Jump to content

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

Nope, here is what a friend, who is moving all of his JETTY exclusive rf over to exclusive Alamy rf, said to me recently.

"Bill (J)ETTY is exclusive rf Images and pays 20 shitty percent on a sale but there is so much subscription clients that sales are like a buck 20. It’s sickening."

That's true, but still I earn half here (RM) than I do there (RF), though I get (a paltry) 30% for the iS sales.

 

However, it may be that RF will do better here going forward than RM will; time will tell.

 

Share this post


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

 

In all directions by the sounds of it.

 

canada-goose-metal-weather-vane-F3KC2G.j

 

It's not a Wryneck is it?

- Yes I can see it's a goose -

Translation from German: Wryneck = Wendehals.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

It's not a Wryneck is it?

- Yes I can see it's a goose -

Translation from German: Wryneck = Wendehals.

 

wim

 

I'd never heard that term before, but it does seem somewhat à propos😎

 

AFAIK it's a boring old Canada goose (like me) who's not quite sure which way the wind is blowing, so he's planning to stay put.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, dustydingo said:

 

By my reckoning, gleaned from irregular sorties into the forum over many years, this used to be the predominant sentiment here. Of late many appear to have abandoned it in favour of the lure of multiple peanuts elsewhere.

 

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that hopes of rising prices here are in danger of being stymied by the planned movement of portfolios to, or replication on, certain MS sites.

 

DD

 

I am still thinking that, in our society, the value of what we do comes down to the money we get out of it. So if we ask for peanuts in compensation for our work, it means our work is at most worth peanuts…

 

To me, it is like sawing the branch we are sitting on.

 

No wonder why, when we send quotations to new clients, we are often told it's expensive. How can they just say it's expensive? Do they think of the cost of professional full frame cameras, a full range of wide aperture professional lenses, studio strobes and light shaping tools, hi-speed wireless transceivers, good tripods and heads, decent camera bags, C-stands and booms, computers, large HDDs and CF cards, pro-grade monitors, calibration tools, software, internet connection, a vehicle, gasoline, insurance, our time and effort on location, our time and effort on screen…?? Nope! And why would they care after all? All they need to know is that they can get photos for nothing on the internet… So that surely means photos are worth nothing and we should be happy to work for free, what else could that possibly mean? How many of us have been told "let me use your pictures for free, it will bring you recognition"? As if recognition brought food on the table.

 

Just my opinion anyway. Sorry, I'm always grumpy on thursdays…

Edited by Olivier Parent
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with the analogy to peanuts is that when an image on microstock is sold lots of times those peanuts add up to more than the steak dinner a single sale elsewhere brings.  Maybe it would help if people considered it a different way - one man wants one car for his own personal use - he pays one large price.  A group of neighbours want one car to be shared among them each using it for part of the time - each pays a much smaller amount.  Has the second car been sold for peanuts?  No.

So one customer wants one photo (or photos from one shoot) for their exclusive use they pay one lump sum 
If another customer wants use of one photo or shot from a shoot but is happy to share that with lots of others they pay one small amount

The validity of the pricing model and return model is if I can look at a photo or a shoot and say it has brung in x amount of money.  If I do a shoot that I would quote £150 for to a single customer, put the images on microstock, and find that I have sold 300 copies from the shoot at 50p each then I have not worked for peanuts - I have worked my usual rate.  Of course, the difference is that with the single customer once that £150 is paid that is it - on microstock I could see another 300 sales in the following decade and bring in another £150.

Maybe instead of thinking of microstock as peanuts, a better analogy would be a timeshare apartment.  Lots of people who cannot afford a whole holiday home buy one week a year through timeshare.  Now sometimes this works and sometimes this does not but I do not hear anyone saying the original owners of the properties being sold this way are selling them for peanuts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the problem with the analogy to peanuts is that when an image on microstock is sold lots of times those peanuts add up to more than the steak dinner a single sale elsewhere brings. 

 

What people often forget is that images on microstock are more quickly watered down and will more often be copied and used for free and infringements are nearly impossible to trace.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I think the problem with the analogy to peanuts is that when an image on microstock is sold lots of times those peanuts add up to more than the steak dinner a single sale elsewhere brings.  Maybe it would help if people considered it a different way - one man wants one car for his own personal use - he pays one large price.  A group of neighbours want one car to be shared among them each using it for part of the time - each pays a much smaller amount.  Has the second car been sold for peanuts?  No.

So one customer wants one photo (or photos from one shoot) for their exclusive use they pay one lump sum 
If another customer wants use of one photo or shot from a shoot but is happy to share that with lots of others they pay one small amount

The validity of the pricing model and return model is if I can look at a photo or a shoot and say it has brung in x amount of money.  If I do a shoot that I would quote £150 for to a single customer, put the images on microstock, and find that I have sold 300 copies from the shoot at 50p each then I have not worked for peanuts - I have worked my usual rate.  Of course, the difference is that with the single customer once that £150 is paid that is it - on microstock I could see another 300 sales in the following decade and bring in another £150.

Maybe instead of thinking of microstock as peanuts, a better analogy would be a timeshare apartment.  Lots of people who cannot afford a whole holiday home buy one week a year through timeshare.  Now sometimes this works and sometimes this does not but I do not hear anyone saying the original owners of the properties being sold this way are selling them for peanuts.

 

This is an argument for all non-exclusive images on Alamy (i.e. images the buyer has to, as you put it, "share with lots of others" by way of them being non-exclusive to Alamy) to be sold for peanuts because they may sell more than once.

 

As usual I have to preface my comments with "I may be missing something here", but to me that looks like an argument _against_ all those railing against the low prices sometimes earned here, or at least a justification for those low prices? No?

 

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

I think the problem with the analogy to peanuts is that when an image on microstock is sold lots of times those peanuts add up to more than the steak dinner a single sale elsewhere brings.  Maybe it would help if people considered it a different way - one man wants one car for his own personal use - he pays one large price.  A group of neighbours want one car to be shared among them each using it for part of the time - each pays a much smaller amount.  Has the second car been sold for peanuts?  No.

So one customer wants one photo (or photos from one shoot) for their exclusive use they pay one lump sum 
If another customer wants use of one photo or shot from a shoot but is happy to share that with lots of others they pay one small amount

The validity of the pricing model and return model is if I can look at a photo or a shoot and say it has brung in x amount of money.  If I do a shoot that I would quote £150 for to a single customer, put the images on microstock, and find that I have sold 300 copies from the shoot at 50p each then I have not worked for peanuts - I have worked my usual rate.  Of course, the difference is that with the single customer once that £150 is paid that is it - on microstock I could see another 300 sales in the following decade and bring in another £150.

Maybe instead of thinking of microstock as peanuts, a better analogy would be a timeshare apartment.  Lots of people who cannot afford a whole holiday home buy one week a year through timeshare.  Now sometimes this works and sometimes this does not but I do not hear anyone saying the original owners of the properties being sold this way are selling them for peanuts.

 

OK, so… You also like analogies, you just do not like peanuts… 😉

And so you think a car or an apartment is a better analogy than peanuts for images that are sold for 0.50$… I have no problem with that.

 

Many photographers have been licensing their images to multiple clients using a "cost sharing" method, which is mutually beneficial (clients pay less, the photographer earns more) for quite a long time. But they keep their prices in a range that is rational according to their own business practices and the value of their products/services. When they sell a picture to 10 clients instead of one, they do not charge each client 1/10 (not to mention 1/100) of the price they would have asked to a single one! That would be a complete nonsense… Each client still gets the whole image and the whole use of it, not a fraction.

 

Your examples are irrelevant because, being the car or the house, each person actually gets a small fraction of it. You paid for 1 week a year, you will have to wait 51 weeks until you can use the house/car again… You cannot compare a house/car to an image because 1.000 persons cannot have a whole use of a car/house at the same time, which is possible with an image. An image license has nothing to do with a physical product, like a car, a house, or a print that could hang on a wall…

Edited by Olivier Parent
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dustydingo said:

 

This is an argument for all non-exclusive images on Alamy (i.e. images the buyer has to, as you put it, "share with lots of others" by way of them being non-exclusive to Alamy) to be sold for peanuts because they may sell more than once.

 

As usual I have to preface my comments with "I may be missing something here", but to me that looks like an argument _against_ all those railing against the low prices sometimes earned here, or at least a justification for those low prices? No?

 

DD

 

Well, no… 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

Well, no… 😁

 

Phew, that's a relief 😉

 

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

 

What people often forget is that images on microstock are more quickly watered down and will more often be copied and used for free and infringements are nearly impossible to trace.

 

That's not not surprising. When people pay so little for images, I'm sure they don't place much value on them and figure they can do whatever they want with them and no one will care. I guess you could say that it's human nature (or nurture) to behave this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

 

What people often forget is that images on microstock are more quickly watered down and will more often be copied and used for free and infringements are nearly impossible to trace.

You'd think, but OTOH:

1. Photos sold via Alamy published in certain UK publications are duplicated dozens, scores or even over a hundred times on the web before the sale is even reported, via far east Asian websites and from there can be stolen willy-nilly.

2. Alamy allow "trusted" buyers to get unwatermarked files on an 'honour' system, and when they are caught cheating, they are rewarded by getting the sales at a cheaper price, not punished. There must be hundreds, maybe thousands of unreported files which don't get reported.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the original question about Alamy turning into a MS, my last sale on Alamy yesterday = $175. The 50% commission leaves me with $87.50. I am not saying this is an answer of course but that is in the range I was expecting when I started submitting images to Alamy back in 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my one and only sale here has been as personal use ( a street scene of people buying items from a stall on a street corner...personal use?) and I got only $5 nett perhaps because I sell as RF only...not sure but that's not much better price than selling on a MS site IMO!

Share this post


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

my one and only sale here has been as personal use ( a street scene of people buying items from a stall on a street corner...personal use?) and I got only $5 nett perhaps because I sell as RF only...not sure but that's not much better price than selling on a MS site IMO!

 

No wonder why so many of us opted out of personal use scheme when the first sales came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2019 at 21:40, M.Chapman said:

 

But there are also "on demand" and "other" sales which attract $1.88 (or more) each.

 

Mark

Mind blowing!!! 😂🤣😂

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

You cannot compare a house to an image because 1.000 persons cannot have a whole use of a house at the same time

Well you say that...  😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Colblimp said:

Well you say that...  😂

 

You are right! I never tried… 😯

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

Mind blowing!!! 😂🤣😂

 

To say the least! 

Can you imagine that? $1.88 (or more) for a single image?

People really throw money out the windows… 😂

Edited by Olivier Parent
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

my one and only sale here has been as personal use ( a street scene of people buying items from a stall on a street corner...personal use?) and I got only $5 nett perhaps because I sell as RF only...not sure but that's not much better price than selling on a MS site IMO!


I know it does not take much to confuse me, but this I am confused by. 
How can the image have been RF if it was a street scene with people unless the model releases were obtained for all people and releases for any property?  If not, if would surely have to be marked RF/Editorial, in which case how can it be sold as PU, surely PU is not editorial? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

my one and only sale here has been as personal use ( a street scene of people buying items from a stall on a street corner...personal use?) and I got only $5 nett perhaps because I sell as RF only...not sure but that's not much better price than selling on a MS site IMO!

Well, its more than I have made here - 2 sales both 99cs net.  I have more images selling from a smaller port on one of the microstocks and they are getting $2 net.  That did motivate me to start submitting to said microstock again.  I really do not care what sort of stock each company is going to describe itself as I am more interested in what money it is going to make and as long as microstock sales are double the price of here I am keeping my stuff spread out.

Share this post


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

Well, its more than I have made here - 2 sales both 99cs net.  I have more images selling from a smaller port on one of the microstocks and they are getting $2 net.  That did motivate me to start submitting to said microstock again.  I really do not care what sort of stock each company is going to describe itself as I am more interested in what money it is going to make and as long as microstock sales are double the price of here I am keeping my stuff spread out.

 

The point is not how the company describes itself but how you value your own work. One thing you can take for granted: you will never get more than what you are asking for! Happy to sell your images for $0.50? Just don't ask why nobody pays $50 for one of them and why it is becoming so hard to earn a living from photography.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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


I know it does not take much to confuse me, but this I am confused by. 
How can the image have been RF if it was a street scene with people unless the model releases were obtained for all people and releases for any property?  If not, if would surely have to be marked RF/Editorial, in which case how can it be sold as PU, surely PU is not editorial? 

Seems not to be an issue.

I'd have thought most personal use sales would be of the more 'pictorial' variety, but in my case not remotely so: most of my PU sales have been RM without releases, and not the sort of  images you'd expect to see made into notecards etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

To say the least! 

Can you imagine that? $1.88 (or more) for a single image?

People really throw money out the windows… 😂

I've had three sales from Alamy netting me under $1, and not PU. Apparently big discount buyers via a distributor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

To get back to the original question about Alamy turning into a MS, my last sale on Alamy yesterday = $175. The 50% commission leaves me with $87.50. I am not saying this is an answer of course but that is in the range I was expecting when I started submitting images to Alamy back in 2007.

My sales this month have been:

Magazine/editorial website use: $6.30 net

PU: $6.30 net

Presentation: £3.15 net

Australian newspaper: £5.01 net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.