Olivier Parent

I have very little use of one of my kidneys. I plan to sell it to finance my next trip there…

Thank you very much! I guess you recognized some places you know much better than I do .

Here is mine: https://www.alamy.com/portfolio/332412.html

At least it shows we have been heard, which is good news. Sufficient or not, everyone will have their own opinion.

Absolutely! Contributors should not confuse "exclusive image rights" and "only available on Alamy" which are different things.

Alamy's strength is the diversity of images you can find in the collection. The "best" picture is not always the most aesthetically achieved (which is always a bit subjective anyway) but the one that fits the clients needs. Many clients are not looking for a beautiful picture but a picture that perfectly illustrates the story they are telling. So I think QC should keep concentrating on technical issues only. But too many similars affects everyone (the contributor's CTR, the client who needs to search through dozens of nearly identical images to eventually find what he is looking for, Alamy managing all the data and in the end, all of us) so maybe, when too many similars are detected, Alamy could alert the contributor, asking him/her to delete some.

That was kind of both in fact, in a certain way. The point is that there are still people and organizations willing to pay for images. But I tend to think that, with lowering prices and lowering commissions, it has become way more efficient (financially) to make images specifically for a client, meeting his own needs, locally, than trying to sell "generic" images overseas through the world wide web.

This time, I feel exactly the opposite. The cut in commissions will affect mostly photographers who try to make a living out of it. "Camera club" contributors will be much less affected. I may be absolutely wrong and I will not speak for anyone but myself, all I can say is that I will continue to concentrate on direct sales (my very last assignment earned me 6000 € - no commission, no cut) rather than hoping for a brighter future with Alamy.

I might be repeating myself here but, you know, the problem we are discussing here might be exactly the fact that Alamy wants to gain market share in some kind of way. The first thing that comes to mind (at least for the less creative managers) when it comes to gaining market share, is to lower the prices of what you are selling, whatever it is. And to keep your benefits high, you pressure your suppliers (in this case, guess who…). Nothing new. And I do not say that it is exactly what is happening, just something that we have seen so many times that we cannot help thinking about it. And so back to the question: have we reached the point where Alamy's interests and the interests of the contributors are not converging anymore?

The question is not so much whether it is fair or not (fairness has no tangible reality in this Universe I grant you this) but rather if the interests of Alamy and the interests of the contributors are still converging on that particular point. And everyone has one's own answer to this question. I'm also prepared to pay for good service but, at least to me, there is nothing in James West's video that justifies that cut. I heard nothing "bold" or "outsmart" (ton of things worth investing in have been identified to grow Alamy… WOW…) that would indicate me how it is going to "make me money" or benefit me in any way… I only heard that: • we have to pay for the Brexit and the uncertainty about economy in general • we may get back on our feet in a 3 or 5 years timescale • maybe they will not have to do it again but maybe we should stop being naive also About "sustainability", It kind of reminds me years back when some of my friends took the Microstock path and seemed happy with the peanuts they got from images sold. I thought they were just shooting themselves in the foot, and in the industry's foot in general. I chose Alamy because of the 60% for contributors and because their prices seemed adequate to me. There is an image I have been selling every year since 2015 for the same usage (…). It now sells for 50% of the price it sold in 2015 and 2016. The contributor's commission has already been reduced from 60% to 50% and now 40%? Don't get me wrong, I also want Alamy to grow and prosper, but I am beginning to wonder if this growth is going to benefit me or if it will be at my expense.

What bothers me is that we are asked to accept some direct correlation between economic conditions and the percentage we get from sales only when things go bad (or at least are expected to go bad: when 2% growth for Alamy means -20% for contributors…). Strangely, when things get better (2016, 2017), the terms of our contract don't change in our favor… In the video, James West seems to consider that only revenue matters but I disagree with that. Sometimes, when an image is sold at a price I consider too low, I would rather not make the sale at all. I agree to sell an image for 100$, I would not agree to sell 100 images for 1$ each, even if the global revenue would be the same. And it's the same with the share we get on sales. If I do not sell images through other companies, it may be precisely because the share they reserve for their contributors does not seem fair to me… At the end of the day, in our society, the value of our work comes down to the money we get out of it. If we get peanuts from an image sale, it means our work is worth peanuts (for the client, for Alamy, and in the end for us).

Here are my 3 entries: Rangiroa (French Polynesia) Le Louvre (Paris)

Great images! Thanks for including one of mine in the selection.

Great topic! My 3 entries: Musilac summer festival in Aix-les-Bains (France) Musilac summer festival in Aix-les-Bains (France) Jamiroquai

I liked the fact that this black shape reminded me "Mad men" poster…