Jump to content

Keith Douglas

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keith Douglas

  1. Sunday Telegraph print edition, P6. Cumbrian Express steam train on the Settle to Carlisle Line. Large, full page width image, but cropped top and bottom from original Alamy Live News image. KEFC3Y, by John Bentley Sorry, I don't know how to include the image.
  2. That assumes that the amount actually paid bears some resemblance to the pricing!
  3. I thought I'd have a dabble with RF to see how it goes, so I've now got about 7% of my portfolio available as RF. I can see why image buyers might prefer to pay more for the RF licence (rather than the RM licence) where they expect to use the image multiple times. But if it's for a one off use why would the buyer pay the HIGHER cost for an RF licence? Well that's how I understood the RF licence would work - higher licence fee than RM for unlimited uses ........ Maybe mine was an exception? Will be keeping a close eye on how my pilot progresses before jumping in much deeper with RF.
  4. Thanks for that Claire. A lovely station, well worth a visit (Grange over Sands)
  5. 8 sales for $143 gross. Slightly below average for me, but an improvement over last month.
  6. Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with the terms at other agencies, but I accept that some may impose restrictions on images that are sold elsewhere. In fact Alamy themselves require that images are sold as either RF or RM but not both at the same time. My question is why do agencies impose these restrictions? Is it to simplify things? Is it because they want to position themselves in a particular way? Are there some more fundamental legal issues? I'm relatively new to the stock industry so I didn't see the development of the RF model of selling images. However, it seemed to me that the separation into RM and RF mixed up two things : I) The payment terms for a licence and ii) The status, or requirement for property or model releases. At least as far as Alamy is concerned, it appears to me that we are now seeing a disentanglement of these two.
  7. Just out of interest, what is the reason behind not selling an image both RF and RM at the same time? There appears to be no restriction anymore at Alamy on selling an image RM this week and RF next week or vice versa. Indeed, Alamy appear to be actively encouraging contributors to change images from RM to RF.
  8. 10 sales for a total of $295 gross, so a good month for me. Nine of the ten sales were for images taken and put on sale over two years ago.
  9. Sales numbers flat. Gross revenue down 25% However, last year (and the 2 years before) I had some success in getting a few LiveNews images into newspapers and that pulled up the revenue average quite nicely. Moving home to a new location has stalled that temporarily as I familiarise myself with the local area! Hoping for a pickup later in the year.
  10. That is really the only clause (2.2) in the contract now restricting the type of licences that can be specified. Up until a couple of years ago the application of licence types was much more restrictive - it would have prevented the type of switching that I described. I think that the recent changes that were made to the contracts, and Alamy indicating in the Image Manager that RF is preferred, are the strongest indicators of where the market is heading. Yes, there will still be niches where RM is more appropriate, both for the customer and the photographers. For most of what I have it probably isn't, so I think I'll give RF a go across some of my portfolio.
  11. Why not? (Other than if the agency stipulate that in their contract). It seems to me that Alamy have finally taken out a lot of the confusion about RF/RM that was tied in with Releases and the workflow within the previous Image Manager. Now the photographer can decide on an image by image basis whether they want payment for each use (RM) or a one off payment for any use (RF). There's nothing to stop me offering an image RM this week, RF next week, and back to RM the following week. And why shouldn't I? It's only at the point of sale that the customer is locked in to the licence type that applied at the time, and presumably something that they are willing to go with. What if the customer likes my image this week, would really like to buy it RF, but can only buy it RM - then they find out that next week it's available RF? Is that any different to me going into a store and buying a product only to find that if I'd waited a week I could have got it cheaper/with extra loyalty points/ with free insurance etc. ? And then I wait another week and find that the offers have gone.
  12. 2 sales for $162 gross revenue. Revenue total saved by a single $149 sale early in the month. I still find it puzzling why my sales numbers are so variable. For the last 6 months they've been 7,7,1,11,12,2. Or is this a common experience for other contributors?
  13. 12 sales for $190 gross. Just slightly below average total monthly revenue, but quite a long way down on average revenue per image.
  14. Is that the same BBC that are increasingly attempting to get people to submit their images to them so that they can use them for free? You, too can become a BBC Weather Watcher!! https://www.bbc.co.uk/weatherwatchers/
  15. I think Gary is referring to incorrect captions on other contributors images. There is no flagging system, so an email to Contributor Relations is the only way, and then presumably Alamy themselves would follow it up. Keith
  16. I agree. I cannot understand why Alamy think it's acceptable to treat a significant percentage of their suppliers in this way and keep them in the dark. It's just poor communication again.
  17. Well done Kumar in reaching this milestone and in maintaining the quality and variety that continues to return impressive sales figures. Keith
  18. 2016: Gross sale revenue almost the same as 2015. Sales by volume up 50% from 2015 One factor in this though is the percentage of Live News sales. A handful of those in a printed newspaper can make a large difference to the revenue figure, and that was an important contributor for me in 2015. So, while my average revenue per sale has gone down in 2016, it's perhaps not as significant as the raw data might suggest.
  19. 7 sales for $203 gross. An improvement over November and in line with my 2016 average.
  20. Thanks for that spot Michael. I had seen it zoomed but would never have know that it had made it to the Washington Post! Keith
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.