I used to be an iStock / Getty Images contributor.
After mature consideration, I decided to terminate my membership in this "club".
The main reason was the incredibly low "earnings" from the sale of each photo.
My cost per one photo was in the tens of dollars, but the "commissions" Getty sent me were literally a few cents.
In mid-2020, I announced Getty Images that I would terminate my activities.
However, after a few months, I found out that Getty still sends a statement every month that shows some items in the revenue.
But Getty didn't list them on the invoice as photo sales; they were listed in the section labeled photo licenses fees.
When asked by Getty, they sent me an explanation that these were not new sales, but that they were, for example, certain adjustment fees from sales that had been made before, royalty corrections, etc.
According to the invoice, most of these fees in terms of the number of individual cases came from the territory of Australia. As for earnings, these income fees did not reach even one cent from a single photograph. I asked Getty to tell me who their partner site in Australia was so that I could verify the reported fees/sales.
They refused.
But even so, I finally got to that source.
The Australian partner of iStock / Getty Images is Canva.
As I verified, Canva continued to sell my portfolio even after I terminated my contract with iStock / Getty Images and despite assurances from Getty that my portfolio was withdrawn from sale from all sites as early as 2020.
Sept 10, 2021,
The content was pulled from all sites by Oct.2020
Sean M.| Senior Contributor Services Specialist
Contributor Services
Getty Images | iStockAnd Canva apparently continues to resell the contents of my portfolio.
Feb 4, 2022,
Thank you for sending the MediaID.
Your images are in Canva's library because of our partnership with Getty Images...
Canva Marketplace Team I have also verified that the reported fees only and no sales, as Getty claims, are not based on the truth.
In fact, these are exactly the same sales as the photos are sold by other microstock, such as Shutterstock, Adobe, but also iStock / Getty Images.
The difference is significant. Firstly, in the selling price of the photograph and then also in the calculation of commissions for contributors, and finally even
if he admits such a sale at all.While "Getty" sells a single download with the appropriate licenses for 475.00 (e.g. here -
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/poppy-seed-royalty-free-image/185065218 [nofollow]) so for exactly the same sale of the Canva you will receive a generous
0.3 cents from the Getty with the bonus assurance that there is actually no sale.
I get the point the amount of 0.3 cents can hardly be considered revenue from such a sale.
The question is whether they invented this in Getty or Canva, or baked it together.
Or if Getty knows about it at all.
At the end of 2021, I sent Getty another 3 tickets regarding specific data from invoices and text statements. I waited for about 2 months for an answer. I did a simple thing. I randomly selected 3 so-called fees/non-sales (as Getty claims) and asked them to indicate on the statements where the initial sales from which the later adjustment fees were calculated.
All 3 tickets were included in one answer without specific data or explanations.
Apart from the general chatter that nothing is being sold, and that they are just evening up
everything clear Canva end user licenses are a chapter in themselves.
When downloading images, nothing warns you about any license and nothing specific will be sent to you by e-mail. When I was repeatedly asking the Canva staff about this matter, I received an answer that could be summarized as: License? Well, we have nothing to do with it, you have to find out for yourself at Getty
Feb 9, 2022
Unfortunately, we don't have the details of your sales in Canva because your image is under Getty Images. Our advice is to reach out to Getty about sales, invoices, and agreements.
Hope this makes everything clear...
Canva Marketplace Team, I do not know. One of the problems is that the reported sales/fees sent to Gettys contributors are so confusing and complicated that not only the contributors but also the iStock/Getty Images employees who produce these documents are not at all familiar with them.
Although sales and fees are split separately on the PDF invoice, the text document that contains the details of these invoices has all the data mixed together and it is not possible to distinguish what are the sales and what are just the so-called fees.
On one invoice, for example, fees were divided into two parts, and when I asked why, I got the following answer:
Dec 8, 2021
Why the pdf royalty statement invoice breaks all the sales into two amounts ..., I do not know.
Contributor Services
Getty Images | iStock Another problem is the communication itself.
As an example, it took Canva many months to confirm that the portfolio they had was actually from Getty and I had to urge them to send it 3 times. When I sent an email, I had to wait about 3 to 4 months to receive an answer.
Free of charge business All the problems Ive described here, along with Gettys keeping denying, is the perfect system for robbing contributors.
Canva not only sells photos, but also give them away for free.
As part of the trial, you can download everything they have for free and without restrictions.
It costs nothing, neither Canva nor Getty.
Everything is at the expense of the contributors, who will most likely never know about it.
Business with photos like Getty and Canva do it can be done from the garage today.
Lets look at what Canva and Getty are, or rather, who is behind these concepts.
iStock/Getty is unnecessary to introduce, its an intertwined business with a long history.
Melanie Perkins, one of the richest women in Australia and even in the world, is a Canva co-founder and CEO (according what Google says):
https://shaktipreneurs.org/2022/02/03/the-phenomenal-journey-of-melanie-perkins-founder-of-canva/ [nofollow] https://www.esquiremag.ph/money/movers/who-is-melanie-perkins-billionaire-a00304-20210416-lfrm
[nofollow] I dont see anything phenomenal about secretly robbing others, and from this point of view, the extolled philanthropy of hers is just a PR which helps to drive it all.
I dont care about the richness of one or the other, but Im definitely bothered by the fact that I contributed involuntarily to it all myself.
And apparently I still contribute.
Involuntarily.
Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.
Honor De Balzac
Getty resembles a sinking ship that is almost under water, and the captain is still trying to sell off everything he has below cost before he jumps secretly into a lifeboat and lets the crew, that is, his contributors who have no idea, to drown.
January 21, 2008, 05:41
