Commission change - James West comments

[M.Chapman 1,154]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

There was. It's before mine too but James mentioned it in the vid and I recall it in the legacy commission table.

Here's an old page

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-faqs-why-alamy.asp

Optional $1.20/image/year in exchange for a higher commission. Far more than I, and many, earn even now.

 

It doesn't seem very clever to still have that old page of info on-line on Alamy.com (even if there are no direct links from elsewhere on the site to it).

 

Mark

[MilesbeforeIsleep 55]

4 hours ago, Julie Edwards said:

The BPPA (British Press Photographers Association) have now responded with an open letter.... A measured and well thought out response 

 

 

https://thebppa.com/an-open-letter-to-alamy-ceo-james-west/

 

 

Thanks for this, Julie.  Do we have anyone with membership in NPPA, the U.S. version of BPPA?   Perhaps they're not yet aware of the situation and would like to comment.  https://www.nppa.org/

[Homy 17]

6 hours ago, Ericg said:

It’s the appearance of greed that gets to me. Why not be satisfied with $25 million a year in revenue? Why must you demand constant growth from your company? If the only way to increase your revenue is to squeeze us individual photographers, maybe its time to stand back and look at becoming more efficient rather than putting the burden of your growth on us.

 

If the price for a higher annual revenue comes at the sacrifice of your partners (us photographers), maybe Alamy has reached its growth limit.

 

Never ending growth is unsustainable for any system.

 

Please consider the big picture (no pun intended!).

 

Eric

 

I totally agree. That's what is wrong with many companies. They just chase profits and lay off people despite of good profits just to maintain high growth for no good.

[losdemas 1,975]

Sometimes, you just have to laugh:

 

https://twitter.com/callisterphoto/status/1071120618676879360

 

...sort of...

[Foreign Export 281]

6 minutes ago, losdemas said:

Sometimes, you just have to laugh:

 

https://twitter.com/callisterphoto/status/1071120618676879360

 

...sort of...

 

 

Says it all about their attitude

Entirely focused on promoting new contributors 

[Zollikon 6]

It's sad, I only recently got back into photography (Camera Press, back in the day) and signed up with Alamy because their 50/50 split seemed like a fair deal.

 

If Alamy want to grow, great. Many businesses want to grow, and they fund it by reinvesting profit, issuing shares or getting a loan - because they are confident of their business plan. Trying to fund your growth by squeezing your suppliers is a sketchy way to try and grow - especially when there are other routes to market for those suppliers.

 

I think the real kicker is the huge size of the cut. It's not a 5% or a 10% cut, it's a 20% cut. TWENTY PERCENT! That is massive. And, with regret, it's enough to make me look into some of those other routes to market.

 

I'm genuinely sad, but I guess that's business. I'm not going to tell Alamy how to run their business, but I sure know I have to look after mine.

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Zollikon

[njene 151]

Thank you BPPA for taking the time to express your thoughts in words

[Bill Kuta 134]

Looks like I'll be shifting focus back to the POD site.

[Betty LaRue 2,025]

57 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

Looks like I'll be shifting focus back to the POD site.

Me, too. 

[Hodderauthor 22]

The National Union of Journalists has now commented on this:

 

https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-urges-alamy-to-rethink-commission-cut/

[DDoug 2,899]

5 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

Looks like I'll be shifting focus back to the POD site.

One thing Alamy could do, possibly, is make all contributors who so choose to be defacto members of Art.com. So instead of selling PU only, we could be commissioned on the full price of enlarged print with framing. My information on this is a couple years old, but at that time anything over 10"x13" was just turned over to Art.com, the customer first having bought a cheap download from Alamy.

[Thomas Kyhn 43]

6 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

Looks like I'll be shifting focus back to the POD site.

 

Perhaps you can put a link on your Alamy portfolio page.

[David McGill 8]

13 hours ago, Walrus said:

 

I recently uploaded images to Adobe Stock. One, they were clueless about copyright, so rejected a number of images after they were keyworded saying I had infringed intellectual property (being a photographer, I had done NO such thing -- they don't even know about the freedom of panorama clause, let alone more obscure clauses).

$ 5.05

I too have had the same trouble. I uploaded some images of cattle in a field near my home and ran into the intellectual property infringement scenario. Why? The animals' ID tags were visible. So a simple bit of cloning and a re-upload and all was well. However, in some instances their attitude to intellectual property is questionable. In that case with the cattle I didn't see any problem. As I mentioned before in a reply to another contributor I uploaded some airliner photos and had the same situation. Virtually all the airline colour schemes have to be cloned out and as a result nearly every airliner in their collection is all white!

David

 

[Richard49 5]

I've cancelled my membership of Alamy over this.

[Skyscraperfan 76]

What I noticed today: Alamy raised the price for the "Marketing package: Large Business" from €179.99 to €299.99 since I last checked two days ago. That's a step in the right direction. However, if Alamy sells a photo for 300 Euros, is it too much to ask that the photographer receives half of that money?

[marc 36]

This is part of Alamy's stated mission statement.

 

"We share the rewards with our suppliers with fairness and transparency, and our business is underpinned with a philanthropic ethos."

 

No. You don't share rewards with fairness when you reduce the payment to contributors by 20% but increase the pay of your staff, executives and employees  Please remove this statement from your website.  

 

And while giving money to charity is a  laudable idea,  doing so at the same time as cutting the earnings of hard-pressed photographers, many of whom rely on income from the library is hypocritical.  If you want an ethical mission, perhaps you should actually execute one or stop pretending. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by marc

[David Pimborough 132]

2 hours ago, Skyscraperfan said:

What I noticed today: Alamy raised the price for the "Marketing package: Large Business" from €179.99 to €299.99 since I last checked two days ago. That's a step in the right direction. However, if Alamy sells a photo for 300 Euros, is it too much to ask that the photographer receives half of that money?

 

The trouble is that Alamy's listed prices are never used the actual sales revenues bare no relationship to these.

 

They always discount and even if they don't a lot of "buyers" seem to opt for the lowest personal use price

[KevinS 130]

7 hours ago, Hodderauthor said:

The National Union of Journalists has now commented on this:

 

https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-urges-alamy-to-rethink-commission-cut/

Very brief article, but succinct. One thing that stood out was the mention that James is blaming the current economic conditions. Here in the US the economy has been good, especially the last three years. Alamy has done well during that same time period. Giving the profits away might be a bigger factor in Alamy's troubles.

Edited December 8, 2018 by KevinS

[Skyscraperfan 76]

I don't see what Brexit has to do with this. Why should anybody NOT buy a photo because of Brexit? Will any newspaper less be sold because of Brexit? Are companies suddenly poor because of Brexit? In fact a decreasing value of the British Pound would even mean that we get more pence for every dollar that comes from an overseas sale.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Skyscraperfan

[aphperspective 171]

7 hours ago, David McGill said:

I too have had the same trouble. I uploaded some images of cattle in a field near my home and ran into the intellectual property infringement scenario. Why? The animals' ID tags were visible. So a simple bit of cloning and a re-upload and all was well. However, in some instances their attitude to intellectual property is questionable. In that case with the cattle I didn't see any problem. As I mentioned before in a reply to another contributor I uploaded some airliner photos and had the same situation. Virtually all the airline colour schemes have to be cloned out and as a result nearly every airliner in their collection is all white!

David

 

Same issue with JCB on the side of a forklift. BTW had the same with cattle ear tags on G. Plus the logo on a ball that was floating in the water. 

[KevinS 130]

29 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Staying ON TOPIC helps prevent that, IMO...

Yes; don't need anecdotes about other platforms unless it relates to commission split.

Edited December 8, 2018 by KevinS

[Cryptoprocta 705]

22 hours ago, losdemas said:

Sometimes, you just have to laugh:

 

https://twitter.com/callisterphoto/status/1071120618676879360

 

...sort of...

That's a supreme example of rubbing our noses in  it.

[Cryptoprocta 705]

7 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Regardless of what happens, I applaud the fact that these anti-40/60 threads

have been allowed to continue, especially if they are NOT locked tomorrow

or next week...

Yeah, they'll just let us rant, but nothing will happen.

They're having a good laugh, though.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Cryptoprocta

[Cryptoprocta 705]

23 hours ago, Zollikon said:

If Alamy want to grow, great. Many businesses want to grow, and they fund it by reinvesting profit, issuing shares or getting a loan - because they are confident of their business plan.

Yeah, but shareholders want returns, loans have to be repaid, and they want all the profit to support their "charity".

Contributors not only don't  need to be paid back (with interest!), but after they have been screwed, they don't even have to be returned to their previous level (vide "paying for the US office").

[andremichel 233]

6 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Yeah, but shareholders want returns, loans have to be repaid, and they want all the profit to support their "charity".

Contributors not only don't  need to be paid back (with interest!), but after they have been screwed, they don't even have to be returned to their previous level (vide "paying for the US office").

If they were being sincere the last time round, once the US office was up and running and self sustaining itself, they would have returned our share to 60%. 

Instead they have come back for more, this time with vague promises of growth and no clear business plan on how that might be achieved with our money. They really think very little of us. It shows a total disregard for their contributors and is all about power.