BobD

The site does say the price includes the image cost, so presumably it is a genuine business and it does search the Alamy database. One good thing is that it cannot be novel use fees, as my images appear and I am not in that scheme. I think they buy the image licence as and when an order is placed.

2009 - $109 2010 - $88 2011 - $73 2012 - $52 2015 - $27 2016 - $30 2017 - $26 2018 - $27 2019 - $17 I had hoped that 2017-2018 saw the bottoming out of the market, but that was rather optimistic. It seems to me that Alamy are using the extra gained from the non exclusive sales to cut prices even further. Sadly it is no longer worth my time and effort to upload more images.

Depends on your income from photography, you are allowed to earn up to £1000 pa without having to pay tax.

This is just plain ridiculous, You may expect the odd licence at this price but not an average of 11 sales.

Views, Sales and zooms all average. However the average price is now getting beyond the pale at just $12.73 gross. Now seriously considering if it is worthwhile staying exclusive to Alamy. As others have said before these are micro prices without the micro volume.

It's tragic when someone in the prime of life passes away. The only consolation is that she at least is no longer suffering. My thoughts are with you and your family.

Another earth shattering event, there are cars being towed away in Vladivostok, Russia. 😂

This is probably true, but by cutting out the majority of their suppliers Alamy are now even less likely to have images within minutes.

I have just taken a look at the latest live news feed. There is one group of peach blossom and one group of Arial pictures of Chinese fields. While they mat be great pictures in their own right, how are they live news? As I have said this doesn't much affect me, but it is the inconsistency of Alamy that I can understand infuriates those that it does affect. It seams to me it is the way Alamy tries to do everything on the cheap that causes the problem. If they manually accepted the images put through to the live news feed there would be no need to shut everyone out, just not accept any non-newsworthy images.

I have only submitted once to live news so the decision is of no real consequence to me. But god forbid I could walk out of my door tomorrow and witness an event on national importance, how could I then submit images if that route has been closed to me. Once again Alamy has thrown the baby out with the bath water. I have seen images of a bird sitting on a garden fence masquerading as weather news images, so I can understand why Alamy need to tighten up, but why do they treat the responsible contributors that don't upload unless they think they really do have a news item the same as the ones that upload anything that remotely can (questionably) be called a weather image. To me this is just another sign of the disdain with which Alamy treats its contributors and re-enforces my decision to gradually turn away from Alamy, the company that used to be fair to its contributors.

2492 views - slightly below average 13 zooms - below average 7 sales for $132 - above average sales but the 5th month in a row average sale is below the level I have set to keep uploading. I time my year to coincide with the UK tax year. The stats are. Images uploaded up 64% Views up 85% Zooms up 86% sales up 70% Gross up 46% Nett Up 44% Average price Down 15% - this is nothing to do with the commission change as I am nearly 95% Alamy exclusive. This underlines the problem here. In comparison with the growth in portfolio size, views, zooms and sales volume are all good. It's the finances that don't hold up. Alamy cannot keep selling cheaper and cheaper every passing year. At the present rate of decline in average price, this will be my last year uploading here. Somewhere along the line there is a limit when enough is enough.

I would say your key wording needs work. For example the power station image on the first page. Which Power station? Where is it? what country? also I would add words like pollution, climate change, haze, global warming etc etc.

Done.

My three for March

This would entirely depend if the £25 an hour is the charge for attendance at the gig alone. Processing the images can take as long as the shoot or even longer, bringing the rate down to £12.50 per hour. Anyone who has ever run a business knows that an hourly rate is not all profit. What about transport costs, equipment depreciation, tax etc etc. How many pro or semi pro can guarantee a 40 hour week 52 weeks of the year? I think your £52,000 at £25 an hour is a little optimistic to say the least. If the clients weren't happy with what they pay for the product they get, they could always find a more expensive alternative.