I uploaded one photo to Getty stock four years ago. How much did I make?

Four years ago, probably sitting at home bored one night, I registered as a Getty contributor and uploaded an image which was accepted onto the stock library platform - and then promptly forgot all about it. 

I'd taken the photo in 2018 on Fraser island/K'Gari on a World Photo Adventures workshop, and it was one of those shots I knew would probably make for a good stock image - charismatic Australian mammal - tick, nice framing - tick, tasteful sunset - tick...all those things that the modern stock image photographer should be aiming to capture.

Despite bold dreams of making a successful side-hustle as a roving stock image photographer, I promptly never uploaded another thing and moved on with my life - got married, had another child, bought a house - you know the deal. 

However, this weekend I was shaken out of my usual daze when I happened to notice the Guardian had used the shot to headline a story about recent tourist attacks by dingoes on the island.

I quickly remembered I'd never logged into my account, or ever been paid, and couldn't even remember anything about what rights I'd given Getty to use the image - probably not a good look, but something that's easily done when you're not familiar with the opaque world of stock imagery. Still, that's on me. 

Anyway, buoyed by the fact I might be sitting on unheard of riches, I decided to go in and have a look. 

Turns out, there wasn't much to speak of. For one, I'd never even set up any payment details, so even if Getty had wanted to pay me they couldn't - whoops.

With that corrected, I went to look through the previous four years of statements to try and work out if I was sitting on a goldmine - spoiler alert: I wasn't.

So what did Getty owe me after four years flogging my dingo shot? $46.53 USD. Ouch. 

There's a few upsides to this - well one or two.

I could only work this out from a reverse image search, but in addition to the Guardian's story, the image was used in 2020 by the Daily Mail to illustrate a story headlined 'poison meant to kill dingoes in Australia is making them larger' (Another spoiler alert: seems like this is actually true).

The other was a pretty cringe-worthy Buzzfeed quiz that asked people to 'Answer Seven Questions And We'll Tell You Which McDonald's Breakfast Item You're Most Like' - I got Bacon and Egg McMuffin in case you were wondering. 

In addition, Getty's own usage tracking told me the image had been downloaded in the last two years in Australia, USA, UK, Russia and even Norway, presumably for purposes that didn't end up online, but did make me wonder - who in Norway is into Dingoes!?

Now, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with any of this, and I agreed to Getty's terms when I signed up that made the potential image use clear, but it's worth keeping in mind that once your images are out there you have no control over their use - it really could end up anywhere.

And, I suppose you could argue that $46 for one image over the past four years isn't actually that bad - if you had twenty images like this you could be making a few bucks, and Getty does reward photographers who are actively supplying work to the platform, meaning if you were continuously uploading quality work you would be rewarded. 

But, Getty's payment threshold for the contract I signed (i.e when you get paid) is a minimum of $100 USD. So, if my shot continues to sell at its current rate, I'll be getting my first royalty check in 2029, a decade after I first uploaded the image. 

So, what do you think? Was it worth me uploading my work to a stock library? Do you upload yours? Let me know what you think.