PU surge?

[Colblimp]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

And if I respond to that in the same manner I'll be accused of starting an argument. 

 

If $2.40 sales matter to you then it is odd that $10 and $19 from PU do not. 

 

That's all I have to say on it. 

 

The last thing I want to do is start an argument.  I can't remember ever having a full price PU sale.  You know as well as I do most PU sales are nowhere near the $19.99 mark...

[Michael Ventura]

Nearly all my PU sales are between $15 and $19.99

[geogphotos]

Looking at the last three months all mine have been $10.78 or $11.96, none lower than that. 

 

Over that period I've had 13 PU sales. 

 

To think that it is one person paying to use the pic to make homemade cards and prints is fine by me. 

 

I hope that this market grows and grows. 

 

As Michael points out the prices in N America are higher than in UK/EU

Edited July 30, 2020 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

Of my six PU sales (new record for me) this month, three were for 19.99 USD. Lowest was 6.99.

 

Three of the sales look perfectly legit for cards and prints. Other three not so much. That said, any type of license -- not just PU and presentation  -- is open to abuse in the digital age.

Edited July 31, 2020 by John Mitchell

[Bryan]

Been a very lean month for me with only 10 sales, of which 2 are PU for $11 and $12 - ignoring the bits after the decimal point. Sadly these fees are a good deal better than many from other types of customers.

[Stokie]

I've just had my first PU sale of the month for $11.96.

 

Like Ian says, UK prices seem to be a bit lower than North America.

 

John.

[John Mitchell]

13 hours ago, Bryan said:

Been a very lean month for me with only 10 sales, of which 2 are PU for $11 and $12 - ignoring the bits after the decimal point. Sadly these fees are a good deal better than many from other types of customers.

 

Does this mean that we won't be getting filthy rich after all? 😆

[Bryan]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Does this mean that we won't be getting filthy rich after all? 😆

 

I'm having to let some of the servants go, while the new Rolls is on hold for a week or two, desperate times......

[Stan Pritchard]

Of my 10 sales in July, 7 were PU.

[Brasilnut]

Alamy is blatently turning a blind eye to buyers purchasing wrong licenses. Had this one in the past month. 

 

I would love to opt out but not possible with RF (90% of my port)

 

 

or how about this one from last year, also licensed as PU:

 

[John Mitchell]

15 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

Alamy is blatently turning a blind eye to buyers purchasing wrong licenses. Had this one in the past month. 

 

I would love to opt out but not possible with RF (90% of my port)

 

 

I fear that you are correct. It's pretty easy to spot images that obviously don't lend themselves to personal use. I've got lots of examples as well. Unfortunately, though, there isn't much that we can do about it except try to track down illegal uses.

[spacecadet]

Well, I have a number of PUs, and the most obvious check is Google Images. I haven't found one yet.

[John Mitchell]

43 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Well, I have a number of PUs, and the most obvious check is Google Images. I haven't found one yet.

 

I have, but the problem is that most of my PU sales are images that have been licensed in the past for other uses -- i.e. editorial and commercial -- so it's tough to discern what's what.

Edited August 3, 2020 by John Mitchell

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I have, but the problem is that most of my PU sales are images that have been licensed in the past for other uses -- i.e. editorial and commercial -- so it's tough to discern what's what.

OIC. A very good point.

The dates might be a clue if you could track them down.

Edited August 4, 2020 by spacecadet

[aphperspective]

I still maintain that to weed out the "suspicious" user there should be a "pay on download" for PU and after a sensible cooling off period ( like 1 minute after download 🙂) No refunds.

[geogphotos]

I don't see the problem with those two images. I can imagine somebody using them for some sort of personal study or project, perhaps an educational report. There is no rule that PU has to be for pretty pictures of landscapes and flowers. People have all sorts of interests that they need images for.

 

But if misuse and deliberately buying the wrong licence can be proven Alamy should hit them hard. 

 

The fact is that a PU licence costs more than UK's major circulation newspaper pays for web use. 

 

I also find it hard to understand why PU should bother those who willingly accept micro-stock fees without any clue who is using their images and for what. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by geogphotos

[BobD]

 

I have no objection to the PU licence as such, it's the refunds after someone has the full size image I object to.

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

 

I have no objection to the PU licence as such, it's the refunds after someone has the full size image I object to.

 

 

I'd imagine that it is hard to operate a refund policy which treats customers differently and gives them different rights. 

 

I can't think that I have had any PU refunds - is it truly such a big problem?

[John Mitchell]

16 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I'd imagine that it is hard to operate a refund policy which treats customers differently and gives them different rights. 

 

I can't think that I have had any PU refunds - is it truly such a big problem?

 

I've never had a PU sale refunded either. Guess I've been lucky. However, with six PU sales reported last month, I'm curious to see what happens.

[BobD]

20 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I'd imagine that it is hard to operate a refund policy which treats customers differently and gives them different rights. 

 

I can't think that I have had any PU refunds - is it truly such a big problem?

 

 

I can't see any problem differentiating between account customers and pay on demand.

I have said before, all that is required is a check box for PU or presentation sales saying 'I understand that I am buying an image file and refunds are not available'.

I assume that account customers would not on the whole be buying PU licences.

 

 

[geogphotos]

24 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

 

I can't see any problem differentiating between account customers and pay on demand.

I have said before, all that is required is a check box for PU or presentation sales saying 'I understand that I am buying an image file and refunds are not available'.

I assume that account customers would not on the whole be buying PU licences.

 

 

 

I can imagine that being very off-putting for newbie buyers who aren't quite sure what they are doing. Personally I don't see that this is a problem of any importance and I would be far more concerned about the possibility of lost sales should there be a no refund policy. 

 

Anyway, it is an optional sales channel. 

[John Mitchell]

Today I had my first refund ever of a PU sale. It was of an image licensed in May of this year. Interestingly, the subject matter looked perfectly ligit for making prints and cards.

 

So I guess I've joined the club... 😕

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by John Mitchell