Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

The most upsetting thing for me has been the way so many people are talking about somehow moving their collections elsewhere.

 

Read many comments on other forums and watched YouTube videos of SS contributors groaning about the recent planned changes.  Many SS contribs apparently are "flipping the switch:" that turns off sales of their SS images but leaves their portfolios in place. Waiting to see how the shoes drop I suppose.   I guess that's one way to not cut off their noses to spite their faces - at least not just yet.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an article on BBC news this lunch time highlighting how creatives are being badly treated by web platforms.

Although primarily about music, all creative forms can be included.

The hypocrisy  of the BBC is astounding, Highlighting the complaint while touting for free images from the public and using microstock wherever possible.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Read many comments on other forums and watched YouTube videos of SS contributors groaning about the recent planned changes.  Many SS contribs apparently are "flipping the switch:" that turns off sales of their SS images but leaves their portfolios in place. Waiting to see how the shoes drop I suppose.   I guess that's one way to not cut off their noses to spite their faces - at least not just yet.

 

I think one would be stupid to 'flick the switch' before seeing the result of the change. Although I have done so with video's as they are being sold for a pittance.

However I will do it if as is being reported some commissions fall to 10c. I am on level 2 at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear - discussion here is fine, but campaigning to sign petitions for action against Shutterstock is not appropriate and will be removed.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

James A

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marianne said:

The biggest fear many of us have is that if shutterstock reduces commissions this drastically (going from a range of 38 cents to $120 per download down to 10 cents to $40, a 67% reduction in commissions for those who reach the highest tier early on, with an even greater commission cut at the start of the year), it will make it that much more difficult for other agencies, including Alamy, to compete, and we will all lose, not just those who depend on shutterstock for a big portion of their income.

 

 

 

Thanks Alamy for letting us discuss this news.

 

 

 

to my knowledge they are not reducing customer costs, so why would it affect Alamy?  The issue is the have an infrastructure that they can't afford and they decided cutting compensation to contributor was the best way to do so, instead of reducing their own internal costs (or raising prices)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are we all going to do when Alamy cuts commission again? 

 

It wasn't all that long ago was it - end of 2018? 

 

First everybody down from 50% to 40% = lots of uproar

 

Then Alamy backs down but still keeps the 40% for non-exclusives = most people happy and persuade themselves that it is 'fair' and just. 

 

A little over year later the company is sold.......hmmm we all think. Couldn't happen again you like to think. But why not and what if anything could you do about it?

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My 'plan' is much more prosaic. In two years time I will be an Old Age Pensioner and entitled to approx £175 a week from the govt which will top up my existing small occupational pension and along with this, that, and a bit of duck and weave, that should be enough to get by.

 

I'm sure that I will still be doing things related to photography but my personal 'wind-down' started some time ago.

 

I now even go out for walks without the camera.  

 

Nothing against Alamy but I am so pleased that I went non-exclusive back in 2012 and have become less reliant than I otherwise would be.

 

Whether commission cuts are in the pipeline or not I think we would be wise to think ahead. I don't remember too much good news in stock over the last decade and am not living in hope of much coming along any time soon.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BobD said:

There was an article on BBC news this lunch time highlighting how creatives are being badly treated by web platforms.

Although primarily about music, all creative forms can be included.

The hypocrisy  of the BBC is astounding, Highlighting the complaint while touting for free images from the public and using microstock wherever possible.

 

Throughout the pandemic the NYTimes has been using photos from shutterstock. It's very discouraging. I wish they were sourcing the news they can't find from here, though even then we would get less than our work is worth. When I think of people shooting news during the pandemic and getting microstock commissions for it, it's just so wrong. 

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

To be clear - discussion here is fine, but campaigning to sign petitions for action against Shutterstock is not appropriate and will be removed.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

James A

 

Sorry - I didn't mean to overstep. 

 

I realize this was not the appropriate forum in which to make that statement, but, just to be clear, I wasn't urging people to sign because I want higher commissions there, I wanted to make a statement about how photographers should be treated, and to help stop a move that could enable them to cut prices which could effect the industry as a whole, but in retrospect I realize this was not the appropriate place for such a statement.

 

Again, apologies for overstepping. I will not do it again. Thanks for your understanding and your polite admonishment. I stand corrected. And it was really nice of you to just cut the offending statement. I appreciate Alamy's involvement here and the fact that management will have a dialogue with us. 

Edited by Marianne
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

My 'plan' is much more prosaic. In two years time I will be an Old Age Pensioner and entitled to approx £175 a week from the govt which will top up my existing small occupational pension and along with this, that, and a bit of duck and weave, that should be enough to get by.

 

I'm sure that I will still be doing things related to photography but my personal 'wind-down' started some time ago.

 

I now even go out for walks without the camera.  

 

Nothing against Alamy but I am so pleased that I went non-exclusive back in 2012 and have become less reliant than I otherwise would be.

 

Whether commission cuts are in the pipeline or not I think we would be wise to think ahead. I don't remember too much good news in stock over the last decade and am not living in hope of much coming along any time soon.

 

 

 

I hate to say this, but I've come to realize, especially lately, that in the stock photography world "no news" is more often than not "good news".

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

to my knowledge they are not reducing customer costs, so why would it affect Alamy?  The issue is the have an infrastructure that they can't afford and they decided cutting compensation to contributor was the best way to do so, instead of reducing their own internal costs (or raising prices)

 

The concern is that this will enable them to cut prices and undercut other agencies even more in an attempt to dominate the field. Microstock has hurt traditional agencies and this could trickle down to depress prices throughout the industry even more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

Throughout the pandemic the NYTimes has been using photos from shutterstock. It's very discouraging. I wish they were sourcing the news they can't find from here, though even then we would get less than our work is worth. When I think of people shooting news during the pandemic and getting microstock commissions for it, it's just so wrong. 

 

The same thought crossed my mind. But why are news photographers sending their images to microstock agencies in the first place? There must be something really wrong out there if news photographers can't find more legitimate and fairer (to contributors) outlets for their work. Perhaps it's just another symptom of over-supply. I don't know enough to say.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

The concern is that this will enable them to cut prices and undercut other agencies even more in an attempt to dominate the field. Microstock has hurt traditional agencies and this could trickle down to depress prices throughout the industry even more. 

 

but there was no such implication from their shareholder meeting.  The goal is to increase profit, so not sure this would make sense.   In fact there seems to be concerns about the cheapness of the large image package,

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

The same thought crossed my mind. But why are news photographers sending their images to microstock agencies in the first place? There must be something really wrong out there if news photographers can't find more legitimate and fairer (to contributors) outlets for their work. Perhaps it's just another symptom of over-supply. I don't know enough to say.

 

Shutterstock sources many of its editorial images from large news agencies including AP, as Chuck mentioned some photographer's images are sent there by their agencies and not by them. 

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

 

but there was no such implication from their shareholder meeting.  The goal is to increase profit, so not sure this would make sense.   In fact there seems to be concerns about the cheapness of the large image package,

 

It's hard to imagine prices getting any lower but we've seen pennies from Getty, so it's a concern. I'd love to see them raise prices instead. If this pandemic is the final blow for many small agencies, perhaps we'll see those that remain raising their prices but it seems to buck the historical trend. 

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

 

Shutterstock sources many of its editorial images from large news agencies including AP, as Chuck mentioned some photographer's images are sent there by their agencies and not by them. 

 

I see. I hadn't read Chuck's post. Obviously, I'm not a news photographer. It sounds as if some of those news agencies don't exactly have the best interests of photographers in mind. It's a sad state of affairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I see. I hadn't read Chuck's post. Obviously, I'm not a news photographer. It sounds as if some of those news agencies don't exactly have the best interests of photographers in mind. It's a sad state of affairs.

 

There is some confusion here. I have many images with Shutterstock. But they are in their Editorial collection not in the micro-collection. They have been placed there not by me but by a third party agency. I'm certain that I would not be able to submit to this collection myself.

 

Shutterstock bought Rex Features some years back. It has tried to move into other areas apart from micro-subscription. Mind you I don't think that I have ever had a sale - or at least not at the proper price. Each image is priced at £159 so that maybe the reason. It seems a bit like Getty with all the sweetheart deals. So, again, as I said previously I am getting micro priced sales without choosing that model. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marianne said:

Hi i'm leaving this discussion sorry if I've obsessed about this honestly it's just been a distraction my husband has been in surgery since 8 am EDT,  So I'm out. Didn't mean to get folks riled up. Be well. 

 

Sorry to hear that and all the best to you and your family.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to say, it's really great Alamy admins officially allow this discussion as event of this magnitude sends ripples across the industry.   It is also great Alamy Forum IS moderated -- just saw in SS forum people turning on each other, calling names etc etc.

 

John Mitchell is bang on when he says in stock nowdays "best news is no news".  Main question in my mind, considering general downward spiral industry is in,  what does this mean for Alamy.  Is there going to be influx of disgruntled SS contributors?  More exclusive Alamy images?  Slashing of prices, or similar pricing models. Etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

Just want to say, it's really great Alamy admins officially allow this discussion as event of this magnitude sends ripples across the industry.   It is also great Alamy Forum IS moderated -- just saw in SS forum people turning on each other, calling names etc etc.

 

John Mitchell is bang on when he says in stock nowdays "best news is no news".  Main question in my mind, considering general downward spiral industry is in,  what does this mean for Alamy.  Is there going to be influx of disgruntled SS contributors?  More exclusive Alamy images?  Slashing of prices, or similar pricing models. Etc.

 

 

Really? Not doubting you but surprised.

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

 

There is some confusion here. I have many images with Shutterstock. But they are in their Editorial collection not in the micro-collection. They have been placed there not by me but by a third party agency. I'm certain that I would not be able to submit to this collection myself.

 

Shutterstock bought Rex Features some years back. It has tried to move into other areas apart from micro-subscription. Mind you I don't think that I have ever had a sale - or at least not at the proper price. Each image is priced at £159 so that maybe the reason. It seems a bit like Getty with all the sweetheart deals. So, again, as I said previously I am getting micro priced sales without choosing that model. 

 

Thanks. I have a clearer picture now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, over at Dreamstime they just announced 10% increase in Contributor compensation!   They say it is temporary relief because of Covid-19,  but you can't help wondering if SS situation & hordes of disgruntled contributors over there had something to do with it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

Meanwhile, over at Dreamstime they just announced 10% increase in Contributor compensation!   They say it is temporary relief because of Covid-19,  but you can't help wondering if SS situation & hordes of disgruntled contributors over there had something to do with it.

 

 

 

That's small relief when you do the math. Last I checked, the dreamy place had a $100 minimum payout. I put some video clips there, and then took them down because of this, even though one of the clips had actually licensed. It's money that I'll never see because they keep any earnings under $100 that you have if you close your account. Fortunately, it is a piddly amount. Not a fan of them either.

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

 

That's small relief when you do the math. Last I checked, the dreamy place had a $100 minimum payout. I put some video clips there, and then took them down because of this, even though one of the clips had actually licensed. It's money that I'll never see because they keep any earnings under $100 that you have if you close your account. Fortunately, it is a piddly amount. Not a fan of them either.

I am fairly sure they will give you $$ if you close account, even if <100

But that's different issue.   I found increase interesting in light of SS situation.   If it was really Covid related, it could have been announced much earlier.   Let the micro Hunger Games begin

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.