Jump to content

Skyscraperfan

Verified
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Skyscraperfan

  1. Removal makes you lose all that leverage. If many people remove their images, Alamy knows that they probably will not even come back if the 50/50 split is reinstalled, because it simply is too much work to prepare all those photos again. It is easier to ristrict them to personal use. That shows Alamy that we still have some good will to continue once 50/50 is back. The worst that can happen is that you delete your photos now and next week Alamy says "Okay, we go back to 50/50!". After reuploading the photos it would take ages until they get back their former image ranks.
  2. The may be true for ONE photo, but while an author needs only one book and an app developer only needs one app to generate a lot of money, a photographer needs quite a lot of photos. The photographers who quickly take a photo and upload it to Alamy are a major problem. If you take photography seriously, you should invest some effort both in taking the photo and optimizing it with software of your choice.
  3. Why are stock images so much different from any other digital assets like e-books or apps? If you sell an app through an app store, Google or Apple will usually hold back 30% and the other 70% go to you as the creator of the app. If you publish an e-book on Amazon, it's the same. You get 70% of the net sale price. That 70/30 split seems to be agreement for many digital goods, but in the photography business we even have to fight for a 50/50 split.
  4. On the other hand there are not many countries where the boss of the government (Theresa May) and the head of state (the queen) both are female.
  5. I wonder how it effects our CTR and Alamy Rank if a wrongly translated keyword leads to a view, but not a click. Let's hope that we are not punished for wrong translations that were not our fault.
  6. I would also like to note that I have a friend who has all his photos on Getty, which pays a very tiny commission of 30% or even below. He had images on Alamy before and told me that with the same images he makes much more money on Getty than he used to make with Alamy - even with those low commissions. Although that might be true, those low commissions are the reason why I - and many other photographers - would never switch to Getty. True, Getty could generate you a high income, but it will generate an even higher income for Getty and that's simply unfair. Having a fair share of a small amount feels much better than having an unfair share of a large amount. Under President Hollande there was a plan to raise income tax to 75% in France for all income over one million Euros. That plan never came to fruition, but I can very much relate to how bad it feels if you earn ten million Euros in a year and the government takes away more than 7 million of that. Although that still leaves you with a lot of money, you will not be able to enjoy that, because instead of enjoying what you have, you will always be angry about the (much larger sum) the government has taken away from you. In Germany there also had been plans for a maximum tax rate of over 50%, but the supreme court ruled that every citizen - no matter how rich - should have the right to keep at least half of the money he earned, because it his work that generates that money. Of course the Alamy commission is not a tax, but it feels quite similar. Alamy offers the platform for selling photos and takes a share of all revenues. Like our country which offers the platform we live on. That deal becomes unfair once Alamy gets more that the people who created the photo. Just imagine AirBnB would get more commission than the landlords, who offer their apartments. Just imagine Uber would get more money than the Uber drivers who do all that driving. Just imagine the food delivery service would get more money than the restaurants who cook the food. Just imagine Ebay would get more money than the sellers. Everybody would see that as unfair and that is also true in the stock industry. That other pay even lower commissions does not make that any better. It's like having a bad flue and somebody says "Don't complain, other people have cancer!". That does not make a flu any more enjoyable.
  7. Yes, that's what I did. Unfortunately you can only apply a maximum of three of the four restrictions. So I still have to allow personal use.
  8. For many of us contributors it is not so much about money, but about fairness. There is a famous economic experiment called the "Ultimatum Game": Player 1 is given an amount of money and has to offer a share of that money tp player 2. Player 2 has the option of either accepting that offer or rejecting it. If he rejects the offer, player 1 also loses the money he was given and both players end up without any money. Most people consider a 50/50 split fair and the lower the offer from player 1 is, the more people reject his offer although it means that they end up with no money at all. Interestingly that is even true with large sums of money. So if the sum is $10,000 for example and player 1 only offers $3,000, most people will reject that offer, even if that means losing $3,000, because they find it unfair that player 1 gets $7,000, while they just get $3,000. Of course that experiment shows that most people would also accept a split that is somewhat less fair for them than the 50/50 split. Many contributors here probably will accept the 40/60 split, but that does not mean that they think it's fair. They just can't afford losing all their Alamy income after having invested so much time in keywording and optimizing their images for Alamy. However they will always have a bad feeling in their stomach if they take a look at the Account balance and the that the value in the "alamy Commission" line eats up more than half of the money of the "Sale" above it. They feel that it is unfair, that the creator of a photo does not even receive half of the licensing fees. Perhaps I am not the typical Alamy contributor. My focus are skyscrapers and I travel around the world to take photos of them and if I come back from a journey I only upload the 50 or so very best of my photos, because I care very much about quality. Some photos take about half an hour in optimizing them with Photoshop and Lightroom and the keywording, counting the number of people in that photo, finding out the address of a building and so on takes a lot of time. You really need a lot of passion for photography to do this. The biggest reward for me is seeing my photos appear in books and magazines around the world. A photo only "lives" if people see it. I was very happy when my photo of the Empire State Building appeared in the Guinness Book of World Records. That was a sale through Alamy and I do not care very much about the amount of money that sale generated for me. However I DO care about the share I get from such a deal. Getting 50% of $20 is more satisfying for me than getting 40% of $100, even if the amount of money is four times as much. The 40/60 split just shows us that you think that your part of the work has more value than ours. That is a slap in the face for us photographers who sometimes wait half an hour until the clouds are gone and they have the perfect light for a photo. I can understand that you need money for datacenters and employees, but that is nothing compared to the huge amounts of cameras and lenses Alamy contributors buy every year. Someone in the other thread made a good comparison with Uber drivers. Some of them even bought a car just for Uber and after they have invested so much money, Uber suddenly reduces their commissions and they are in same trap as many Alamy contrubutors: Either accept the new unfair commission or face an even huger loss if they quit. I will not delete my photos right away. Yesterday I restricted all my photos from most use cases and will lift those restrictions once Alamy goes back to the 50/50 split. I think there should be an option to take a photo offline without deleting it. That would also be very useful in other situation. Perhaps some people only want tons of Christmas photos in their portfolio if it really is Christmas time. There should be a convenient way to turn on and off sales of a photo, even if it would take 48 hours for changes to come into effect.
  9. I am quite shocked that they now do this automatically. They used to ask me every year and I always refused, because I did not want them to get 50%. Hiding this somewhere in a new contributor contact is not how how treat your members. They knew that many contributors will not be aware of it. This is an important change in the contract and it should have been communicated better. PS: I just looked at the recent contrubutor contract. You can't finde "DACS" a single time in there.
  10. Interesting idea. The problem is that in the past I always uploaded the best photos first, as I wanted them to be online as fast as possible. In fact ranking them by date only ranks them by the uploaded date, not the date when the photo was taken. I do not understand the logic behind that. "New" for me would mean that the photo was taken very recently. If the take the upload date into account, I could delete some photos an upload them again. Of course they would lose their ranking then, but they would appear under "Added in last 1 month". My fear was that if you have three almost equally keyworded photos, the scrambling algorithm puts them on different pages to reach a greater diversity. So one image on page 2, one of page 5 and one on page 7. That would mean that some images appear further down the list, although they also should be one page 2. But maybe the scrambling is really random. Then one image would not not have an effect on the other.
  11. Sometimes I have some similar photos of the same building, for example one during daytime, one at dusk and one in the "blue hour". They are from the same perspective and almost have the same keywords. My problem is that one of the photos (the blue hour one) looks much better than the others. While the others are also relevant for customers who prefer a daytime shot for example, I want the blue hour version to come up first in the search results. How can I achieve that? A very radical way would be avoiding the building name in the "essential keywords" of the photos I do not want on top. So the blue hour version would have the building name under essential keywords and the other photos only under "main keywords". The downside is that this would damage the ranking of my other photos, as the building name in fact is a very essential keyword and should be listed there. Is there any other way to make one of my photos the first among (almost) equals? Otherwise I am afraid that keywording the other photos will result in the blue hour photo just appearing behind the Link "MORE (3)" under a daytime shot in the search results. For example I want to be able to choose, which of those photos (all uploaded by me) will appear first, if somebody searches for "Petronas Towers". How can I achieve that with keywording, without damaging the ranking of the other two photos?
×
×
  • 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.