Jump to content

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Reimar said:

I don't think so - at least I haven't found that.

Or are you pulling my leg? (English humor sometimes escapes me)

Have a look right at the bottom of the page (not 'joking' as such - it is there on the one I looked at. Good use of the phrase 'pulling my leg' from a non-native speaker though!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully I won't get pelted with red arrows for bringing this up. :unsure:

 

I'm not a fan of the microstock model for still images. However, with all the talk of contributors now submitting to micro agencies, I wonder if Alamy shouldn't consider setting up a "budget collection" of exclusive microstock-like images (RF, non-editorial). The fact that these images would be "exclusive" might (?) give Alamy some leverage in this market and allow them to charge higher prices. I have a fair number of backgrounds, abstracts, pretty flower pics, etc. that I've considered submitting to micros. However, I find the quantity of these types of images on micros to be overwhelming, and I can't see how they would do well there. Rather than having them languish, I'd consider making these exclusive -- for now --  images available (on an opt in/out basis) if Alamy had a low-cost option that paid better than MS.

 

Any thoughts on this?

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Have a look right at the bottom of the page (not 'joking' as such - it is there on the one I looked at. Good use of the phrase 'pulling my leg' from a non-native speaker though!)

Hmm.  Must be another place.  The one I'm thinking of has a forum identical to this one (accept it works).

Share this post


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

Hopefully I won't get pelted with red arrows for bringing this up. :unsure:

 

 I wonder if Alamy shouldn't consider setting up a "budget collection" of exclusive microstock-like images (RF, non-editorial).

Any thoughts on this?

 

Fear not red arrows John, it appears the tide is turning.

 

It is truly unfortunate that the falling sky hysteria regarding microstock over the last couple of years cut off many potential forum Microstock discussions that might have benefited some of the members that are considering submitting to microstock today. I think some of you who are going microstock, are flying blinder today than you would have been if there had been a free and open discussion. I would suggest that some of you future microstockers should buy Brazilnut's Ebook about microstock.

 

For instance, offering the same non exclusive Alamy RM image, as Microstock non exclusive RF at a different agency, may get you in trouble. RF is not RM and you should not be selling the same image as RF to one client and as RM to another client through a different agency. Maybe you should convert all of your Alamy non exclusive RM to Alamy non exclusive RF to bring things in line. Up to date cast iron model and property releases for commercial use are important, so you should sort out the editorial/commercial designation at all agencies as well. Also Microstock collections are curated collections, and many of your Alamy images could be rejected by your new tier 1 Microstock agency.

 

To answer John's question, no need to make a microstock collection a separate collection. I have no deep seated need to poke Alamy in the eye, so I can stay at Alamy and still go Alamy microstock. I can sell both exclusive to Alamy at microstock prices, and exclusive to Alamy stock at stock prices. Both types at a higher royalty rate and higher price point. Why go anywhere else?

 

I have no inside information about any unique special flavoured Alamy microstock, but that is the way I think things are going.

 

Alamy does have to increase today's number of low priced Alamy microstock sales considerably, in order to make it worthwhile for everyone.

 

I think this is the type of Microstock image John is talking about, Alamy needs more of them.

 

duckweed water lens bogmat mud-midget Araceae Lemna minor Gibbous Duckweed green aquatic wetland floating plant Stock Photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

I think this is the type of Microstock image John is talking about, Alamy needs more of them.

 

duckweed water lens bogmat mud-midget Araceae Lemna minor Gibbous Duckweed green aquatic wetland floating plant Stock Photo

 

Yup, that's the type of image I have in mind. I enjoy capturing these as a break from editorial imagery (i.e. the kind that actually sells on Alamy). Unfortunately, the micros are overflowing with images like these, so I'd rather not ship mine off to a "tier 1" warehouse just yet, even though they tend to just sit on a shelf here (with a couple of exceptions). My thought is that Alamy might be able to use the "exclusive" factor to their advantage here. How best to accomplish this would be the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

For instance, offering the same non exclusive Alamy RM image, as Microstock non exclusive RF at a different agency, may get you in trouble.

 

And yet nothing seems to stop Alamy selling RM images with licence terms that are effectively RF. :wacko:

 

At least there's now a non-exclusive filter it makes much easier to ensure images that are RF elsewhere can all be marked as RF on Alamy too, thereby complying with Alamy's contract.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

 

However if they have already been sold as RM on Alamy in the past I don't think you can change them to RF

 

Is that correct?

It's possible to change to RF from RM in the Image Manager (previous to IM I don't think it was possible). Is there something else, e.g. contractual that stops a contributor from doing it? I don't think there is and you could sell an image RM last week, then RF this week and back to RM next week.

 

Edited by Keith Douglas

Share this post


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

 

Is that correct?

It's possible to change to RF from RM in the Image Manager (previous to IM I don't think it was possible). Is there something else, e.g. contractual that stops a contributor from doing it? I don't think there is and you could sell an image RM last week, then RF this week and back to RM next week.

 

 

I don't know if its correct but I did say " I don't think you can change them to RF " which means I'm not sure.

 

I did look at the contract again but its not clear on that matter in that it doesn't seem to mention changing RM to RF after a sale.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Yup, that's the type of image I have in mind. I enjoy capturing these as a break from editorial imagery (i.e. the kind that actually sells on Alamy). Unfortunately, the micros are overflowing with images like these, so I'd rather not ship mine off to a "tier 1" warehouse just yet, even though they tend to just sit on a shelf here (with a couple of exceptions). My thought is that Alamy might be able to use the "exclusive" factor to their advantage here. How best to accomplish this would be the question.

 

I think if you are going to do the microstock route, going all out and pushing the images to all the main microstock agencies would be the way to go. If you have the same image sat on 5 or 6 shelves, it's a bit like having 5 or 6 images on the one shelf.. so-to-speak. Of course, this requires a bit of time to upload the image everywhere. 

Edited by Matt Ashmore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

I think if you are going to do the microstock route, going all out and pushing the images to all the main microstock agencies would be the way to go. If you have the same image sat on 5 or 6 shelves, it's a bit like having 5 or 6 images on the one shelf.. so-to-speak. Of course, this requires a bit of time to upload the image everywhere. 

There are only really 3 or 4 MS agencies worth bothering with these days. The top 3 all make at least 10x the smaller agencies. They tend to be the ones that have the easiest submission systems as well.

Share this post


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

Hopefully I won't get pelted with red arrows for bringing this up. :unsure:

 

I'm not a fan of the microstock model for still images. However, with all the talk of contributors now submitting to micro agencies, I wonder if Alamy shouldn't consider setting up a "budget collection" of exclusive microstock-like images (RF, non-editorial). 

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

I don't think it is a good idea. They would risk cannibalising their Trad stock sales and over time be forced to sell everything at lower prices. You argue it should be for a different type of imagery but will that really happen in practice? 

 

I remember back in 2010 (I think) when a library called Veer (having renamed itself 'Veer' from a previously well known Trad library Jupiter images), decided to have both Trad pricing and microstock both appearing in the same search results. Things didn't end well for it. 

 

Edited by andremichel
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, andremichel said:

 

I don't think it is a good idea. They would risk cannibalising their Trad stock sales and over time be forced to sell everything at lower prices. You argue it should be for a different type of imagery but will that really happen in practice? 

 

I remember back in 2010 (I think) when a library called Veer (having renamed itself 'Veer' from a previously well known Trad library Jupiter images), decided to have both Trad pricing and microstock both appearing in the same search results. Things didn't end well for it. 

 

 

Yes, cannibalization would definitely be a risk. It's a pity, though, that so many images are likely to just rot on the shelves at Alamy. I suppose that's good news for microstock agencies, though.

Share this post


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

There are only really 3 or 4 MS agencies worth bothering with these days. The top 3 all make at least 10x the smaller agencies. They tend to be the ones that have the easiest submission systems as well.

 

The microstock world makes me dizzy. However, I do have a small collection of video clips at several micros, and what you say doesn't surprise me. The only place that my clips have sold is at a certain big "tier 1" microstock agency where the submission process is super easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

 

I don't know if its correct but I did say " I don't think you can change them to RF " which means I'm not sure.

 

I did look at the contract again but its not clear on that matter in that it doesn't seem to mention changing RM to RF after a sale.

 

 

 

I don't think it's unclear. If the contract doesn't mention any restrictions on changing from RM to RF after a sale (or vice versa) then there are no restrictions!  There might be all sorts of things that we think might or should be in the contract, but if they aren't in it then they aren't part of the contract.

 

It's very important to get these sort of details correct, particularly if it's used as a reason why contributors can't ever sell some of their RM images on other sites. 

 

 

 

Edited by Keith Douglas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had my first sale with 60% commission on Friday. Disappointingly it was an earlier sale that was refunded on Friday morning and then sold for a few more cents that same afternoon, only this time with the higher commission rate. 

C'est La Vie

 

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

I don't think it's unclear. If the contract doesn't mention any restrictions on changing from RM to RF after a sale (or vice versa) then there are no restrictions!  There might be all sorts of things that we think might or should be in the contract, but if they aren't in it then they aren't part of the contract.

 

It's very important to get these sort of details correct, particularly if it's used as a reason why contributors can't ever sell some of their RM images on other sites. 

 

 

 

 

Duly corrected my earlier post ~

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 05:58, Matt Ashmore said:

 

I think if you are going to do the microstock route, going all out and pushing the images to all the main microstock agencies would be the way to go. If you have the same image sat on 5 or 6 shelves, it's a bit like having 5 or 6 images on the one shelf.. so-to-speak. Of course, this requires a bit of time to upload the image everywhere. 

 

If you go microstock at 5 or 6 agencies you should track who has what image, under what conditions, at what commission %, by creating your own spreadsheet.

 

Each image will need to have your own unique image number, created by you, so you can do the tracking.

 

Microstock agencies are curated collections so you will have lots of rejects from your present non exclusive Alamy images when you submit them as Microstock. You need to track who you sent the image too, who rejected that image, who accepted that image, and under what conditions the image was accepted. The spreadsheet should include all Alamy images as well.

If you are unable to get the image on any microstock site, then you would have the information to make that image exclusive to Alamy to get 20% more money if sold.

Some of you have characterized some of your Alamy images as "crap". It is unlikely that a truly "crap" image would be accepted on a microstock site.

 

There are mergers, and acquisitions in microstock agencies so you should keep an up to date list of where the image is, otherwise over time you loose track of your collection.

For instance Jupiterimages was acquired by a tier1 agency. Was your Jupiterimages image moved over to Tier1 or was it rejected by the Tier1 agency? Tier1 agency has two commission levels, so if it was accepted at Tier1, at what commission level?

 

Micro stockers on many sites should do some management of their collections, and they should set that up now, before they get too deep into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

If you go microstock at 5 or 6 agencies you should track who has what image, under what conditions, at what commission %, by creating your own spreadsheet.

 

Each image will need to have your own unique image number, created by you, so you can do the tracking.

 

Microstock agencies are curated collections so you will have lots of rejects from your present non exclusive Alamy images when you submit them as Microstock. You need to track who you sent the image too, who rejected that image, who accepted that image, and under what conditions the image was accepted. The spreadsheet should include all Alamy images as well.

If you are unable to get the image on any microstock site, then you would have the information to make that image exclusive to Alamy to get 20% more money if sold.

Some of you have characterized some of your Alamy images as "crap". It is unlikely that a truly "crap" image would be accepted on a microstock site.

 

There are mergers, and acquisitions in microstock agencies so you should keep an up to date list of where the image is, otherwise over time you loose track of your collection.

For instance Jupiterimages was acquired by a tier1 agency. Was your Jupiterimages image moved over to Tier1 or was it rejected by the Tier1 agency? Tier1 agency has two commission levels, so if it was accepted at Tier1, at what commission level?

 

Micro stockers on many sites should do some management of their collections, and they should set that up now, before they get too deep into it.

 

. . . and . . . while considering the safeguards Bill outlines above when considering microstock, consider also that the complaints here about what Alamy does or does not do regarding inappropriate personal use licenses pales into the background when the "Thieves Thread Update" elsewhere is read . . . just use your favourite search engine and look up "thieves thread update" . . . it'll take your breath away.

 

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Simon Evans said:

I had my first sale with 60% commission on Friday. Disappointingly it was an earlier sale that was refunded on Friday morning and then sold for a few more cents that same afternoon, only this time with the higher commission rate. 

C'est La Vie

 

Simon

In a pig's eye should that suffer the higher commission. Complain.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my first 40%er today. Reinforces lack of enthusiasm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/02/2019 at 11:22, Allan Bell said:

As far as 50% goes there is a slight change.

When the price totalled odd pennies the contributor used to get the odd penny.

Now it seems that alamy get the odd penny.

 

I am not quibbling about this just that it is an interesting point.

 

Allan

 

 

I noticed that I had a sale last week grossing $9.02 of which I got $4.50, which is more than 'the odd penny' (not even 50%)

Smacks a bit of desperation.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/2/2019 at 16:27, Bill Brooks said:

 

If you go microstock at 5 or 6 agencies you should track who has what image, under what conditions, at what commission %, by creating your own spreadsheet.

 

 

There is an easier way. There is a software called Microstockr that does everything you need to keep track of sales across websites. I use it, it's not perfect but it's a good way to understand sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I noticed that I had a sale last week grossing $9.02 of which I got $4.50, which is more than 'the odd penny' (not even 50%)

Smacks a bit of desperation.

 

 

I wouldn't care if it were 1 cent or not it's a breach of their contract terms and they should get the calculation right.

 

If they do this across enough accounts those pennies add up.

 

You should complain I certainly will when they eventually do this to me

Edited by David Pimborough
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

I wouldn't care if it were 1 cent or not it's a breach of their contract terms and they should get the calculation right.

 

If they do this across enough accounts those pennies add up.

 

You should complain I certainly will when they eventually do this to me

Mmmm, that is weird.  I've just checked back. 

 

I see now that out of my reported sales since the commission change, 2 aren't as expected.    One for $101.48 has been split $50.75 and $50.73, and another for $9.02 split $4.52/$4.50 - both in alamy's favour.   I can't imagine this is an intentional thing, but it is strange that something that seems so straightforward is sometimes being miscalculated.

 

I will send an email querying it

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kay said:

Mmmm, that is weird.  I've just checked back. 

 

I see now that out of my reported sales since the commission change, 2 aren't as expected.    One for $101.48 has been split $50.75 and $50.73, and another for $9.02 split $4.52/$4.50 - both in alamy's favour.   I can't imagine this is an intentional thing, but it is strange that something that seems so straightforward is sometimes being miscalculated.

 

I will send an email querying it

I’ve got some of those too. In fact of the 25 sales reported so far this month, two were in my favour (amounting to 0.02) and the rest in Alamy’s favour (amounting to 0.24).

 

it would perhaps be difficult to do, but they could accumulate all the extra pennies when things cannot be split evenly and divide them up equally once they have mounted up. I might look at all of my sales and see what the difference is.

Edited by Sally

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.