dustydingo Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees--it appears this image was exclusive to a particular "other" agency: Single photograph used by political parties again and again and again . . . for a few quid. DD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 No, not at all. Just like exclusive to Alamy doesn't protect from tiny fees netting under $1. It's all about the buyer. Where do we see that the author 'missed out on huge licensing fees'? I can't see what fee he got for each of these sales, (It may be that on G the file is marked at $39.50 as the article says, but many sales will be well below that, and some may have been well above that) and it may well be that the aggregation of all sales was (surprisingly to you, maybe?) high, even if undoubtedly many individual sales were small. Probably well into the thousands of dollars. Some people prefer the model of a higher total earnings than higher individual sale prices. That may not be everyone's way, and that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 The two would seem to have little in common, especially since 100% exclusivity of content is almost impossible to claim in the digital age (IMO anyway). Exclusivity of submission to a particular agency is of course a different matter. That's all we can realistically assure any agency that we submit to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 I think that the upcoming (?) "exclusive" offering might attract more customers, which would of course be a very good thing, but it won't necessarily mean higher fees these days. It's going to be a difficult road to navigate, though, with lots of bumps along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 10 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said: No, not at all. Just like exclusive to Alamy doesn't protect from tiny fees netting under $1. It's all about the buyer. Where do we see that the author 'missed out on huge licensing fees'? I can't see what fee he got for each of these sales, (It may be that on G the file is marked at $39.50 as the article says, but many sales will be well below that, and some may have been well above that) and it may well be that the aggregation of all sales was (surprisingly to you, maybe?) high, even if undoubtedly many individual sales were small. Probably well into the thousands of dollars. Some people prefer the model of a higher total earnings than higher individual sale prices. That may not be everyone's way, and that's fine. It was a rhetorical question. And as for fees . . . my understanding of the standard non-exclusive usage license from that exact mob tells me there was no need for an 'extended' license for any of the uses noted. YEMV of course. DD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 19 hours ago, dustydingo said: And as for fees . . . my understanding of the standard non-exclusive usage license from that exact mob tells me there was no need for an 'extended' license for any of the uses noted. YEMV of course. I wouldn't have thought there would be an extended licence needed. However, just like Alamy, you never know what you're going to get for any given sale/usage. My highest value sale (gross and net) last year wasn't from Alamy, but it was from that agency for a photo of a common UK bird. BTW, you said, "How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees*" - I see the political party has said it will hire photographers to make custom images using real people in future. Yay, a jobbing photographer wins. But what might the hourly fee be in Australia? I can't imagine, but let's say $250 per hour (I'm probably miles out one way or the other). But that's it, a one-off payment for the photo, which might be used once. Whatever the fee is for a one-off, I bet that particular image earned much more over its decade on iS than the jobbing photographer will get. *But as an American, it's unlikely that an Australian political party would fly the stock shooter out to do the custom shoot, therefore he hasn't missed out on anything. BTW2: an even funnier story is the Irish political party which used an iS stock photo to promote itself, as though it were quoting the woman in the image endorsing them (against iS's T&C) in big posters over a wide area - and when the rival party discovered that it was a stock photo, they bought it, put it on their own big posters, with the caption "I've changed my mind" (which can be an OK use if it's considered satire). What I'm really shocked about in the article you linked to is that iS produced a model release, even with the model's name removed, and the article put her age and city. I guess the issue isn't so bad as the lady is apparently deceased, but still. 😞 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 22 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said: BTW, you said, "How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees*" - I see the political party has said it will hire photographers to make custom images using real people in future. Yay, a jobbing photographer wins. 😞 That is the big problem with the industry today. Non exclusive multiple conflicting sales of the same image means that the high priced exclusive sales cease to exist. Stock agencies used to service advertising clients with exclusive print needs and willing to pay for it. That is a market no stock agency is servicing today. Today the only way to ensure exclusivity is to buy exclusive from Alamy or hire a photographer on assignment. Maybe Alamy can reintroduce the clients to image exclusivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 8 hours ago, Bill Brooks said: That is the big problem with the industry today. Non exclusive multiple conflicting sales of the same image means that the high priced exclusive sales cease to exist. Stock agencies used to service advertising clients with exclusive print needs and willing to pay for it. That is a market no stock agency is servicing today. Today the only way to ensure exclusivity is to buy exclusive from Alamy or hire a photographer on assignment. Maybe Alamy can reintroduce the clients to image exclusivity. With agencies sending out their images to 80 distribution partners or more, it seems that true exclusivity isn't possible. But if an agency wants you to place your images exclusively with them, they need to produce results via high image prices and quantity as well. RM seems to have no meaning here anymore, you can't even restrict things by industry, so if you license an image directly for an use that's exclusive to a particular industry, you need to remove the image from here completely even though in most instances the licenses would not conflict. If the images the OP refers to here were licensed to newspapers that number their subscribers in the millions, as appears to often have been the case, then that use would normally be considered an "extended license" as that term is understood in that segment of the industry. If they licensed a very large image for a billboard, again, it would require a significantly more expensive license. RF in the micro industry isn't RF as we understand it, it's really a hybrid. You need an extended license for true RF, and even then sensitive uses are not permitted under most licenses, unless you the buyer pays more and there is an unrestricted release, unlike Alamy's RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Marianne said: With agencies sending out their images to 80 distribution partners or more, it seems that true exclusivity isn't possible. But if an agency wants you to place your images exclusively with them, they need to produce results via high image prices and quantity as well. Yes, it seems to me that only an agency without a distribution network can truly offer images as "exclusive" in the sense that is usually meant by the term. However, I'm probably missing something. Hopefully Alamy will define what they mean by "exclusive" -- e.g. images available only at Alamy and through its distributors. Contributors can guarantee exclusivity of submission only, which alone probably wouldn't lead to higher prices/volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.