BobD

Strangely my domain seems to still be working, Although I still have it registered but I only pay for e-mail hosting. I have a page that links to my Alamy port.

It is a UK based platform so that may very well be the case. I may give it a try for a year, it's only £55. With a decent amount of images uploaded it could very easily pay for itself at least.

I see so you are hosting on your own website and if you make a sale it's done via PF. I assume they are also for sale on PF

It's a shame because his photography and processing is very good.

I do think you need to be sensible with pricing. Do you need to have a website to use plus?. I still have my name as a domain but just use it for e-mail purposes nowadays. How many images have you got there and I can't remember it the system recognises file metadata, I wouldn't like to re-keyword any images.

I have had 2 sales there in 3 years @ £15 each net. that is equivalent to $50 sales here now which is way above my average price here. I only have 35 images there so I suppose not too bad. I may take another look at the plus option. It does seem to me though that you need to promote yourself as well as depending on platform sales.

Reasonable for me 6 for $133. Like Betty 2 for a total of $5 really brought the average down.

Rather than be rude and ignore you, I am just not going to get into an argument with you that does not really pertain to the original post.

You cannot help yourself looking for an argument can you. I am not going to explain myself and to do so would be going off topic.

Depends on how far you want to go back. But I did refer to the rest of the post.

It's not just Canada.

This sold a couple of times today, prices similar to what goes in the bin.😁

Please let's not let this thread descend into mud slinging.

The article is journalism at its worse. First it warns people to be distressed, perhaps some readers will fell guilty if not. Then it blatantly misleads the reader to believe that image is being licenced at $575 a time, when being a publication itself will know full well this is very unlikely to be the case. Then horror of horrors it actually pays to publish the image and let anyone gain from doing so, it takes a screen grab ( presumably) of it and does exactly what the article is ranting about and itself invades the subjects privacy. I suppose it will claim editorial licen