judgemental.

Cheers

I probably would look into other stock photo places like iStockphoto.com and similar ones....you may get a better deal than on Getty.

KarenRice wrote in post #16427240
I probably would look into other stock photo places like iStockphoto.com and similar ones....you may get a better deal than on Getty.

Guess who owns iStock.

sancho1983 wrote in post #16427177
Make up your mind.

You say I shouldn't do it as it may hurt my market to make money, now you're saying not to do it as it will hurt other people's market to make money.

You didn't say what you wanted to do. You said you wanted to be a pro and make money from pics. I gave my opinion.

sancho1983 wrote in post #16427177
You seem very judgemental, I understand your passion to keep the business you're in from being eroded by things like Getty and other stock sites, I will 100% say your work is better than mine, and perhaps you are more qualified to make your opinions heard, however I think you are quite rude.

I don't really care that you think I am rude. And I don't do stock imagery like that because the market is dead and it would cost me too much time with too little return to prep pics/keyword/etc. I have a good set that I COULD sell, but the market isn't there anymore due to the abundance of microstock sites selling/giving pics away.

sancho1983 wrote in post #16427177
As someone who is 'starting on the journey' in this business it's nice to be recognised (however small that recognition may be). I'm sure you remember a time when you wanted confirmation that you weren't too bad?

Then I think you are looking for it in the wrong place. You can get recognized for work and get better many ways.

I get a lot more validation from getting a great critique from someone that is an opinion leader/industry leader than just selling or getting published. I never really had this craving for being published and still don't. If I get a big/good published photo, I will try to milk it for all its worth, but I am more interested in creating great work than getting a big print published.

Ultimately, being published won't get you more work or further your career. Especially if you are just trying to be shooting kids/families.

sancho1983 wrote in post #16427177
I was asking for good and bad things about doing it, I'm glad you contributed, I'm still undecided, but I don't see why you need to be so judgemental.

Cheers

You asked opinions. I'm giving them. If you don't like them, ignore them.

People, even professional photographers, often confuse stock photography as industry with its subset - microstock or royalty free stock photography. You can read about these licensing models Right Managed and Royalty free.

iStock is an example of Royalty Free model, which pays a few dollars per download. Getty or Alamy (although started to offer royalty free as well) - Right Managed. The last photo my company bought through Alamy was $700. Alamy Blue (a type of membership): Alamy commission 50%, Contributor commission 50%.

I understand the logic of 'these photos weren't going to make me any money, so any is better than none' - but were those photos taken to make you money? They were taken for your own enjoyment, one imagines, and perhaps with some interest in building a portfolio. Just because someone offers you money you didn't have prior for the photos, doesn't mean that is or becomes their value. Their value needn't (and fortunately for me, with most of my photos it isn't) only be monetary, especially in the case of photos of one's children.

I've no personal experience either way, I only write this as something to consider. (You would also need to consult the subjects in each case as well, I imagine.) My two cents, probably worth less on the open market than a stock photo, but I'm happy to give these two away.