Jump to content

imageplotter

Verified
  • Content Count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by imageplotter

  1. On 16/09/2021 at 11:24, meanderingemu said:

     

    why can't i give this a "Thanks" for stating this  "up arrow" for agreeing "HaHa" for the general content and "Sad" for where we are being taken. 

    Dunno. :-)

    Sorry for the whining tone, I was just quite upset when I saw that one appear on the sales history.  They same publisher bought a few more at the same price and same time, but the others are all older, expired live news pics (also of cabinet members), so that part I can accept as the new reality for stock pics. But for news images which are less than 24 hrs old, it is a bit of a kick in the stomach at a time where we all struggle to still earn money with these images. My only joy is that corporate photography work, events and client portraiture are finally getting going again and despite competition being strong in those areas, too, rates (or at least my rates) have not declined and are holding up well. Mysterious.

    • Like 2
  2. Dear Alamy,

    Shouldn´t these stock clients on bulk and discounted deals have to at least wait for images to be stock, though, not live news, too??

     

    This morning, I have a sale logged on my sales history of a live news image from yesterday afternoon, Boris Johnson departing for PMQ´s. 

     

    Value of the sale: (gross) $4.58 (of which I then get...less than $2! Yay. The travel card was around $15) I stood in cold, shady Downing Street for 6.5 hrs yesterday on my little step ladder, from and hour before PMQ departures, all through the cabinet re-shuffle which finally finished early evening. No loo, no food/drink, just standing there. Like all the other togs did, too, of course. 

     

    The client - well, here´s where it gets funny. Great if the Parliamentary publications can buy a live news image at microstock prices. Because they have the budget to pay regular prices, but clearly don´t need to. Meanwhile my taxpayer´s money, paid from the measly less than $2 I get from this sale,  pays for Boris Johnson´s three highly paid personal photographers who were swarming round all day yesterday, as usual. That really makes my blood boil.

     

    Usage: Editorial, 550 images UK Based Websites & The House, Parliamentary, Civil Service World & Holyrood Magazines.
    Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic
    Start: 15 September 2021
    End: 15 September 2026

    • Upvote 4
  3. 18 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

     

    I had a look at the French site, search for "imageplotter" returns 28469 images, however the caption many times, but not always appears as " Credit: Imagetraceur/Alamy Live News".   even if found by the search.

     

     

    let me know if you want me to check specific captions. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Thanks for checking! Interesting, must be a bug with the German site. Weird, as sales to German buyers do occur (and I have a fair few German travel pics also), so the images themselves are there, but just 13 come up under that pseudo.

     

    The translation thing is funny, although I wonder...perhaps I should do more searches under 'Imagetraceur' and its German/Spanish/Italian/Chinese variations, to find unreported uses. 😁

    • Upvote 1
  4. On a separate, but possibly related note - that German .de version is flawed it seems. If I type in 'imageplotter' , only 13 rather boring, bland former news images of a 2016 Tower Bridge closure show up. In total. 13. In the .com version, 28,845 images show up, all those that have either imageplotter in the credit line or in the tags, minus any pseudos I have that have neither. 

     

    Plus not only are the translated headings abysmal (leading to inaccuracies, which makes that whole issue around misleading captions/tags regarding our worries over certain clauses in the new contract all the more relevant), but it also changes the credit line of news images contained in the caption. In those 13 rather boring former news images, it changes the credit line from 'Imageplotter News and Sports', my previous news pseudo, to 'Imageplotter and Sports'. Err. I would hate to think what it might do to other news pseudos or even contributor names, if they are contained as a credit line in former news images, as they usually are. (this is the credit line automatically added by Alamy Live News as the images are uploaded to the news feed, it automatically adds the chosen default pseudo, it's not me typing the credit line into the caption).

     

    Please could alamy address this, why is the credit line being translated, it makes no sense whatsoever and it should be fixable. And why do only 13 images show up v 28.845 in the .com?

  5. 9 hours ago, geogphotos said:

     

     

    Its about quality not just quantity. 

    Good point.

     

    Image numbers won't go down significantly, as expected, because it will have been individual contributors who have pulled their images, and compared to the big contributing agencies, any individual contributors are small fry, even those with large collections. Agencies like Sopa and Zuma dump hundreds of images on alamy every single day. Some good quality (depending on subject, togs covering high profile events with limited press pass availability are rarely twice-per-week hobby shooters), many very mediocre to poor quality. But the sheer volume of images will carry sales and land those agencies straight in the platinum bin (if they're not on separate contractual arrangements - anyone know?).

     

    • Like 1
  6. 53 minutes ago, Tony ALS said:

    p09q4smk.webp

     

    Having decided to unenthusiastically stick around on Alamy and changing all of my images to non exclusive, rights managed and editorial only where appropriate while also uploading images elsewhere (royalty free of course), I will add images found from the Beeb when I have time.

    This one interested me as the credit says Reuters/Alamy. Stranger still to me at least is that typing the chef's name into Alamy search doesn't produce this image.

    https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210722-is-french-cuisine-forever-changed

     Looks to me like that is from the same shoot as other pics by the photographer Maurice Rougemont. He may have originally sent these to a French agency (Gamma-Rapho?) and they, or the tog, then also distributed to Getty, where there are also some from what looks like the same shoot, Alamy etc. Not sure how Reuters fits into it, possibly just a case of it being mis-credited, couldn't see that particular shot on Alamy or Getty, nor Reuters.

  7. Wishing all of you the best of luck where ever you may go with your images from here. 

     

    I see the Contract Changes thread is now closed and I suppose there will be little further chance to discuss or comment on the issues involved for photographers here. Grateful for the opportunity to still have a convo with a few of you elsewhere.

     

    Alas, I've not decided on the long term regarding my Alamy portfolio, short term, I'm staying, most likely non exclusive (simply because it has taken so much work to get the portfolio up and running and I feel transferring the entire lot of nearly 30k elsewhere right now may not warrant great financial rewards either). Mid to long term...might go, too. It's not worth it and I'd rather not see the image go for pennies. Not that alamy will notice, I guess. 

    • Like 4
  8. 2 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

     

     

    4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

     

    This will include most zoos and wildlife parks as their terms and conditions for entry explititly forbid photography for commercial gain. This clause is renumbered 4.1.14 in the new contract. 

     

     

     

    Yes, it probably does. Here's where it gets a bit murky though. I, together with many others (sometimes up to 40 press photographers, freelance, wire agency and the few remaining staffers, plus camera crews) often attend zoo press photo calls, at London Zoo, Whipsnade etc. ZSL want us to take those images (and whilst they also mail out freebies by their own tog to the editors, these are often not as nice and tend to be for online use or smaller publications who rely on freebies), and they keenly want to get coverage. So far so good. If we were to all have these images available for the live news period only (as used to be the case for a brief while with the Tate and their photo calls), far fewer photographers would attend. A few hastily edited pics from the better photo calls get usage on the day after/48hrs (not all of the pressers are visually that interesting), but quite a few more get usage in the weeks and months afterwards. And ZSL are generally quite happy about the extra PR they get. This year, I should think they'll be extra keen on any coverage they get (except for the odd negative headline), given that all zoos struggle during covid and really need to make up for lost revenue.

     

     After the presser, once I've filed, I tend to hang around for a bit (if there are no other news events or photo calls immediately afterwards) and do some add-on shots of other animals that might fit a news theme (hot or cold temperatures, seasons, zoo babies etc) and file a few more. A few times, these have then also been used by newspapers (occasionally with Alamy, more often when pinged out by another news pic agency) because they may just happen to have been visually more appealing, and the paper needed a vibrant 'happy' pic to fill a space somewhere. Again, the zoos tend to be quite happy about this (I often send them a quick mail that I've filed a few more, but not always), it rarely generates negative PR and may translate into ticket sales for them. 

     

    My point is - there is a grey area in all this. I for one will be unlikely to still attend all of their photo calls if I had to delete the images after the news period, I suspect it could create friction with wires distributing via Alamy, too, if their images are deleted soon after submission, plus it creates additional work. 

     

     

     

    • Thanks 3
    • Upvote 2
  9. "Also, Alamy is probably sitting on a good chunk of cash from accounts that have not reached payment threshold or erven have become completely orphaned with no bank account or other details; not making much from it with the current low interest rates though."

     

    Indeed. And now giving these contributors just 20%, it'll be come even more likely that they'll file a few hundred, not see returns, give up filing, leave the account dormant, not reach payment threshold and thereby increase the chunk of cash sitting around. Hmm.

    • Upvote 1
  10. 29 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

    I wonder how many of Alamy's individual contributors make $25,000 gross a year -- and, that's less than median wage in most industrialized countries before the 50% deduction.

     

    A tiny number.

    I'd hazard a guess that they're unlikely to be Alamy exclusive. If your stock images have the potential to earn $25k with one agency, why would you want to sell them exclusively through one agent. It's too high an amount to be a hobby-only collection, or even a sideline of a pro-tog earning a living with other photography, but as you say, also too low to be a decent wage after the % cut, so if it's to be a serious income source, spreading it would almost guaranteed optimise its earnings potential.  

     

    • Upvote 2
  11. 32 minutes ago, Travelshots said:

    How about keeping the commission at 50% and raising the 20% band to minimum of 500 $.  That would please all of the active contributors who probably have the best images. The ranking should also favour those  who have the best sales record.. This would possibly produce the  same financial result for the agency in terms of revenue.

     

    There is little incentive for alamy to 'please the active contributors', and no evidence whatsoever that they 'probably have the best images' either, sadly. A tiny number of contributors are active on this forum. By comparison, the large agencies have far greater numbers of images available on alamy. (Just as an example, WENN Rights, 5 million + images, and I'm sure Zuma etc. have higher numbers still). Even a contributor with a large individual collection of 70-100k images is peanuts against that. Many of the large accounts who are not agencies never venture on this forum and may or may not have seen the contract changes.

     

    As for ranking best sales highest - that does exactly what it often does now: it'll bring up may tired, older images in the mix on the first page, which are there simply because they've sold before, and it will again favour large scale contributors such as agencies who sell high volumes. Of course previous sales will always be a factor in the algorithm, I'm not saying that is entirely wrong, but if ranking is based solely on that, it'll never refresh the collection as it is visible to those who search (and will most likely not venture beyond page 1-2 of their search). 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 6
  12. That was my conclusion, too, that they'd probably outsource it to a 3rd party provider. It could well be a bulk operation. I must admit that I'd have little faith in any of that developing into an actual advantage/revenue opportunity for the contributor, there'll be little left of the fees down the line. It's also worrying because control over that process would then be removed from alamy and with that control of timelines, quality of the process, etc. I would not want to risk p*ssing any clients of mine off. It's hard enough to earn a living in photography these days.

    • Upvote 4
  13. 4 hours ago, Foreign Export said:

     i cant see that commitment on page 1, if you are referring to this statement from Alamy:

     

    "we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue." - that means they will ask the user of the image and NOT the contributor

     

    Yes, and that is a problem for people with direct image clients. I do not want an agency hassling people who have paid for images or image licenses directly with me. It would be a huge no-no. Together with the liability issues discussed here at length (for which we are awaiting Alamy's response), those two points would mean the risk of losing revenue elsewhere or being involved in legal disputes would outweigh the forever shrinking income from Alamy. 

    • Upvote 4
  14. 35 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

     

    I am going to pause and see what happens. I feel trapped actually. I have worked on Alamy probably every day for around 18 years. 

     

    I would love to make a gesture but am trying to stay calm enough just to wait and see. Throwing 70k images down the toilet pan is tempting but would just hurt myself not Alamy.

     

    So, no more uploads from me, see what happens over the next 6 months. Probably switch all images to Non-Ex but not immediately - will see how the Infringement Team operates and what fees they get. I am deleting my old slide 'scans' - around 2500 images of other people's pictures. I am removing the most obvious risky images and changing a lot more to Editorial Only.

     

    I have resumed uploading elsewhere instead of offering Ex images to Alamy.

     

    Ditto. I have a much smaller port, but feel equally trapped. A lot of work went into it. And with a lot of mine being 'people' images (up to last year, at least...due to covid it's all wildlife for almost all of 2020/21😁), and many London event news images, including lots of photo calls, festivals, protests etc, quite a chunk of mine is likely to be in the 'risky' category you describe. Ditto a lot of my travel imagery depends on people content. They're all marked as editorial only, but I feel exposed and vulnerable with insurers not wanting to cover the risks pushed onto photographers now in the new/amended contract clauses. So I'll wait and see, probably go non-exclusive, and at the first sign of serious legal trouble being reported by anyone (or experienced by myself) I'll have to pull all of the images. Sad times, Alamy. Or perhaps I should say, sad times, Press Association.

     

     

    • Upvote 4
  15. 58 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

     

    As mentioned, I was contacting Indemnity providers try to gwt cover.

     

    So far two companies have replied. Ripe and Directline. Both have discussed 5.1 with their underwriters who have declined to cover the clause.

     

    I am awaiting a third reply.

     

    I have a dim memory of a case where the legality of forcing a clause on a third party that could not be offset with insurance went to court.   Lets see where it goes.

     

     

     

    Thanks for checking with them! To be honest, I wouldn't have expected them to cover that clause. Doesn't look good then. 

    • Thanks 1
  16. 50 minutes ago, Stokie said:

     

    That's with Simply Business. If you mean Photoguard, i've checked with them and they don't do professional indemnity as an add on to the insurance policy i've got with them for equipment and public liability.

     

     

    Thanks for the info re. Simply Business. I'm with Photoguard also, but was also looking to tag on PI with them and couldn't get an all-in quote. May go to SB then for it. 

    • Upvote 1
  17. 33 minutes ago, MDM said:

     

    Or perhaps a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of Alamy and what they bought into. The Alamy model,  a vast unedited collection managed by the contributors whose competence in photography is measured by an initial hard QC followed by occasional random sampling, is probably unique. The heavy handed way it was announced didn't help and the some of you have been misbehaving but you are all going to be punished approach really does not go down well at all.

     

    But as for PR - PA is most of the British press media. Are they going to flog themselves?  I somehow doubt that this is in line with the ethos of the Guardian (minor shareholder I believe) and if they don't already know what is happening then perhaps someone should tell them. The Guardian is currently priding itself on 200 years of standing up for the little guy. This would make good reading. 

    It would also be good to get a view from the NUJ (a lot of us are members), and others. 

    • Upvote 2
  18. 9 hours ago, Richard Tadman said:

    Hang on! If Alamy wishes to offer images at no charge then that is a strategic marketing decision on their behalf to generate additional sales for them. Please explain why I am party to your largesse? My images are submitted to secure a financial return. Alamy by all means can offer their services FOC but I still expect to receive an adequate compensation for my work.
    I am not a registered charity

    I agree completely. Hope my smiley wasn't misunderstood, it was just an expression of my disgust with Alamy's disregard for their contributors.

     

    I expect a minimum of fair play in any business relationship I have. I feel these changes indicate that there is none. Alamy is now a business I cannot trust. They may not care about me, but how long until their clients feel the same? 

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • 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.