Search the Community

Just got one of those awful sales that would make a microstock shooter spew coffee. I would love it if we could set a minimum price for our work, and if a sale comes in below that, we get 75%. Of course, that not going to happen, but it would be fair, IMHO.

I just had eight images sell on Alamy for a pithy $1.25 each for use as web editorial. I am beyond pi$$ed.

I'm at a loss trying to calculate a price quote - I thought I would tap into the collective forum genius for some help... An educational book publisher wants to use one of my images as a two-page spread for a chapter heading. Their requested terms are: Non-exclusive Term: In Perpetuity Includes: Any new editions/revisions, all media (including later use in DVD, or video) Any derivative works. They haven't specified an initial print run, but since they're wanting rights forever, I'm not sure the initial print total is vital to my calculation. Essentially, this is an RF type license request. I've attempted use of the Alamy calculator and came up with pricing from $460-$1850. Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome! Brian

I just had two sales show up, with exactly the same descriptors of usage, duration, etc. I was surprised to see that one was priced about half as much as the other. How can the prices be so different if the details are the same for the both of them? Thanks, Maria

Hi on Alamy's home page alamy.com it says "Pricing from £15", but if you look at an individual image, no matter if RF or RM, the pricing officially starts at £ 9.99. Wasn't it £15.00 or £14.99 before, consistent with the statement on the home page? Edit: I think the "Marketing package: Small business" price has also been lowered, but I'm not totally sure.

How about tiered pricing? Might it not make sense to allow photographers or Alamy staff to set pricing. I understand that supply and demand might make even a really nice photo of a very popular subject sell for very little. But what about subjects for which there is virtually no competition? For example, I'd be interested in hiring a plane and getting aerial shots above my region. But I could spend $500. Based on previous experience I often see my photos sell for just a few dollars each. Sometimes sales are for "real money" but not that often. Also some contributors have unique niches. As such I have photos so far as I know nobody has of things that are quite relevant. I feel weird when I license those for cheap, I just checked and found a two year worldwide print and web license for $15 for example. Some ways I could imagine this working would be: Allow contributors to set a minimum price but keep other Alamy pricing otherwise the same- forcing the lowest paying news outlets and blogs to cough up a "reasonable" amount if they want a premium photo. Let contributors set pricing as a percentage of a base pricing scheme. I think that's the way my Photoshelter is setup. Simply start a new premium service like the opposite of Stockimo and have a new set of prices all-together Just an idea....

I have been looking at my sales and notice the following sales detail seems to be on the increase. Country: Worldwide Usage: iQ sale: Magazine, Editorial print and digital use. Repeat use. Industry sector: Media, design & publishing Start: 05 August 2015 End: 05 August 2020 I realise we hand our image over to Alamy and agree that they are able to negotiate prices etc etc... I also recognise that the market is very difficult and prices reflect this BUT we mark our images as RM for a reason over RF and I can't help but feel that this is RF by the back door. Yes it has a 5 year term but the wording "Repeat Use" basically means its a 5 year RF license ... Maybe we need an iQ opt-out the same as Novel Use, Distribution etc..... I'm not saying I would opt out but it does need a great deal of thought..... Your Thoughts?

I've been a contributing member since 2007, so I know falling prices have been reality for years now, but I was still surprised to see this 'sale' this morning... Country: Worldwide Usage: Editorial Media: Travel guides -print and/or e-book Print run: Unlimited Placement: Front cover Image Size: 1 page Start: 01 January 2015 End: 01 January 2025 Reused on the spine $ 260.70 By Alamy's calculator, the value of that license should be $3100. 92% off? Ouch.

Click on any RM or RF image and look at the pricing AND resolution size at the right. Is it true that a buyer could check the Presentation size and download the highest resolution size for $15? The highest resolution size is showing for "Website" and "Marketing Package" as well. Tell me THIS IS NOT TRUE!

I've been with alamy for 8 years now and I see a drastic reduction in the fees paid for my images. Just sold yesterday an RF image (Alamy Ref CY2NJY) with these terms: Country: Worldwide Usage: Editorial Media: Textbook - print and e-book Print run: Unlimited Placement: Inside Image Size: 2 page spread Start: 01 January 2014 End: 01 January 2039 All terms and rights granted as per the Alamy Preferred Vendor Agreement dated 26th January 2010 prevail. Flat rate per image, license period 20 years. Calculator price: $1970 Paid $180. After commission, only $90 Happened 5 times this and last year with huge 90%+ discount.. literally lost thousands of dollars in the last 2-3 years due to this pricing structure. Communicating with Alamy about this issue generates only standard responses about clients, discounts, and hope you understand followed with thank you for being a loyal contributor... (BS) Either there is some meaning the calculator or not. Why not inform the photographer of the deep discount and supply some kind of logic to the way Alamy is pricing our images and can anyone explain what does "All terms and rights granted as per the Alamy Preferred Vendor Agreement dated 26th January 2010 prevail. Flat rate per image, license period 20 years." means......

Are we, as a profession, the only ones where we do not have control over the pricing of our product? This is not aimed at Alamy but all stock libraries. Do writers and actors have some sort of control over the pricing of their books/services via their agents? If one takes an expensive car into an automobile dealer and asks to sell it on consignment, does the dealer not allow the owner to know what price they are putting on the vehicle? Does a real estate agent not divulge to the vendor the price the agent is asking to sell the house and only tells them after the contract has been signed? When many of us signed up to stock libraries many years ago, the license fees were reasonable and we accepted and trusted the agencies' ability to license our work for a fair and reasonable fee. This is no longer the case. I started to think about this again when I was recently asked to remove a restriction on one of my images and when I suggested that I would do so if the calculator price was used or at least advise me what the buyer was willing to pay, I was advised of "discounts with clients" and they "cannot disclose how much their client would be paying for this particular use". The restriction was not lifted and the sale did not proceed. Sheila

Just thinking about how all the big sales do not get reported on the forum because that person would then be breaking their cover and have people copying their style, topic, or whatever reason people think the sale arose. Perhaps Alamy could divulge the top ten monetary sales each month? Just the monetary amount. Would that be an encouragement? Give balance to the low pricing topics? Make people despair, as they are not earning the same? Simon

There's an interesting discussion on a post in Let's Talk About Pics regarding whether we should or should not discuss image pricing on the forum. It's buried in the July Comp thread. The debate is interesting so i thought it warrants its own thread. I haven't yet formed a view. But the way I see it there are two significant opposing reasons relating to the issue. There may be more. 1. Some could claim that free speech is being stifled were such behaviour to be banned (but remember it is Alamy's forum). And that it's useful for contributors to see what others are getting for their images - it provides comparative data. 2. But by posting low prices for images we could be damaging ourselves. Consider a buyer seeing prices that are currently much lower than they pay. Would that not be a significant lever for the buyer to attempt to get lower pricing when next negotiating their supply contract with Alamy? The danger being that it becomes a steadily decreasing spiral across Alamy's customer base. I'm mainly talking here about buyers with large usage needs. But it could also be a turnoff for any buyer. There are lots of peripheral issues involved I know - image usage, qty discounts, what other agencies are doing etc. But the potential danger is that we exacerbate the problem. As a general principle should we or should we not post on the forum, actual image pricing received?

I'm taking this off because I just read another post about discussing lowball pricing and I agree we do not need to do this on here...it gives buyers too many lowball ideas...

Just logged in and noticed I got my first sale on April 24. Finally. Selling is great, however, the sale was for $20.64. I was surprised at how low the price was so I checked out the licensing. Below are the specifics: Country: United Kingdom Usage: Editorial Media: Newspaper - national Print run: up to 2 million Placement: Inside and online Image Size: 1/4 page Start: 01 March 2013 End: 02 March 2013 One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within print and /or web versions, with re-use of the article in other titles or web versions within the same newspaper group. Digital use includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. This said, several things surprise me. The start run date is March 1 and yet the sale shows as April 24. Anyone know why this might be? Second, I did a price check for the exact specifications shown above - $245. How does an image go from $245 to $20.64? Whatever the reason, I'm not too happy as this "subtle "pricing difference cost me $115. Since when does Alamy take liberties with the pricing or give huge discounts with what is effectively my money? Or is this possibly an error? If I wanted to make $10 a photo I'd do nothing but sell on Microstock sites. If anyone can help me understand this I'd appreciate it. Thanks.