Getty & iStock Contributor Guide 2026

iStock's rate card, Getty's total ban on external AI, exclusivity trade-offs and the metadata standards that get files accepted. Updated for 2026.

# Getty Images and iStock Contributor Guide 2026: Rates, AI Rules and Metadata Getty Images and iStock sit at the strict end of the stock market. Acceptance is harder, review is slower, and the royalty structure is more complex than anywhere else. In exchange, per-sale values are higher and the buyer base is more commercial. This guide covers the 2026 rate card, the AI policy that rules out most generative workflows, and the metadata standards that decide whether your files clear review. ## How the 2026 royalty structure works iStock does not pay a single flat percentage. Your rate depends on three things: whether the content is exclusive, where the sale happens, and how many downloads you have accumulated during the year. Under the rate card effective **1 July 2026**, exclusive contributors start at **25% for images and video** and **30% for illustrations**. For off-platform sales — content licensed through Getty Images and other distribution channels rather than iStock itself — exclusive contributors earn **20% for photos and illustrations** and **25% for video**. Those are starting rates. As you hit Download Targets through the year, the percentage climbs. This is a meaningful difference from Adobe Stock's flat 33%: on Getty, volume compounds. ### Minimum price guarantees The percentage is only half the picture. iStock also guarantees a floor per licensed file, which protects you when a buyer licenses on a cheap subscription plan. Guarantees run from about **$0.10** for a non-exclusive subscription download up to **$0.75–$4.15** for exclusive photos and illustrations, and as high as **$10.00** for exclusive Signature and Signature+ video. The spread between $0.10 and $4.15 for the same kind of file is the clearest argument for exclusivity on this platform — and the clearest reason why a non-exclusive contributor should treat iStock as one channel among several rather than a primary income source. ## The AI policy: stricter than anywhere else This is where Getty diverges sharply from the rest of the market. **Getty Images bans externally generated AI content entirely.** iStock sells AI imagery, but only from its own licensed in-house generator — not from contributor submissions. There is a second rule that catches people out. You cannot use AI-generated elements **as props inside camera-shot content**. If you photograph a real scene but the poster on the wall, the artwork on the screen or the pattern on the fabric was generated by AI, that file is not eligible. The requirement is that you own the copyright to the file *and* to any artwork visible within it. This is a deliberately conservative position aimed at commercial safety for enterprise buyers, and it is the opposite of where Adobe Stock and Freepik have landed. If generative work is a significant part of your output, Getty and iStock are simply not destinations for it — plan your distribution accordingly rather than risking your account. ## Exclusivity: the real trade-off Exclusive status roughly doubles your rate and unlocks the higher price guarantees. It also removes that content from every other agency, permanently, for as long as it stays exclusive. The calculation is straightforward but personal: - If your sales are already concentrated on iStock and your files underperform elsewhere, exclusivity converts the same portfolio into meaningfully more revenue. - If you run a diversified portfolio across Adobe Stock, Shutterstock, Alamy and others, exclusivity means giving up several income streams for one improved rate. That is rarely a net gain. A middle path some contributors use is selective exclusivity: keeping the bulk of the portfolio non-exclusive while making a specific high-performing collection exclusive to capture the higher guarantees on files that actually sell there. ## Metadata standards that clear review Getty and iStock inspect more thoroughly than most agencies, and metadata is a routine rejection cause rather than an afterthought. **Controlled vocabulary carries weight.** Getty maps your keywords onto its own taxonomy. Terms that sit inside that vocabulary help; invented or loosely related terms do not, and dilute the accurate ones. **Descriptions must be factual, not promotional.** Marketing language, subjective claims and adjective stacking read as noise. Describe what is actually visible. **Editorial captions follow a strict structure.** Who, what, where, when — with an accurate date. Editorial content with a vague or wrong caption is rejected regardless of image quality. **Release status must be correct.** Getty takes rights seriously, and misdeclared releases are treated as a serious problem rather than a clerical one. **Similar content gets pruned.** Uploading eight near-identical frames from one shoot invites a similar-content rejection across the set. Choose the strongest frame. Our guide to [writing metadata for stock photos](/blog/how-to-write-metadata-for-stock-photos) covers the underlying fields in more depth, and [Adobe Stock rejection reasons](/blog/adobe-stock-rejection-reasons) explains how the same problems appear at a less strict agency. ## Fitting Getty into a multi-agency workflow The practical difficulty with Getty and iStock is that their rules contradict other agencies' rules. Adobe caps keywords at 49 and accepts labelled AI content. Freepik accepts AI from any tool provided you tag it. Getty accepts no external AI at all and wants controlled-vocabulary terms. Alamy has no keyword cap but banned AI outright in its September 2026 contract. Running all of that from one spreadsheet does not scale. Once you are submitting to more than two or three agencies, you need per-agency metadata rather than one keyword list copied everywhere. Rastock AI [generates metadata per agency and delivers over FTP](/features), so a Getty batch can follow Getty's vocabulary and release conventions while an Adobe batch follows Adobe's limits — without you tracking the differences by hand. Plans are listed by upload volume on the [pricing page](/pricing). ## Is Getty worth it in 2026? For contributors producing genuinely commercial, well-released, camera-shot work, yes — per-sale values are among the best in the industry and the buyer base pays for quality. For contributors working primarily in generative AI, no: the door is closed and unlikely to reopen given Getty's commercial-safety positioning. The honest framing is that Getty and iStock reward a specific kind of production: fewer files, higher standards, correct paperwork. If that describes your work, the rate card rewards you. If your strength is volume, your time is better spent on agencies built for it. This guide is part of our overview of [where to sell stock photos](https://rastock.ai/blog/where-to-sell-stock-photos), which compares every major agency on royalties, review standards and AI policy. ## Related reading - [Metadata for Generative AI Images: Meeting Agency Rules](https://rastock.ai/blog/metadata-for-generative-ai-images-agency-rules) - [Freepik Contributor Guide 2026: AI Labelling, Earnings and Bulk Uploads](https://rastock.ai/blog/speed-up-freepik-uploads-with-ai-metadata) - [Sell Photos for Stock: Complete 2026 Guide](https://rastock.ai/blog/sell-photos-for-stock)

Frequently asked questions

What royalty rate do Getty Images and iStock contributors earn?

Under the rate card effective 1 July 2026, exclusive iStock contributors start at 25% for images and video and 30% for illustrations. Off-platform sales through Getty and other distribution channels pay exclusive contributors 20% for photos and illustrations and 25% for video. Rates rise as you hit Download Targets during the year.

Does Getty Images accept AI-generated images?

No. Getty bans externally generated AI content entirely. iStock sells AI imagery only from its own licensed in-house generator. You also cannot use AI-generated elements as props inside camera-shot work, because you must own the copyright to the file and to any artwork visible within it.

Is iStock exclusivity worth it?

Exclusivity roughly doubles your rate and unlocks higher minimum price guarantees, but it locks that content out of every other agency. It usually makes sense for contributors whose sales are already concentrated on iStock, and rarely for those with a diversified portfolio across Adobe Stock, Shutterstock and Alamy.

What are iStock's minimum price guarantees?

iStock guarantees a floor per licensed file rather than a pure percentage. Guarantees range from around $0.10 for non-exclusive subscription downloads up to $0.75–$4.15 for exclusive photos and illustrations, and as much as $10.00 for exclusive Signature and Signature+ video.

What metadata does Getty require?

Getty and iStock weight controlled vocabulary heavily. Descriptions must be factually accurate and free of promotional language, editorial captions need the full who/what/where/when structure with an accurate date, and release status must be declared correctly. Inaccurate metadata is one of the most common rejection causes.

How long does iStock review take?

Review times vary with queue volume and are typically slower than Adobe Stock or Shutterstock because inspection is more thorough. Getty and iStock reject for technical faults, similar content and metadata problems, so a clean first submission matters more here than at agencies with faster, lighter review.