Jump to content

Steve Valentia

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve Valentia

  1. To be honest, I think we'd all be better off concentrating on photography than maths. Yes, the difference between 50% and 40% is 20% (actually, it's 22.22% recurring) If you start at 50%. But, we're not starting at 50%, we are starting at 100%. So, if you got 50% of 100% and now you get 40% of 100%, you have lost 10%.
  2. It's not losing you anything. It's just not making an extra 10% - not 20%, as you say. But, you have the chance it will make more money and that might be worth the wait.
  3. 1. Sorry, I don't get that. If it's non-exclusive and not selling elsewhere it's not losing money. It's just not making extra money. 2. No, 60% commission is correct. Commission is what is paid by the client (you) to the agent (Alamy). Alamy take 60% unless images are exclusive, then they take 50%.
  4. 1. I don't get how it can be losing revenue if it's just sitting there gathering dust? 2. I think you mean 60% commission.
  5. I joined Alamy in 2004 but didn't upload any slides - as I had binned thousands of them when I converted to digital. I uploaded new digital images energetically for the first 3 or 4 years, getting up to about 5000 images, then had a period of inactivity (while doing a lot of commercial and editorial work that was "exclusive" to the clients). It's only in the last 3 years that I've got my numbers up to just over 7000. But, I rarely see sales from the pre-slump period. Most of the sales are from the last 3 or 4 years. I saw one sale last week that was one of my first ever submitted images, but it's rare for me to get an older image sale. My point is that it seems to me that (at least in my case) that regular contributions are connected to increased sales. Keep it up Alan.
  6. Good for you Andy. I hope they sell. Even if they are not all that. 😃 As I said whatever the quote by whoever it wasn't the point. P.s. maybe next time you don't want to be quoted, it might be best if you didn't actually write anything down in a public forum (twice).
  7. Oh. I was beginning to wonder why you seemed so vitriolic towards me. I am not in any way referring to you. I was quoting somebody else. And that really isn't the whole point of what I was saying. You really should go back and check the facts.
  8. I can't believe I've been kicked out of live news. It doesn't make it less true. Nor does it make what I wrote less valid. Everything I said is based on what apoears in this thread. When you have a bit more time on your hands, maybe you'd like to go back over it and check the facts.
  9. You quoted me in full Andy, but you obviously did not read me fully. I believe that the system is flawed and that some people who were included should not have been and others have been excluded either by mistake or because the system is faulty. I wasn't basing everything on that one light-hearted comment. In fact, I wasn't basing anything on it I was using it as an example of a wider issue. Also, as mentioned, half of my sales from last year were from news uploads. So if I lose those, that's a shame too.
  10. The whole thing is a shambles based, as some have speculated, on an algorithm that chose the leavers on the basis of low-level news submissions. If that was true, however, then some mistakes were made, as can be seen by @Alamy's own message to me (on a previous page). This states that I had made only 18 submissions in total. When I challenged this, it turned out that I had, in fact made over 300 news submissions. Just when I thought that might be enough to re-instate me, a counter-blow - in the shape of "but you haven't sold many news images" - was wielded against me. I countered this by saying I had, in fact, sold half my total year's sales for 128 via news uploads. This prompted body blow number 2 - the old "oh, but they were secondary sales" uppercut. At least one member here has stated that their images "were not all that", and I assume this means neither were their sales. In which case, if the reasons given to me for my expulsion were valid, then that member should also have been excluded. But they were not. As someone who has genuinely been exclusive and loyal to Alamy for over 15 years, I feel confused and badly let down. OK, don't let me submit news images. I might lose €500 a year. So what? But at least be consistent with your reasons across the board and apply the same criteria to everyone.
  11. Actually, it's at least 25, as I sold another this week. Yes, they may have been "secondary stock", but they were uploaded as news images. I would not have uploaded them otherwise, especially the weather shots, as I would have considered them too late for general stock use. I consider my 24/5 sales as a direct consequence of the option to upload news images, and it's a pity that you might not, as you could be missing out on some sales. I've already re-applied. I won't hold my breath.
  12. I have been excluded from the Live News feed, but I note my Reportage & Archival upload options are not "greyed out". You might want to check that in your own AIM. Of course, when Alamy see this, they may discover they made a mistake with me and grey out all of it!
  13. I'm afraid your figures are incorrect. I have submitted many more than 18 new images. My "News" folder for Alamy submissions has 34 sub-folders, since the start of 2018, alone. Each of those contains an average of 10 images (some many more) and I've been submitting to the news feed for at least 8 years. In fact, I've had 24 sales via the news feed in the last 12 months. If you've based your selection process on misinformation, could I please ask that you review it.
  14. Perhaps you would be kind enough to outline the general reasons for excluding some of us from submitting to Live News. This is especially interesting given that some who were excluded, like myself, have many years of photo-journalism experience while others, who were not excluded, claim that their images "are not all that".
  15. How do you know that your right to file has been revoked because you can't file in an hour? That's not what the "you're excluded" email says (I got one and I've been a press photographer since 1981). I would contact CR directly to find out why you were not chosen to submit news. I did, and I'll let everyone know what they say, should they reply.
  16. I presume it was a "catchall", but only for the chosen few allowed to continue submitting news. The rest of us were unceremoniously dumped.
  17. There was print life before Alamy. Go directly to the source. See my post above. This is the image I mentioned, it made me 10 times the usual Alamy live news fee.
  18. I was foolish enough to try and re-apply, just done it. I'll let you know. I submitted a clip from an Irish national broadsheet, taken in February. It was sold directly to the paper (not via Alamy news) - and for a good $$$ price. Although it does have that in my caption, because I also submitted to Alamy News feed. So, it is possible to still get news published without them.
  19. I would take it from that, Keith is exempt at least. His was the first name that came to my mind when I assumed some would be "exempt". I've held an NUJ Press Card since 1981 and my "license to news" was revoked, too. I sometimes liken Alamy management to the current Government (re: Brexit). You assume they know what they're doing, because they are in charge. But sometimes, their actions would say differently.
  20. I know what you meant. What I meant is that not everyone might know how old (or out of copyright) they are.
  21. I have many photos in old books. They are not in the public domain. Risky indeed (I've been known to sue before now)!
  22. Ye Gods. It's the end of the world (of photography) as we know it. And I feel fine. (Not really).
  23. The check box in AIM is called 'Image sourced from public domain' (not..image is in Public Domain). When you click the ? window, it says..."Public Domain images are free of restrictions under applicable copyright laws. They can include content where the copyright has expired, been forfeited or is not applicable." While this may apply to images taken by the contributor in question, it seems unlikely to me and more likely that these are images which have been taken by others and "found" by the contributor.
  24. I have to say I'm feeling quite puzzled (and perhaps a bit naive) about this Kieth. Is it the case that anyone can procure images in the "Public Domain", claim them as their own and send them to a picture agency / library for sale? Or, that the library can "harvest" them directly? One likely consequence is that snappers (even Red ones) could sell their cameras and make a living trawling the internet and public libraries for their sales.
  25. I've just noticed the checkbox for images sourced from the public domain, in AIM (Optional). Almost immediately, I saw this report in my news feed: https://www.dpreview.com/news/3907450005/getty-images-sued-over-allegedly-licensing-public-domain-images-again It had struck me as being a bit "risky" to say the least and I'm puzzled why Alamy are considering it as an upload option.
  • 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.