Ollie

"Czech Republic, Editorial, Editorial, Website, Bulk discount, flat rate per image Not enough for a stale donut." I've opted out of Czech Republic sales. Everyone else should do the same. Maybe market forces will eventually start to work. Didn't know about Slovenia and Serbia. If similarly low prices are being given those two countries I'll opt out of them too. But Alamy seems to have missed the creation of the country of Serbia; it isn't in the list. Nice to know we can still opt out of the country of Yugoslavia. Is Alamy in the news business?

" How can a license for Editorial website usage have a print run?" Good question. Let us know what Alamy says.

PhotoShelter offers everything you need, but will cost you about $30 a month, depending on how much image storage space you need. They offer more than one option. www.photoshelter.com Ollie

I'm opting out of the Czech Republic. Am just fed up with low, single-digit dollar sales to that market. They are not a Third World underdeveloped country and should be able to pay prices more in line with what the rest of Europe is paying. I doubt that Czech users will notice that my 29,000 images are no longer available, but if enough contributors did this perhaps it would convey the lesson that market forces can be brought to bear. Ollie

Sally: ...but it looks as if we're being denied the opportunity to license our images in Serbia and Montenegro. Big markets, no doubt. Chuck

Still about normal for me in number of sales (15 this month) but gross prices notably lower (total $539, or $35.93 per sale).

Licensing the image for a book cover, in this case, brought $950 to Alamy, half to me. Alamy says that's a lot, and don't worry about the other magazine and inside uses that now will not occur.

I had one a few months ago, which resulted in a license for the book cover. Exclusive use as a book cover was all the customer asked for. I replied that I would agree to that on the assumption that licensing for other purposes would still be permitted. Alamy did not comment on my assumption but went ahead and licensed the image. I was surprised when I later inadvertently discovered that Alamy now shows the image as not available for any licensing for magazines or books. I asked why, noting that this notation deprives both Alamy and me of any additional revenues that could be gained from magazine use, or from use inside a book. (And this only shortly before Alamy told us it would lower commissions to 40% because it needs more money.) Alamy replied that its software is currently incapable of distinguishing between book and magazine use, and book cover and inside use. So be aware that if you consent to exclusive use as a book cover you are in effect removing that image from further consideration for other licenses for magazine use or for inside book use. I hope Alamy will use some of the money it's now earning from its increased commissions to pay for improvements in its website software.

I've been with Alamy many years and I don't ever recall receiving anything from them to document my proceeds. I just add up the monthly deposits made to my account and note it on my Schedule C, where I report business income and expenses. If the IRS were ever to ask for documentation I would show them the deposits on my monthly bank statements, but that has never happened.

" There should be no refunds given on PU or presentation sales IMO." Please keep hammering away on this point to Alamy Management. They seem to prefer that this issue just go away. I had three PU sales refunded after two months. In my case I think Alamy gave the only acceptable explanation: the images had been purchased through the fraudulent use of someone else's credit card. I agree that that deserved to be refunded, but normally I believe no refund should be given after seven days. That's plenty enough time for a buyer to recognize they've made a mistake. In my case, the card owner got his money back but the fraudulent purchaser has my images.

Remember that if you have many similars with the same keywords they will all show up when someone searches for those keywords. But if the searcher only zooms in on one or two that will lower your Click-to-zoom rate, which will result in your images being placed lower in search results. Don't upload too many similars; choose only the best.

Fahd: You’re at a good location and there should be a market for those images. My only suggestions would be the following: --probably too many “similars” of the “Water Break” series. Five “organic chinese white pear and red plum”. Four “burfi” sweet confectionary. Fourteen+ (I stopped counting) “unripe green oranges on tree”. Eight high voltage power lines with colorful clouds. Many of the dome of the Abu Dhabi Louvre. Each group probably all have the same or similar keywords. If they all show up in a search and most are not zoomed in on this could lower your CTR score, meaning future images will show up farther down in the search results. --it’s always more interesting to photograph people walking toward you than walking away from you (People in line to enter the Grand Prix; tourists in Heritage Village; people at ADCB cycles pick up point; toddlers on bikes at the Corniche; people in line to enter the public beach). Not to say that images showing peoples clothing or style of dress won’t sell, even if it’s a shot from the rear; they may, but the image is more likely to be interesting if we see people from the front. --maybe too many night shots from inside the car during the heavy thunderstorm; pick the best only. You do lots of close-ups and that’s always good. I always try to remember Robert Capa’s advice: if your images aren’t good enough you’re not close enough. Some of the umbrellas on the beach scenes are rather far away. Feel free to critique my own if you like. We can always benefit from listening to someone else’s (not a family member) eye. Good luck.

I agree that one can never know what will sell. I've been surprised many times. But the reason for culling is to improve the customer's experience. Customers will lose interest if search results produce too many similars, or too many images that are obviously poorly conceived, poorly focused, or poorly processed. Customers will give up and turn elsewhere in their search. All of us suffer if the customer gets the impression that searching Alamy is too time-consuming and results in too many undesirable hits. In my opinion culling is a task Alamy management should undertake. It doesn't take a lot of training to recognize similars. It also doesn't take a lot of training to spot images which are poorly conceived, by which I mainly mean poorly framed. There are a number of steps Alamy management should take to improve the overall quality of the collection, the objective being to enhance Alamy's reputation as a place to go to find quality images. Eliminating ten to fifteen million images from the Alamy collection would be a good place to start.

"There are much greener pastures out there..." ..... "I need to find these greener pastures. " We all do. Let us know what you find. Perhaps you mean "other than stock photography"? I've been looking....

I'll bet you got a lot of money for that one. Please share with us the explanation you get when you query Alamy. I think that's one for Alan Capel, head of sales, to explain. alan@alamy.com