Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Skyscraperfan

  1. There already is the "Alamy Rank" that does the job of putting images, that do not sell well, lower down in the search results. Recent uploads are not so important, as some of my best selling images are from a journey I did in 2007. So people should not be forced to do new uploads. Otherwise they will just delete photos and upload them again to save the fees.
  2. The 888 images I have online so far are already a result of strict filtering on my side. I do not need to upload 30 images of the same building, as only the two or three best of them will have a chance of being sold anyway. Without the filtering on my side, I would have between 5000 and 10000 photos online, but those would probably not generate more sales. If I unsterstand the CTR right, it hurts your CTR if a client zooms your image, but later buys another one. So if you have ten similar photos, the client might zoom all ten of them and buy a maximum of 1. That's not good for your CTR. By the way, for those of your with tons of images it might be a good idea to have more than one pseudonym. If you upload you best photos under a pseudonym, your other not so good or repetitive images will not hurt the CTR of that pseudonym. That might increase your overall sales.
  3. I wonder how many contributors have not yet heard about the commission cut. Big changes like that should only occur if a contributor explicitly accepted them. So an opt-in istead of an opt-out. That would make sure that nobody has missed the email for whatever reason. Mass mails like that can very easily be marked as spam by big email providers. If you send the same email to 100.000 Gmail accounts, it might be filtered out as spam, which even might be in Alamy's interest. It shocks me that some of you do not show any solidarity towards new contributors. Some of you suggest that WE should get 50%, while new contributors should only get 40%. For me that sounds like a man saying that a woman should get less money for the same work.
  4. 45% is not a compromise, if the cut is totally wrong and unfair. 45% would still mean that Alamy gets more than the photographers.
  5. When the commission for the distribution scheme on Alamy slipped below 50% a few years ago, I opted out and did not opt back in since. It happened twice that someone from Alamy contacted me and told me, that a customer wanted to buy my one of my photos through the distribution scheme. That felt strange to me, because I thought those images were sold by third party distributors without any direct involvement by Alamy. Both times Alamy asked me for an exception to sell my photos through distribution. I responded, that I would be willing to make an exception, if I got 50% commission. The response was that it not possible to pay be 50% even as an exception and so I declined. The funny thing was that a few days later one of those images was sold directly through Alamy. So I made my sale and even got 60% or whatever the commission was at that time. Those distribution schemes simply suck. Of course they can sublicense our images to whoever they want, but why should we get a lower share of the sale price then? By the way, I also opted out of all the other schemes like "UK newspaper scheme" after James' video. I urge all of you to do the same. It is just a few clicks.
  6. The problem is: With 50/50 (or more) you are happy each time one of your images is licensed. With 40/60 your anger will come back with each license. Each time you will a sale in one line of your account balance and in the next line you will see that Alamy takes back more than half of that. So I will never come to the stage of acceptance. Nobody of you would ever accept a 20% pay cut in a regular job, just because your boss wants to invest that money into "future growth". So none of us should accept those 40%. Just imagine for a moment that NO contributor would accepct those 40%! Than Alamy could not sell a single image unless they go back to 50%. Those of you who accept that cut and continue uploading, are a part of the problem. Only together we have the power to negotiate. That's why there are workers' unions for example. Without those unions only those people would get a job, who accept the lowest payment for the longest working hours.
  7. If they think that they can grow in future ans the banks think so too, they could easily get a loan. The interest rates are at record lows, getting money was never as easy as today.
  8. I don't see what Brexit has to do with this. Why should anybody NOT buy a photo because of Brexit? Will any newspaper less be sold because of Brexit? Are companies suddenly poor because of Brexit? In fact a decreasing value of the British Pound would even mean that we get more pence for every dollar that comes from an overseas sale.
  9. What I noticed today: Alamy raised the price for the "Marketing package: Large Business" from €179.99 to €299.99 since I last checked two days ago. That's a step in the right direction. However, if Alamy sells a photo for 300 Euros, is it too much to ask that the photographer receives half of that money?
  10. That's another thing that annoys me. I can understand that Alamy does not give us the details about where our work was published, because then we would sell our images directly to the customer next time. However Alamy should then should give us 100% of our DACS payments, that we can't collect ourselves because Alamy does not give us the requires information. The DACS clause was something that really annoyed me. It was hidden somewhere in the many pages long new Terms and Conditions a few years ago and went into effect automatically if you did not opt out. There should have been an opt in for such a change. However if our DACS share is also reduced to 40% now (we don't know that yet) everybody should opt out of DACS colelction via Alamy. DACS is money for the creators as a little compensation for all those copyright infringements that are never discovered. That is our money and it is unfair that Alamy get's its share.
  11. Newspapers printed on paper may be in decline, but online they make a lot of money and need tons of images for their news articles and for their social media. For a printed newspaper they only need a license for one day because with yesterday's newspaper you wrap the fish, but online those news articles exist for much longer. I think the standard is at least five years. So they need a lot of images and buy licenses for many years instead of one day. So there should be a market for good photos. A good photo is important in today's "attention economy". PS: One thing I really do not care about is what James West wore in his video. Would you really have more confidence or trust in him if he wore a custom tailored suit and a tie? Tim Cook or Mark Zuckerberg would only wear a suit if they are invited to the White House or attend a funeral. I generally do not trust people with suits and ties. A funny coincidence is that when I watched that video I wore almost the same pullover as James with quite the same colour.
  12. Even if a single person or even we all together do not have the leverage to change anything, we should still stand firm, because we want to be able to look in the mirror each morning and see somebody who fights for his principles. For example we boycott a big fast food chain because it still uses plastic cups. Or we even boycott the products of a whole country because of the actions of its government. That may not have a big impact, but it is important to act in a way that WOULD have a positive impact if more people would act the same way. You can compare it with a general election. There are tens of millions of votes and it is very unlikely that my single vote will make a difference. That should not mean though that I should not care about what I vote and just throw the dice. Just think about how many thousands of Euros of revenue each of you has created for Alamy by sending them your photos! In future Alamy want 1/6 more and offers you 1/5 less in return. Do you really want to accept that or instead go somewhere else where you get a fair offer?
  13. You have to look at the other side. With those €134 I would have paid for two concert tickets that two other people use. I also do not sell my old camera gear. I have an old DSLR that had cost me €3499 when I bought it. Now I could get something between €300 and €400, but I would never sell a camera for €400 that I had paid €3499 for although I don't have any use for that old camera. Selling it would feel like losing €3099 instead of getting €400.
  14. Benefits for contributors with many images would just lead to people uploading more photos. I can walk around a building, take 100 photos of it and upload them all to Alamy. Does that really benefit anybody? I prefer uploading only a few photos per building. Sometimes only a single one. I am a member of a website about building data which had ranked the "most active members". There was also a ranking of the people with "most uploaded photos". Some people wanted to be on top of that list and uploaded tons of ugly photos. Quality is more important than quality. The CTR could be a good measurement for a bonus. That would discourage people from uploading bad photos with wrong keywords.
  15. No, there's nothing irrational about it. If no contributor had ever accepted less than 50%, we would not be in this situation now, where Getty just pays 20%. Last year I had two tickets for a British band called "Depeche Mode". I had bought them for a friend of mine for 107 Euros each, but as she could not go, I tried to sell them in front of the stadium before the concert. I waited there four hours with a sign "2x Front of stage, 80 Euros each". 80 Euros were my red line for selling tickets I had paid 107 Euros each for. The highest offer I got was 80 Euros for both tickets, so 40 for each. So I decided to not sell them at all, because I did not like the idea that someone visits a concert, he pays 40 Euros and I pay 67 Euros for his ticket. Some friends told be that even that 80 Euros that were offered to me were still 80 Euros more than nothing. That is the kind of thinking of a homo economicus, but not a rational kind of thinking. I am just not willing to finance a concert visit of someone I do not know with 67 Euros out of my own pocket. Of course I could also have used one of the tickets myself as I was already there, but I did not like that band very much and I prefer seats instead of "front of stage".
  16. The service is selling your photos. So a 50% commission is fair in any case. If they sell more photos than other agencies, their revenue will also grow, even if the 50% are fixed.
  17. Because on the most expensive use Alamy will benefit the most from the commission cut.
  18. On the page where you can buy the most common usage packages from $9.99 to $179.99 only the $9.99 package for personal use is available to customers once you apply that restriction. The others have a red notice saying " Sorry, this image isn't available for this license ". The idea that a customer likes my photo and wants to publish it in his magazine, but I do not allow that, really breaks my heart, but I simply can't accept the 40% deal.
  19. On the "optional" page of your photos in your image manager your have four possible restrictions at the bottom. You can enable a maximum of three of them. Then there only is personal use left for example. It says that changes take up to 48 hours to go into effect, but for me it already worked the next day. You can test that by searching your images with another browser where you are not logged in. And of course these restrictions can be reversed as fast as you have enabled them. PS: I don't know if there is a limit om images you can edit at the same time. Then it could take a while to do it for your 132k images.
  20. That's true, but 30% is already the maximum. The share for beginners is just 20%. That is just unfair. If they pay you $100, they will make $400 for themselves.
  21. Shutterstock is a ripoff. "Earn up to 30% of the sale price of your content." That means 30% or even less! Why would anyone sign up there? Even if I could earn thousands of dollars there, I would never accept that deal.
  22. It's interesting that in some businesses companies are FOR a minimum wage, although it means that they have to pay more. The idea is that if every competitor has to pay the same minimum wage, no one can become more profitable than competitors by cutting wages. I would like to see something like that in the stock industry. If all agree that the creators have to get 50%, every stock agency knows that their competitors also have to pay 50%. So the competitors can't offer cheaper prizes by cutting commissions. That way everyone would benefit. Of course that can't be ruled by law, as those competitors sit in different countries, but if a few market leaders agreed to 50%, the other would have to follow or lose all creators.
  23. If I do not find any agency which offers me 50%, I might simply offer my images for free. The most important goal for me is getting my images published. I would rather do that for free than accepting a deal that leaves me with less than 50%. Even microstock would be okay for me, as long as I get my 50% or more.
  • 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.