Skyscraperfan

Images of flowers are hard to sell. Flowers may be the most photographed subject of all. If you buy a new camera or lens, you will often test it with flowers and beautiful flowers often give good photos. Just type some of your keywords into the image search of Alamy to see on which page your photos are. Most buyers will buy a photo from the first page. If your photo is on page 10, it has a low chance of ever being sold.

I do not worry too much about liabilities. We can easily make it clear in the desciption of each image that a buyer should only buy a license if he has or or can aquire all the rights necessary to publish a photo. A kind of "Buy at your own risk!" disclaimer. I think in some Arab countries you could even be sued for publishing a photo of a woman without a head scarf or a photo of two people kissing. That should and will not be the problem of the photographer. I sold a lot of photos of privately owned buildings via Alamy, although I never had a property release. Do you really think a propert

That is a tweet of the Alamy Content Team: Hi Matt - All new contributors start on Gold so will earn 40% commission for direct sales. It's only if you make less than $250 gross in an Alamy revenue year will you be on Silver. Anyone who joins after July 1st 2021 will remain on Gold until at least July 2023.

Alamy promised that new people that join after July 2021 would stay in the gold category until at least June 30th, 2023, because otherwise they would have less than a year to reach the $250 in sales. Anyone who is already at Alamy will have time until June 30th, 2022. So the sale count starts on July 1st ans lasts a year. I am not sure though if DACS payments count into the $250. And what about money from infringements? However even gold just gives us only 40% commission.

I made a few hundred Euros worth of sales via Alamy with just one photo of the Empire State Building, which surprised me a lot, as the Empire State Building is very much photographed from all sides. Those successful photos are very rare though and most photos will never earn you any money. For me stock photography always was the fun logging into your account and seeing that somebody bought your photo for $169 or so. It felt like finding money on the street. Now the fun is largely gone, as the sums went down a lot and the commissions also went down. If I sell an image for just 40% commission, I

Even 50% commission are quite low. If you sell something on Ebay, you get 90% minus some fixed fees. If you publish a digital book on Amazon, you will get 70% of the price. Those 70% also apply to apps in the Play Store or App Store. Food deliveries still leave 70 to 80 percent to the restaurant. Uber leaves 80% for the drivers. Hotel booking portals leave about 85% for the hotel. In all those cases the fees of the websites are already quite high. 10 to 30 percent just for providing the platform, but only in the stock photo business the actual owners of the product or service (in this case the

I could imagine a separate search page for the UK News scheme that even works without login. At Amazon Prime theree is also some content that you can watch with your subscription, while other content can only be watched for an extra fee or without an additional package for example.The system at Amazon Prime is quite complicated, but you can see what you get for your subscription even without logging in. So one solution whoul be putting an "available under the UK news scheme" under every photo that is available under that scheme. At least for visitors from the UK. That would have the nice side

I wish contributors could set minumum prices for their work. If a customer does not want to pay that price, he has to buy another photo instead.

If multiple news organizations own PA Media, that is even worse. So many of Alamy's clients own a part of the company. That should raise eyebrowse. Imagine Alamy would stop those cheap sales to newspapers. Wouldn't they even veto that decision in their own interest? At least the annual report of PA Group states that they are aware of those conflects of interest.That gives me some hope.

Yes, we should get back more control about who can buy a license for my photos and who can't. I was not aware that Alamy and the Daily Mail are now part of the same company. So this new company could sell the image licenses to itself and even choose how much it pays for the license, because if you negotiate with yourself, you might choose a very low price at the cost of the contributors. So sales within the same company should not be possible unless there is a clear rule that the price has to be at least as high as a sale to a competitor. When I joined Alamy, we still had the chanc

Would be interesting to hear from the 159,000 contributors who have already opted in. Did they have a significant boost in sales? And does that also mean a significant boost in earnings or just many sales for a pound each? Of course I always enjoy earning more, but not at any cost.

The UK Newsaper scheme still is a black box from a contributor's view. How high is the commission for us in that scheme? 50% or 40%? And how much does a package for 100 photos per month typically cost a newspaper? Is Alamy turning into a microstock agency with commissions of a dollar or so per photo? Could my photos end up at a front page and I will only receive a dollar? I can understand that Alamy wants to avoid angry customers of the newspaper scheme who see that some of the photos are no longer available once they have logged in. However there should be ways to communicate to the custom

It was an uniateral change, because it came into effect, if you did not actively reject it. The same with the "affliates". How many contributors - except those who spend a lot of time here - are aware that sometimes they will not get 50% but obly 38.5%, because an afflilate gets his share? In the past years each contract change took away either money or options from the contributors and automatically went into effect.

That's what I wrote. They removed the opportunity to opt out.

That is very unfortunate. We had a reason to opt out of this scheme. Another time you have shown us that we can't trust you. When I signed up, you said that we will always get 65% commission and that will never change. Then you lowered it to first 60% and then 50% and even that only for exclusive images. You also opted people into the DACS collection by Alamy and some time later totally removed the option to opt out. So you take half of your continutors DACS money, even if they never explicitly opted in. You also removed the option to put geographic restrictions on our photos and decided on ou