Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Colblimp said:

No, it won't spill into regular stock.  I think, and I'm possibly completely wrong, Alamy wants to streamline the whole news thing so it only receives newsy pictures which have the possibility to sell, from contribs who have regular sales.  It's a business thing, nothing personal, I think.

 

The point I (and others) are trying to make is that by insisting on the former coming only from the latter Alamy are restricting themselves.

Good photographers who do not have regular news sales can and will take newsy pictures which have the possibility to sell.  So what if each non-regular news contributor only ever gets one "scoop" in their lifetime - multiply that by the number of lifetimes of contributors and that is a hell of a lot of scoops that Alamy has just done a good job of cutting itself off from (not because of what it has done but how it has done it)

I repeat that the complaints I have seen about the news feed both before this happened and since do not and did not concern sporadic contributions of genuine newsy pictures from non-regular news contributors, they concerned the presence of photographs that were not and are not news at all.  A plane preparing to take off is not news - yes I get there is a news story to go with it BUT the image that has been uploaded could have been taken any time and the story could be illustrated with photos already in stock.  They have had complaints about one thing and cut a different one which overlaps.  I will admit from a personal point of view it is this careless casual inefficiency which irks me the cut ABC in order to deal with an issue from B.  No Alamy are not the only ones who do things like this - not by a long way - but the practice is wasteful harmful and damages the company in the long run.

If I want to start throwing hyperbole about I might observe that this "you can only sell news photos if you are a proper news photographer" smacks of closed shop restrictive employment practices that should belong in the past.

I say again - when one of Alamys contributors is the only one to photograph Elvis riding Shergar off a newly landed UFO should Alamy be the place they automatically send the image or should they be looking at the whole market of agencies to decide where is best to send it?

Share this post


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

The point I (and others) are trying to make is that by insisting on the former coming only from the latter Alamy are restricting themselves.

Good photographers who do not have regular news sales can and will take newsy pictures which have the possibility to sell. 
 

1) Alamy is restricting itself to photographers who make regular sales.

 

2) Good photographers who don't have regular news sales may take pics which have the POSSIBILITY to sell, but Alamy is only interested in what WILL sell.  The proof of the pudding is in the selling.  I could send in 100's of 'news' pics every day, but if they don't sell then clearly the work I'm producing simply isn't up to scratch. 

 

You and I might think an aircraft preparing to take off isn't newsy, but if a picture editor thinks otherwise...  I'll also say, in my experience, a lot to do with news sales is the caption.  A good caption can turn a normal image into something newsy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Colblimp said:

1) Alamy is restricting itself to photographers who make regular sales.

 

2) Good photographers who don't have regular news sales may take pics which have the POSSIBILITY to sell, but Alamy is only interested in what WILL sell.  The proof of the pudding is in the selling.  I could send in 100's of 'news' pics every day, but if they don't sell then clearly the work I'm producing simply isn't up to scratch. 

 

You and I might think an aircraft preparing to take off isn't newsy, but if a picture editor thinks otherwise...  I'll also say, in my experience, a lot to do with news sales is the caption.  A good caption can turn a normal image into something newsy.

But it is a circle - how is the good photographer supposed to make sales when they cannot sell because they have not made sales?

The news is not dependent on who takes it - or at least it shouldn't be.  

If this was about how to make normal images newsy then you would be right - but it is not about that.  It is about a contributor being the only photographer at a sudden newsworthy incident.  Say they are out for a walk and take a clear sharp naturally calibrated image of "a British black panther".  They are holding proof that the wild big cats of myth are real!!!!   Or maybe they snapped a famous politician caught short and watering a bush with natural body fluids.  They have a shot or shots of something that is absolutely most definitely news or at least the sort of thing that newspapers are going snap up  - and they are the only shots because no-one else was there.

Yes, they can phone Alamy and see if Alamy are interested etc - but why choose to phone Alamy over any of the other possible outlets they could also phone?  A couple of weeks ago they would not have to phone anyone - they could immediately upload it straight to Alamy without having to phone or think or anything.  This meant they were most likely to send it to Alamy.  Now maybe Alamy did a thorough assessment of all the black cats and peeing politicians from occasional contributors and found the sales did not justify access on an overall scale.   Fine - but then you come to the second problem.  If you have to do something people are not going to like there is generally a choice between doing it in a way that will minimize their dislike or doing it in a way they are going to really really dislike.  It is generally considered respectful to choose the former and a sign of total disrespect to choose the latter.  Alamy chose the latter.  It's not the first time.

I remain of the opinion that they are going to have hurt themselves with this on which I could be wrong.  I know they definitely could have handled it better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I doubt that's the case as I live in the middle of nowhere, deep in the countryside, and I was kept in the live news thing.

So you have that location covered right?  Alamy don't need anymore news photographers for that location .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

It would have been decent and courteous. If accompanied by an explanation, that would have helped, too.

THere's the PR angle as well. I now think less of the company. That would have been avoided.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


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

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X

Well it would have given them a chance to make alternative plans for any Live News event that they had made arrangements to attend for a start. Some on this forum only discovered that they couldn't upload when they got back from an event they were attending. What's the downside to giving people notice?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

 

22 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

It would have been decent and courteous. If accompanied by an explanation, that would have helped, too.

THere's the PR angle as well. I now think less of the company. That would have been avoided.

+1

It would've shown some respect and assurances that they valued their contributors. Personally, it would've made a huge amount of difference to me - and I wouldn't have had any problem with what they're doing. It's the *way* that it's been done. 

We're all different. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RedSnapper said:

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

It wouldn't have made any difference, but it would be the courteous thing to do.  The way Alamy has done it is just another example of what Alamy thinks of its contribs - which is not a lot, IMO, of course.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

Thank you for asking the question.

 

We would have still received difficult news and be upset, BUT it would have been given in such a manner it would be easier to accept. Time helps you process things, anger, denial etc.  By two weeks you should looking at acceptance...

 

It wasn't the decision to cull, but the lack of finess in the way it was carried out.  If this decision had been run past say the HR director the outcome may have been different, but the benefit of doing such a thing would not have been obvious.

 

As for "just out of interest" Really?  Eh?

 

 

James
 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


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

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

If they had announced that automatic Live News uploads were being removed but contributors were free to reapply (in other words what has happened without an announcement) it would have enabled those who wish to keep access for occasional news stories that come their way reapply BEFORE being cut off and they would have had time to deal with the reapplications rather than having to post people who have not heard that there are delays due to a backlog .  It would have enabled those who are looking at event and festival lists deciding which are worth paying for and applying for credentials for to decide whether or not they had an outlet to make the credentials/tickets costs worthwhile.  

This direct dumping contributors without warning has cost some people actual money - they have paid for travel etc to cover things purely for news purposes and are now out of pocket.  Sure they can reapply and will hopefully be reaccepted but it is still a smack in the face to someone who has set time and money aside on a planned shoot similar to ones they have done in the past (and possibly sold - we know from this thread that Alamy have made some mistakes on who they kicked out mistaking someone with multiple sales for someone with 3)  to be told sorry you can't upload without reapplying.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a long time since I was active in news, used to be able to get photos from taking, film processing and to printers in 5 to 10 minutes. With Alamy I seldom uploaded to live news, a fire, an event, an accident but non of national UK importance.

What would have been a more pleasant and helpful approach would be more specific guidelines such as NO non-UK news unless world shattering, no non-national unless very important. Then maybe have a separate news feed for “soft” news with quality requirements not dissimilar to stock. To stop both of these being used as back door to stock not to roll them into stock but just delete after say 5 and 10 days. Good ones to be resubmitted as stock as normal.

As I see it Hard news needs to be topical and now, softer news interesting but timely, stock good but long term. Alamy doesn't seem to be good at selling hard news, maybe not the accredited photographers to do enough of it. Can Alamy get photogs access to inside Downing street, inside European courts, etc. for news? Probably not, probably not interested maybe important to being a news agency.

I would like to see a new in between submission which isn't as exclusive; not 1 hour but 2 to 3 hour submission times while not being that back door to stock entry. Only keep for short time and delete or take offline and delete a bit latter.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I would like to see a new in between submission which isn't as exclusive; not 1 hour but 2 to 3 hour submission times while not being that back door to stock entry. Only keep for short time and delete or take offline and delete a bit latter.

I like that idea, perhaps even Alamy would have liked that idea if they'd given contributors a chance to contribute before taking action. If I can suggest a refinement then after the allotted period then in order to preserve the keywording etc. then a replacement image could be uploaded for submission to normal QC. Not crucial though, certainly shouldn't get in the way of implementing it if there was the remotest chance it could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received an e-mail declining my application to rejoin Live News submissions. They are happy for me to submit 'Breaking News' on a per-occasion basis, filling in a form each time. I don't think I'll be doing that and am disappointed in Alamy for not opening any pathway to soft live news for us mere mortals.

 

The email ends 'We also recommend you upload more frequently so that we can gage '

 

Gauge what, precisely???

Edited by Joseph Clemson
added last line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not make it so contributors had to re-upload to stock but rather have it so that once the 2 or 5 or 10 days is up the images went automatically into QC then had to be recaptioned and tagged - but with the provisos on noise etc that can come from photos being taken for news in less than ideal conditions.
Then any images rejected by QC from news would have the same impact on ranking - possibly I would increase the ranking possibilities from 3 stars to five to reflect this.  This would (hopefully) mean that people considering uploading to news will look at their images in the same way as stock - so they would be properly focused exposed etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

Just received an e-mail declining my application to rejoin Live News submissions. They are happy for me to submit 'Breaking News' on a per-occasion basis, filling in a form each time. I don't think I'll be doing that and am disappointed in Alamy for not opening any pathway to soft live news for us mere mortals.

 

The email ends 'We also recommend you upload more frequently so that we can gage '

 

Gauge what, precisely???

Firstly you being refused is daft.

Secondly how the hell are you supposed to upload more frequently if you are not allowed to upload except on a case by case basis?  Do they seriously expect you to go around filling out a form several times a month to see if they will accept things so they can then reconsider whether you should be allowed to upload without filling a form in?  

 

Share this post


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

Firstly you being refused is daft.

Secondly how the hell are you supposed to upload more frequently if you are not allowed to upload except on a case by case basis?  Do they seriously expect you to go around filling out a form several times a month to see if they will accept things so they can then reconsider whether you should be allowed to upload without filling a form in?  

 

 

I think they mean upload more stock generally, though it is not entirely clear. I can't really devote more time and effort to uploading a lot more Alamy stock as that would impinge on my video work which brings in more actual cash. Not to mention that returns per image at Alamy are declining, for me at least, and there is less incentive to upload more here. (But that is an argument for another thread....)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

I think they mean upload more stock generally, though it is not entirely clear. I can't really devote more time and effort to uploading a lot more Alamy stock as that would impinge on my video work which brings in more actual cash. Not to mention that returns per image at Alamy are declining, for me at least, and there is less incentive to upload more here. (But that is an argument for another thread....)

Well my respect to you sir - and I still think they are being daft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many folk have stated that their submissions rarely sell as news but sell later as stock, I would assume therefore that Alamy may miss out on many of those sales too, because how many of us will go to these events if the chance of selling to live news isn't there?

Edited by Sultanpepa
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

Just received an e-mail declining my application to rejoin Live News submissions. They are happy for me to submit 'Breaking News' on a per-occasion basis, filling in a form each time. I don't think I'll be doing that and am disappointed in Alamy for not opening any pathway to soft live news for us mere mortals.

 

The email ends 'We also recommend you upload more frequently so that we can gage '

 

Gauge what, precisely???

 

Can you quote yourself...?  Just received another email from Alamy. My Live News upload privilage is still a big NO, but they've removed the half-baked comment about recommending I upload more frequently. 

 

II fired in my application for Live News uploading privileges very quickly after being kicked out, so it may be that other contributors will hear from them soon as they work through their self-created backlog of applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

Can you quote yourself...?  Just received another email from Alamy. My Live News upload privilage is still a big NO, but they've removed the half-baked comment about recommending I upload more frequently. 

 

II fired in my application for Live News uploading privileges very quickly after being kicked out, so it may be that other contributors will hear from them soon as they work through their self-created backlog of applications.

I think the most exasperating thing is they have a forum full of contributors who want to back them and support them - yet they keep mishandling things in such a crappy way said contributors are forced to question their competence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RedSnapper said:

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

"I got up Wednesday morning with the idea to shoot the super-bloom  at the Carrizo plain Wednesday and Thursday morning,  then get back in time to upload to live news from home Thursday lunchtime, it's about a 400 mile round trip.  In my mind it wasn't breaking news that needed to be uploaded within an hour but I thought that the images might work for some Sunday newspaper/site somewhere in the world this weekend. Well at 1.30 am as I slept like a baby in my truck at the top of the Caliente mountain ridge the e-mail of doom arrived and kind of put an end to that idea. I ended up staying longer but still got home for 4pm. Here are the photos I had planned to send to live news that will now get uploaded sometime this weekend for QC to check Monday at the earliest perhaps go live Tuesday if Im lucky . Not the end of the world but the wildflowers will only last another week or 2 at the most"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people are thinking because Alamy dumped 75%??? of their news team things are going to get better. Well that remains to be seen, perhaps out elite news guys don't get the job done?  perhaps it was more to do with the news sales team than the photographers? I think our news team have a heavy burden to carry. The future of Alamy rests on their shoulders! We wish them luck and will watch from the sidelines as they deliver the worlds news. I would like to see this elite group of news guys get paid a bit more so its worth them doing it.

 

 

PS As long as it doesn't come from my 50%.

 

 

Have a great weekend everyone

 

Cheers and gone

 Shergar

 

 

 

 

Edited by Shergar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Just out of interest...

 

If Alamy had announced, say, that "in two weeks time we will be removing the LiveNews upload facilty from any contributor  who hasn't made X  [insert your own value here] LiveNews sales in the past 12 months",  how exactly would that have made any difference?

 

km

Actually on the "other forum" you did give 48 hours prior warning that this was about to happen. I'm intrigued -how come you were aware so early? And why not post here and alert your fellow live news contributors?

Edited by ReeRay
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ReeRay said:

Actually on the "other forum" you did give 48 hours prior warning that this was about to happen. I'm intrigued -how come you were aware so early? And why not post here?

Ohhhhoooo this sounds like breaking news!

  • Upvote 2

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.