riccarbi

We have also to consider that Alamy is owned, through PA Media, by some of UK's biggest media companies, I doubt this is a coincidence. By buying Alamy such companies also got access to an almost unlimited source of images at (extremely) discounted rates. About the disgruntled contributor base, I suspect that many of those contributors would be happy to see their photos featured on a "famous" newspaper even if they won't get a single penny for the "honour".

A different possibility may be to create a collaborative website/marketplace where to showcase the members' photos. But to leave to each photographer all the commercial aspects (setting prices, collecting payments, pay taxes, invoicing, and the like). For a (reasonable) fee each member would get visibility, and (possibly) a number of additional services by "non-photographer" members, such as infringment chasing, tax consulting, legal support, printing services, etc.

Two days ago, I got a sale for this image https://www.alamy.com/image-details-popup.asp?Imageid=46BAEAE2-DD07-41DA-9624-6233F17F7752 for a whopping revenue of $ 0.05 (!), gross. The (quite laconic) sale report is: 6 MB1714 x 1141 pixels141KB compresseddownloaded 1 times 5 cents? Really? I've never had a sale under $ 3 on Alamy. What the heck is that? Personal use? Novel use ? (I don't think so, since I opted out years ago). A super-discounted distribution sale? Just a little piece of a bulk sale? A gift (sort of) by Alamy to some kind of loyal customer? And what "downloaded 1 times" exactly means? I've never seen this line before.

I had 27 sales to date this year against 31 in the entire 2021. Yet, revenue per image dropped from $44 in 2021 to $26 in 2022. Overall, I don't expect to match even remotely 2021's gross income this year :-(

I think that, to a avoid a confict of interest and protect contributors, a publisher should not be allowed to buy a stock photography agency unless it commits itself to do not use the images managed by that agency for its own publications at discounted fees.

Following this thread, I've digged into the NFT matter a little bit, today. I grasped the basics, yet there is a point I really don't get. If NFTs are (also) a way to prove the real authorship of a digital asset, say a digital photo; who guarantees that the first person who mint on Open Sea a NFT linked to that asset is the real artist and not someone who have just rightclicked it on FB or - even worse - legitimately downloaded it from Alamy?

I've just discovered I've got one of these infamous $ 0.15 Chinese sales too. I also got one of the other versions, the $ 8.82 sale. Both were dated December 31. There is clearly a Chinese publisher or reseller who has collected a gazillion low-res images for a few thousand dollars from Alamy. I guess Alamy's guys could know why. Just a curiosity, what the difference in price (0.15 vs 8.82) could be due to? In my case, both images are RF and low-res, both purchases were from China on the same day, but one reports "China, Magazine - print, digital and electronic" while the other reports just "China". Possibly, different customers?

Could it be the fist step towards Alamy being fully merged with PAimages and, consequently, to the disappearance of everything bearing the name Alamy altogether?

Very bad month, so far. Zero sales by mid-September is really unusual. Furthermore, it's been a long time since I got a sale cleared; I am stuck slightly under the payment threshold since June, with several old sales still uncleared after months. Everything seems to have slowed down at Alamy this summer.

I was about to mark all my images as non-exclusive when I asked to myself: "What if, in the near future, exclusivity will become part of Alamy's ranking algorithm?". So, for the time being, I didn't change anything in my port; just stopped uploading to it.

I had same request some months ago; I agreed to the restiction hoping to get a good sale, eventually. As others reported, the sale never finalized and I didnt hear again from Alamy about it (that disappointed me a little, frankly). I wish you more luck than I had ;-).

Apart from my direct sales, I sell my photos (niche photos I don't sell on Alamy) also through another UK-based specialized photo agency. Split is 40(to me)/60(to them) for pictures in exclusivity; yet, the median gross revenue per picture I'm currently getting from them is £250 (so £100 net to me); furthermore, I have a dedicated content editor and their technical editors check every single photo I submit looking for the tiniest spot or hair I didn't notice before and kindly inform me consequently. What Alamy will do for the same 60% they suppose I'd give to them, in comparison?

In theory, no. In practice, yes. It would be enough for them to contact the clients you sold your images directly and threaten them with legal actions and the like. I bet those clients will be so scared that thay'll never buy photos from you again.

Right. For example, in many countries there is no such thing as "editorial content" in the law. Therefore, if someone in one of those counties asks for an indemnity or, worse, takes Alamy to court because he thinks some kind of local rule has been breached, the contributor will have to pay all legal expenses and the like. Maybe, after having got pennies from Alamy for that picture. This is simply unacceptable.

I guess many here are focusing on the new commission scheme, but too few on other one-sided clauses in the new contract. While I'm not happy at all with the new commissions, I could cope with them (though I think that someone who takes 60% (or more) of your work's value must give you a very valuable service in exchange, and I don't think this is the case with Alamy, currently). Yet, what really worries me are the new terms related to obligations, indemnities, and appointment. I report below some clauses from the new contract: So, basically, you are granting Alamy permission to do whatever they want with your images, but YOU are legally and financially responsible for what they'll do. Nobody in his/her right mind would sign a contract like this and, if Alamy won't amend it, I'll certainly terminate my business collaboration with them.