Jump to content
Alamy

Commission change - James West comments

Recommended Posts

Just now, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Those that email counter-offers to James@ & Alan@

are ALL getting response, AFAICT.

 

I was thinking more of an overall public response in the way the initial announcement was made, to let the contributing community in general know if their scattered seed of concern and wisdom is falling on stony ground or on good ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

That wasn't my practice until the notification - at which point the discovery than a microstock I played around with a few years back was getting more sales at higher prices with fewer images than Alamy changed my mind.  I will probably try to focus on splitting my next few uploads - some on here, some elsewhere  to see what happens - and I will keep a close watch on the images I do now have duplicated.

I agree.  Principles of macro stock are out the window since Alamy has made it all about their take.  If micro makes me more money, why should I stick with macro stock?  Many sales are for micro prices anyway.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

Those that email counter-offers to James@ & Alan@

are ALL getting response, AFAICT.

I certainly did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Reimar said:

I agree.  Principles of macro stock are out the window since Alamy has made it all about their take.  If micro makes me more money, why should I stick with macro stock?  Many sales are for micro prices anyway.

Dont get me wrong I am keeping an open mind - and the email response mentioned above suggested (no more than that) there are more specific details to come - if that is the case I will peruse them when they come and, if I feel its called for, adjust my workflow again.
In the meantime, my bottom line is my bottom line - and I am going to be looking at where I am making the most money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rico said:

Funny you should mention that.

Last night I found this from a year ago. Mine is the one of the girl taking a photo.

https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000005509783.html

No invoice, so I emailed Contributor Relations concerning this. They replied quickly and are looking into it.

I'm getting the sinking feeling that this happens a lot more than we think.

 

Two reports of long unreported licenses/downloads just from readers of this forum thread alone in last hour or so.  If thats extrapolated to the some 70,000 Alamy contributors and  155 million images the possible magnitude of unreported and unbilled licenses and downloads the lost resulting income could be mind-boggling.  Alamy probably has no clue as to the true extent of the problem if their current system is allowing the situation to exist and not tracking downloads and licenses, etc. for payment.

Edited by Phil
typo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Two reports of long unreported licenses/downloads just from readers of this forum thread alone in last hour or so.  If thats extrapolated that to the some 70,000 Alamy contributors and  155 million images the possible magnitude of unreported and unbilled licenses and downloads the lost resulting income could be mind-boggling.  Alamy probably has no clue as to the true extent of the problem if their current system is allowing the situation to exist and not tracking downloads and licenses, etc. for payment.

 

Alamy's stock answer is they have staff who look for infringements. I cannot see how 5--10 can outperform, say, 35,000 active photographers out of 70,000 if only they had one tiny bit of information: publisher: Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, etc; licence: DDMMYY. If this area was addressed, it would boost income for both parties, and put infringers on notice (i.e., by Alamy taking the infringer to court and if that's not legally possible, then setting up a fund that the photographer can apply to use).

 

While the commission is still one of the best, the dive in prices from £250 to £2.50 is the real culprit. Commissions I have earned this year:

 

$10.40

$11.72

$11.12

$13.54

$13.30

$20.74

$8.58

$10.30

$10.30

$19.31

$8.97

 

A few selling for $30--60, but then some as low as $5.05. Not enough to buy a decent lunch, or two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Two reports of long unreported licenses/downloads just from readers of this forum thread alone in last hour or so.  If thats extrapolated to the some 70,000 Alamy contributors and  155 million images the possible magnitude of unreported and unbilled licenses and downloads the lost resulting income could be mind-boggling.  Alamy probably has no clue as to the true extent of the problem if their current system is allowing the situation to exist and not tracking downloads and licenses, etc. for payment.

 

9 minutes ago, Walrus said:

 

Alamy's stock answer is they have staff who look for infringements. I cannot see how 5--10 can outperform, say, 35,000 active photographers out of 70,000 if only they had one tiny bit of information: publisher: Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, etc; licence: DDMMYY. If this area was addressed, it would boost income for both parties, and put infringers on notice (i.e., by Alamy taking the infringer to court and if that's not legally possible, then setting up a fund that the photographer can apply to use).

 

 

I'm not sure that this case was an infringement.

The photo was accredited to myself and Alamy. It's more likely that this just wasn't  billed.

I would like to hear Alamy's excuse for this, considering the 20% haircut we are about to take

But I'm not holding my breath

Edited by Rico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rico said:

 

I'm not sure that this case was an infringement.

 

My comment wasn't about a specific image but more general based on my experience.

 

If an image is published and credited, as was mine, hence why it was discovered, and not paid, it's an infringement by any name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Walrus said:

 

Alamy's stock answer is they have staff who look for infringements. I cannot see how 5--10 can outperform, say, 35,000 active photographers out of 70,000 if only they had one tiny bit of information: publisher: Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, etc; licence: DDMMYY. If this area was addressed, it would boost income for both parties, and put infringers on notice (i.e., by Alamy taking the infringer to court and if that's not legally possible, then setting up a fund that the photographer can apply to use).

 

Looking for infringements is a band-aid.

 

Chasing infringers should be a secondary adjunct to their business systems that invoice and track/report and bill their accounts receivable with account aging etc. based on image licenses/downloads etc.    If the emphasis is trying to find infringers they are chasing horses already escaped from their barn and hiding who knows where.  I'm certainly not an accountant but If their invoicing / accounts receivable business systems are inadequate and losing Alamy and suppliers perhaps big $$ in lost revenues then thats a big problem IMO.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phil, Rico and Alamy,

when recently asking about a use in Finland in May 2018 I got a quick response from the ever friendly customer service that there has been a relevant download!!  Alamys database registers downloads (here via a distributor), but they evidently do not compare this to their list of sold or billed items. It must be possible use these two lists to automate a prosedure where  e-mails are sent to buyers/distributors at intervals to collect if the images have been used and not paid, and easy for buyers to answer if they have not used the downloads.

 

Had the same experience in Sweden last year and opted out of distribution there.

 

If images are sold via distributors Alamy should in my opinion bill them at once. If distributors want to extend credit to their customers they should do so at their own risk, not Alamys or ours.

 

If Alamy really wants to grow internationally sales must be followed up internationally. 

 

Grethe

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of hard to feel part of a team that you know will score a deliberate own goal at any moment !!!!!

 

 

Cheers and gone

 

Shergar 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

Dont get me wrong I am keeping an open mind - and the email response mentioned above suggested (no more than that) there are more specific details to come - if that is the case I will peruse them when they come and, if I feel its called for, adjust my workflow again.
In the meantime, my bottom line is my bottom line - and I am going to be looking at where I am making the most money

Could you share the hint hint nudge nudge quote?  Cheers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look me up on Twitter - I have my twitter as  as my location if you look to the left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing that article Baggers. I really hope Alamy will take the advice of the BPPA and continue 50/50 with existing photographers and only apply the 60/40 to new contributors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

Look me up on Twitter - I have my twitter as  as my location if you look to the left

Could only find football stuff, and as I'm originally from Newcastle I no longer have any interest. Unfortunately alamy is now the Mike Ashley of stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gina Kelly said:

Thanks for sharing that article Baggers. I really hope Alamy will take the advice of the BPPA and continue 50/50 with existing photographers and only apply the 60/40 to new contributors. 

 

I too hope that Alamy decides to continue the fair 50/50 split. However, wouldn't bringing in new contributors at 40% create a rift between old and new contributors? It also might discourage new people from signing up, which wouldn't make Alamy happy. This arrangement would only work if there were a way for new contributors to eventually earn 50% commission.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil said:

Looking for infringements is a band-aid.

 

Chasing infringers should be a secondary adjunct to their business systems that invoice and track/report and bill their accounts receivable with account aging etc. based on image licenses/downloads etc.    If the emphasis is trying to find infringers they are chasing horses already escaped from their barn and hiding who knows where.  I'm certainly not an accountant but If their invoicing / accounts receivable business systems are inadequate and losing Alamy and suppliers perhaps big $$ in lost revenues then thats a big problem IMO.  

 

 

 

 

 

There are photographers I know who make significant additional income from pursuing infringements and charging full whack (calculator), plus more for especially flagrant abuse or punitive damages if image is in USA and the infringment takes place there.

 

Why can't Alamy? It surely has the scale to partner on beneficial terms with ImageRights or similar recovery organisations with worldwide legal reach.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Gaul said:

Could only find football stuff, and as I'm originally from Newcastle I no longer have any interest. Unfortunately alamy is now the Mike Ashley of stock.

That is my website - my twitter account has a pinned tweet welcoming visitors from Alamy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

There are photographers I know who make significant additional income from pursuing infringements and charging full whack (calculator), plus more for especially flagrant abuse or punitive damages if image is in USA and the infringment takes place there.

 

Why can't Alamy? It surely has the scale to partner on beneficial terms with ImageRights or similar recovery organisations with worldwide legal reach.

 

I'm with you on this. However, I can't see it happening as it would involve ensuring that the photographer had not posted the image elsewhere. Perhaps this is an additional reason for encouraging togs to submit uniquely to Alamy? Even in that scenario though, it would involve additional involvement between Alamy and tog, something which they have proven that they're not keen on. They seem to view that as an additional, unnecessary expense, rather than an opportunity. 

 

Currently, even when offered all the information to show flagrant abuse of licensing terms, they can often give up and roll over at the slightest sign of reluctance by the infringer to play ball. Even a simple failure to respond to emails, and the 'infringement team' (joke) :rolleyes: will give up. On occasion, it can take more than a year, just to have Alamy say that, sorry, we can't pursue this. REALLY? :angry: Why bother licensing at any rate higher than PU, then? Clearly, this is infuriating for us, but do Alamy not realise that it must also irk buyers, who will ask themselves why they are paying more than others?  It merely encourages further infringements from others who might otherwise have been good, solid customers. By continued lack of action, Alamy are confirming to the contributor that they don't care and to the buyer, that it's OK, we won't chase you, you can get away with what you damned well like. 

 

Infringements should be dealt with promptly and firmly. James likes to talk about the long term - if this problem isn't dealt with, there will be no long term, as contributors will not wish to continue submitting to a library who seek to sell at the lowest price for the lowest commission possible and then happily accept open theft of those images with zero recrimination - and good customers (understanding what is going on) will push prices even lower. 

Edited by losdemas
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

Look me up on Twitter - I have my twitter as  as my location if you look to the left

I'm going to need more breadcrumbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

That is my website - my twitter account has a pinned tweet welcoming visitors from Alamy.

 

I guess you have to sign up to twitter to see it.  I don't want to sign up. I don't see it.

Edited by Reimar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess it is
time
to start quoting Shakespeare

 

To die, to sleep – to sleep, perchance to *****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Then I guess it is
time
to start quoting Shakespeare

 

To die, to sleep – to sleep, perchance to *****

 

Methinks thou hast forgotten the rest:

 

"Ay, there’s the rub.

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come”

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, losdemas said:

 

I'm with you on this. However, I can't see it happening as it would involve ensuring that the photographer had not posted the image elsewhere. Perhaps this is an additional reason for encouraging togs to submit uniquely to Alamy? Even in that scenario though, it would involve additional involvement between Alamy and tog, something which they have proven that they're not keen on. They seem to view that as an additional, unnecessary expense, rather than an opportunity. 

 

Currently, even when offered all the information to show flagrant abuse of licensing terms, they can often give up and roll over at the slightest sign of reluctance by the infringer to play ball. Even a simple failure to respond to emails, and the 'infringement team' (joke) :rolleyes: will give up. On occasion, it can take more than a year, just to have Alamy say that, sorry, we can't pursue this. REALLY? :angry: Why bother licensing at any rate higher than PU, then? Clearly, this is infuriating for us, but do Alamy not realise that it must also irk buyers, who will ask themselves why they are paying more than others?  It merely encourages further infringements from others who might otherwise have been good, solid customers. By continued lack of action, Alamy are confirming to the contributor that they don't care and to the buyer, that it's OK, we won't chase you, you can get away with what you damned well like. 

 

Infringements should be dealt with promptly and firmly. James likes to talk about the long term - if this problem isn't dealt with, there will be no long term, as contributors will not wish to continue submitting to a library who seek to sell at the lowest price for the lowest commission possible and then happily accept open theft of those images with zero recrimination - and good customers (understanding what is going on) will push prices even lower. 

Thanks for this. Infringement is yet another area Alamy doesn't seem to take seriously. This past week has been filled with looking closer at Alamy. Was hoping to continue to get some income here, but the tide may be turning for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.