Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pietrach

Guess the sale price from usage

Recommended Posts

Hi, 

I just got a sale for usage which is not typical to my portfolio. Probably the first of this kind, and the sale price surprised my (not saying if positively or negatively).

What range (£, ££, £££) would you say one could expect from usage as follows? I will reveal the range later.

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Commercial electronic, Websites, apps, social media and blogs (excludes advertising). Worldwide for 5 years.
Media: Website, app and social media
Image Size: Any size
Start: 03 February 2020
End: 03 February 2025

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🥜??

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind that. Guess what I'm having for breakfast...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Web usage? Not much, for sure. I would be suprised if you got more than $5 net.
Yet, I wonder why someone would buy a full-res 24-megapixel picture to use it in "websites, apps, social media, and blogs".

Edited by riccarbi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These "websites, apps, social media, and blogs" are troubling me. I am getting more and more of those for very low value.

 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, gvallee said:

These "websites, apps, social media, and blogs" are troubling me. I am getting more and more of those for very low value.

 

 

Yes, would really prefer to be without these. And once used in this way they will spread around very fast on other social media platforms and posts. Can be difficult to get a proper contact address - and Alamy cannot persue misuse if the image has been used on social media as the majority of these won't deal with third party representatives but only the copyright holder. A lot of work involved and often a poor result.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so the estimate from you guys is actually quite a bit lower than I got. Looks like my expectations were too high. It sold for just under $40 and first I thought "oh that'sa nice sale" until I noticed a 5 year period! I understand a sale of $5 for a single  online article , but effectively less that $10/year  for all online commercial use? 

Considering this, I may now give up tracking the use of this image for the next 5 years. 

Share this post


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

Ok so the estimate from you guys is actually quite a bit lower than I got. Looks like my expectations were too high. It sold for just under $40 and first I thought "oh that'sa nice sale" until I noticed a 5 year period! I understand a sale of $5 for a single  online article , but effectively less that $10/year  for all online commercial use? 

Considering this, I may now give up tracking the use of this image for the next 5 years. 

That's far higher than several I've had for that usage.

It's all to do with the discount a buyer has negotiated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That price is quite high for an online media publication. I am a web magazine publisher and I paid similar sums only for very rare drawing scans from major US museums. $10/15 is what we usually pay for editorial (not breaking-news) pictures we don't do internally.  Of couse, I'm talking about low-res photos for the web.  Yet, a commercial app/website usage would justify a higher price, possibly.

Edited by riccarbi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve had similar for a commercial website. The 5 year license is pretty standard isn’t it?

Edited by Sally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/02/2020 at 08:01, John Morrison said:

Never mind that. Guess what I'm having for breakfast...

 

Two slices of toast with butter and jam and a cup of tea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/02/2020 at 11:31, Pietrach said:

Ok so the estimate from you guys is actually quite a bit lower than I got. Looks like my expectations were too high. It sold for just under $40 and first I thought "oh that'sa nice sale" until I noticed a 5 year period! I understand a sale of $5 for a single  online article , but effectively less that $10/year  for all online commercial use? 

Considering this, I may now give up tracking the use of this image for the next 5 years. 

 

If you're disappointed with that price, you've obviously not sold any images to be used by theculturetrip.com yet!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

Two slices of toast with butter and jam and a cup of tea.

 

Close enough. Your prize is a night on the tiles with Nigel Farage...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

Close enough. Your prize is a night on the tiles with Nigel Farage...

 

Fantastic.. will he sign a model release?

Share this post


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

 

Fantastic.. will he sign a model release?

 

As you know, he will do "absolutely anything"...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

As you know, he will do "absolutely anything"...

 

Almost anything other than be photographed being drenched in a milk shake! No problem as it would be editorial.

Edited by sb photos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite strange, I've just got a sale quite similar to yours. Yet, tell the difference!

31 MB
4013 x 2700 pixels
877KB compressed
Editorial website and app multiple use, in perpetuity
gross amount  $3.13

Edited by riccarbi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had sales to theculturetrip.com with that "app in perpetuity" through the Novel Use scheme. I opted out of that after two sales at $1.24. I think Novel Use should be more novel. Now those teeny tiny sales to editorial websites come along all too often though so far at least not less than $2.12 for me.  Of course, if through a distributor it drops even lower.

 

Paulette

Edited by NYCat
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Quite strange, I've just got a sale quite similar to yours. Yet, tell the difference!

31 MB
4013 x 2700 pixels
877KB compressed
Editorial website and app multiple use, in perpetuity
gross amount  $3.13

 

 

sounds like you've been Culture Tripped.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/02/2020 at 07:29, Sally said:

I’ve had similar for a commercial website. The 5 year license is pretty standard isn’t it?

 

I used to get four years, 2011 and before. Now those listed are as you see, mostly five years. I have many RF that show nothing for period of license. I've never seen in perpetuity on any of my licenses?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've never seen in perpetuity

 

Once, only diamonds were forever...

 

Quote

sounds like you've been Culture Tripped.


OK, I got it; published by theculturetrip.com on February 6th.

Edited by riccarbi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got a bunch of these $3 in perpetuity yesterday.  Last week has two usages each at $5 non perpetuity; the webpage they were using them had 3 of my images, yet two reported as sales. tried to complain to Big Al about the missing sale, but was told to wait 3 months before reporting the missing sale ($5 maybe $3). I'm not in the novel use scheme. Again hope theculturetrip company goes out of biz within 5 years. They maximized usages of another one of my images on different 9 webpages/lists lol yet not reported as a sale.

Edited by sooth

Share this post


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

 

 

sounds like you've been Culture Tripped.

Do you know what I deem wrong, as a publisher, about getting a photo "in perpetuity" for less than what costs me a coffee?
It's not the price, it's not the perpetuity terms.
It's the resolution.
Years ago, photo prices were related to size. You knew that buying a full-res picture would cost you more than buying a 800x600 image. Officially, that's Alamy's commercial model still today.
Yet, a website bought my full-res photo and used its low-res version. They pay exactly the same price, low-res or high-res. Resolution/size does no longer matter.
Is this the messy busines model on which Alamy is based nowadays? Size does not matter, usage time does not matter, price does not matter. The only thing that matters is to sell photos, at any cost. I'm quite disappointed, honestly.

Edited by riccarbi

Share this post


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

Resolution/size does no longer matter.

Yes, it sends entirely the wrong message to buyers. Alamy do seemingly govern download size for certain basic RF options so why not for everything else? James Allsworth from Alamy has apparently been quoted as saying that more and more images are only needed at small resolutions for web use so why not make sure that they can only be used for that by controlling the download size?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.