Upcoming Alamy contributor update video - comments welcome

[Andreas]

Why does Alamy sell High Res for nearly nothing ? Presentations never need 20 MP or more.

Why cant we opt out of presentation under these  circumstances ?

Will Alamy add some usefull restrictions to uploads ? Some contributors upload tons of similars messing up search and user experience.

Any change to expect for non-GB contributors after a hard Brexit ?

 

[Russell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

Restrict image size to no more than 2500 pixels on the long side for presentation, personal, student, artist's reference, and novel use. No high resolution files available for those low priced uses

Very much agree with this, though I think 2,500 pixels is generous. I would prefer a limit of say 1,800 by 1,200. Plenty big enough for a presentation or high quality 6" by 4" print.

[John Mitchell]

All of the above, and probably below as well.

[Chuck Nacke]

I would also like to see a discussion about Live News and the quality, both image and selections.

[William Caram]

On 05/12/2020 at 14:50, gvallee said:

I'd like an update on how the Australian office is doing and how is the Australian market in general. Thank you.

  

 

I agree with some feedback on how the Australian office is performing...I may be wrong but i feel that Alamy's competitors are doing far better in aquiring sales from Australian image users, as i see far more credits for competitors.I would like to feel that Australian image content can reach and sell in the domestic market, and make more inroads to finding buyers locally..but it is great to know that we do have an office here and that we are in the hunt, and thank you for your efforts.

[Gina Kelly]

1) Many of us have had Personal Use licenses refunded and it is obvious that our photos are just being ripped off. Can you do something to stop this?

2) I'd love to get more input and direction about what customers are looking for, and what kinds of trends we can anticipate and shoot. The "What to Shoot" section is great, but doesn't seem like it gets updated very often.

3) I like being a Stockimo contributor and have contributed over 3,000 images, but I don't like that I feel "in the dark" so much with what is going on at Stockimo, and I really don't like that we are forbidden to talk about our work with Stockimo here on the forum and would love to see that change. 

 

Thanks so much, Alamy, for hearing our input. I look forward to seeing the video!

[Colblimp]

7 hours ago, Gina Kelly said:

1) Many of us have had Personal Use licenses refunded and it is obvious that our photos are just being ripped off. Can you do something to stop this?

Its not just personal use licence refunds which need looking at, it’s refunds of all licences which occur months and months after the original sale.  The buyer has clearly used the pic and gets a refund from Alamy because Alamy is seen as ‘soft’.  This has to stop!  If I buy a pair of jeans, wear them for a few months and then take them back to the shop for a refund, I’ll be told to sod off in no uncertain terms.  Why can’t Alamy do the same?  It’s a joke. 

[Inchiquin]

12 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

I did see somewhere that Alamy were thinking about opening up video contributions again. This is something I personally very much like to see and, following the decimation of contributor commission at a major microstock site,  there is some considerable appetite among stock video makers for a new outlet for editorial video - one wthat pays a reasonable rate of commission, that is.

 

+1.

 

Alan

[Doc]

First of all, thank you for doing this. It is, to quote Geogphotos, "A reminder of what is best about Alamy"

 

Very much looking forward to hearing about your vision for Alamy in future years. 

 

My interests:

 

1. A clarification on "ranking" - how much is it weighted to the contributor, and how much to the image/s?

 

2. I agree personal/presentation use should be limited to low resolution images, or charged more if full sized images are wanted

 

3. Please update us on what is happening/how effective are the Alamy outlets in other countries - eg. USA/Germany/Australia

 

4. When are you going to introduce a tab for "Alamy Exclusive" images?

 

Thank you and have a merry and safe Christmas!

 

Kumar

 

[Phil Crean]

19 minutes ago, Doc said:

When are you going to introduce a tab for "Alamy Exclusive" images?

And a related premium fee?

Phil

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

 

4. When are you going to introduce a tab for "Alamy Exclusive" images?

 

 

 

 

Look at this recent sale of mine:

 

Country: Worldwide Usage: Editorial Media: Book, print and/or e-book Print run: up to 10,000 Placement: Inside Image Size: 1/2 page Start: 05 December 2020 End: 05 December 2030   Now because I spent around 7 months working on this in 2019 to change all my non-exclusive images over, in doing so losing commission on EVERY sale during that period because all had to be set to Non-Ex, I only get 40% of this sale. Instead of $143 I get $114. Might I have been better off to have somehow been too busy to notice the sudden change of rules in December 2018?   I must be down around $1000 at least because I have followed the rules and been honest. But I would very much doubt that everybody else has done the same. What is the incentive to do all this work just to lose money? Why should anybody go through a huge backlog of images submitted since perhaps 2000 and change the status just for the privilege of losing money?   I haven't come across even one example of anybody being 'caught' for being 'forgetful' over this. So, there, I think is your answer. Alamy can have very little confidence in what shows as Exclusive and what doesn't. In fact, at the time when they were encouraging contributors to be non-exclusive the mantra was always that very few of Alamy's primarily editorial client base care less about exclusivity. You will remember that it was only introduced to head off a rebellion about 40% commission for all. It wasn't for any other reason.     Just to add when I had finally done all that work, manually going through spreadsheets, I did ask Alamy about them possibly refunding me the lost commission taken on images which were in actual fact Exclusive. I think you can imagine the reply. This is the sort of thing I mean about the relationship often seeming to be all take and no give.  My honesty is fine with Alamy when it loses me money!

$ 285.00

 

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by geogphotos

[AlbertSnapper]

Much of what's been said already....+

 

And do you see any hope in prices rising ? if ever ?!

....if prices continue to drop, will Alamy cut the commission again, so we lose out ?

[digi2ap]

16 hours ago, Russell said:

I would prefer a limit of say 1,800 by 1,200. Plenty big enough for a presentation or high quality 6" by 4" print.

Never needed more than 1800px for a presentation and so completely agree.  I'd like to know why tiered downloads haven't been developed for presentation and for personal use. 

[Ollie]

Revoke Alamy's invented definition of "exclusivity" when applied to works of art.  Contributors feel that Alamy has not maintained the trust it initially promised when it was created twenty years ago.  A major serious blow to this trust was when Alamy decided to lower contributors’ commission to 40%, effective January 2019, unless Alamy was given exclusive representation of an image.  “Exclusivity” in the stock imagery field has always meant that the photographer is affirming that an image (or all of his images) is only being marketed through the particular stock agency where it is placed.  It is exclusive to the agency.  It does not matter if some other photographer has photographed the same item and placed his image with the same agency or with another agency.  Alamy has decided that if it is possible that another photographer may have photographed the same item—a front-on shot of a work of art is the most obvious example—it cannot be designated as “exclusive” even though the photographer has not placed his image with any other stock agency.  This is seen by contributors as a cynical way for Alamy to acquire the extra 10% of the commission, at the photographer’s expense.  This confusing definition of exclusivity, for which Alamy blamed your lawyers, was a new and serious blow at the bonds of trust Alamy should be wanting to strengthen with its contributors.  The Alamy Forum was full of discussion of this point.  Some tweaking of the definition resulted, apparently trying to limit it to two-dimensional works of art.  Stained glass windows were apparently then excluded from the new definition.  Mosaics?  Not sure.  Tapestries?  Not sure. Close-up, detailed images of segments of a piece of art?  Not sure. Even a painting with a property release from the artist cannot be marked “exclusive” under the definition Alamy wants to apply.  Nor could a painting in a private collection to which the photographer has been given exclusive access.  The whole effort to acquire an additional 10% of commission is a serious blow to Alamy’s reputation with its contributors.  It should be abandoned.  Indication of whether the photographer has a Property Release for a piece of art should be enough to alert the user to any restrictions on usage.  It’s unlikely that any two photographers’ photographs of a work of art will result in an identical image.  Recognize that we all differ in ability, approach, technique, and equipment, and allow us to designate all of our images as exclusive to Alamy if that is what we choose to do.  If we have only placed our image with Alamy then it merits designation as "Exclusive to Alamy," and a 50% commission.

[Ollie]

Cull the Collection:  The collection needs to be reduced in size.  Alamy seems proud of its collection size.  The result is that many searches simply overwhelm the potential buyer with the hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands, or—really—hundreds of thousands of images that will be found by a keyword search. There are many bad images in the collection, many similars, and many duplicates.  These are dross that get in the way of the buyer’s attempt to find an image that will suit his needs.  You should dedicate some staff members to culling these images from the collection.  It does not take much training to recognize a bad image—an image that will almost certainly never sell.  It’s clear that some contributors exercise no judgment when they upload images to Alamy.  An earlier posting in the Alamy forum includes “I am appalled at so much of what I put out there…so many badly processed for colour, exposure, noise, crop, etc.”  Removing these images would provide the customer with a leaner, cleaner search experience.  Alamy’s reputation as a source of good images, quickly found, would grow.  At present Alamy’s reputation is mixed.  Buyers know the collection is diverse but they also know it contains a lot of rubbish.  Greater care should be exercised by Quality Control when reviewing uploaded submissions, especially of new contributors.  It’s time to impose some standards.  Teach contributors that they need to use more discernment in what they submit.

[geogphotos]

19 minutes ago, Ollie said:

  The whole effort to acquire an additional 10% of commission is a serious blow to Alamy’s reputation with its contributors.  

 

 

With hindsight I think we can clearly see through all the waffle about how this extra money was needed for improvements which would benefit contributors. Blah, blah. 

 

It was to sweeten up the Accounts in preparation for a sale. But fair enough. 

 

Okay, I'm sure we can understand that makes business sense but now we are looking into the future. 

 

This 'Alamy spirit' is gold dust ( excuse mangled cliches). It makes this agency unique.....at least in theory. That ethical, photographer friendly approach, standing up for what is right rather than what is expedient in the short term is what contributors old, new, and not yet arrived, will be prepared to rally around and support. 

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Ollie said:

Cull the Collection:  The collection needs to be reduced in size.  Alamy seems proud of its collection size.  The result is that many searches simply overwhelm the potential buyer with the hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands, or—really—hundreds of thousands of images that will be found by a keyword search. There are many bad images in the collection, many similars, and many duplicates.  These are dross that get in the way of the buyer’s attempt to find an image that will suit his needs. 

 

 

 

If these are being offered to Clients, isn't it more proof that the Algorithm is not working, and this is where time needs to be dedicated.  What you are describing would lead to bad rating and images falling off the planet of searches.  These images being in the database or not would then have zero impact to the clients.

The question is Why are clients being presented these?   

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

These images being in the database or not would then have zero impact to the clients.

 

Apart from overloading the database, and slowing down search results.... Potentially reducing sales whilst driving up server costs resulting in lower profits and further reduction in our commission rates.

 

Duplicates could be culled automatically - that would make a good start.

 

Mark

Edited December 7, 2020 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

Alamy QC currently only focuses on image quality, but the quality of captioning and tagging is ignored. Why is this? Bad tagging and captioning wastes customers' time. There are masses of incorrectly keyworded imaes on Alamy. Could initial QC include a check of keywording and captioning as well as image quality? After that there could be a "report" button added to allow contributors and customers to flag instances of incorrect keywording. I'm not suggesting every breach is investigated, but I imagine that patterns would soon emerge revealing large "clusters" of images that have been "auto-keyworded" and action could then be targeted.

 

Mark

Edited December 7, 2020 by M.Chapman

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Apart from overloading the database, and slowing down search results.... Potentially reducing sales whilst driving up server costs resulting in lower profits and further reduction in our commsion rates.

 

Duplicates could be culled automatically - that would make a good start.

 

Mark

 

as i want people who load duplicates to get penalised, by having their ratings dropped, i find the idea troubling (provided the time is not an issue, Have customers complained about that, OP said they complained about bad images).  You don't play by the rules, suffer the consequences.

 

This to me removes the attraction of Alamy of if you work WITH us, we will reward you..

[meanderingemu]

35 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Alamy QC currently only focuses on image quality, but the quality of captioning and tagging is ignored. Why is this? Bad tagging and captioning wastes customers' time. There are masses of incorrectly keyworded imaes on Alamy. Could initial QC include a check of keywording and captioning as well as image quality? After that there could be a "report" button added to allow contributors and customers to flag instances of incorrect keywording. I'm not suggesting every breach is investigated, but I imagine that patterns would soon emerge revealing large "clusters" of images that have been "auto-keyworded" and action could then be targeted.

 

Mark

 

 

Again i don't disagree that this is not a problem, but i still think Alamy is sending the wrong message by not penalising these people through the Algorithm.  There does not seem to be any penalty for those who don't play Alamy's way.   

The other one i have found that is problematic, is people using the "Reportage" way to upload images straight through, and gain 450 characters of description and not have any QC, for images that have nothing to do with the spirit of Reportage, and are clearly not Archive. 

[Cal]

On 06/12/2020 at 22:36, Chuck Nacke said:

I would also like to see a discussion about Live News and the quality, both image and selections.

 

You're being downvoted but on this occasion I actually agree with you. I submitted 8 LN photos yesterday in a heck of a rush from an uncalibrated laptop screen. One of them was really underexposed - I must have just misjudged it on screen - and got through to LN sitting there for 24 hours. I'm embarrassed I let that slip through but also a bit miffed live news QC (if such a thing exists) didn't pick up on it, either pulling that photo or failing the whole submission.

 

In regards to selections, I had a quick look at the live news feed today and had to do virtually no scrolling to find a picture of a cat being petted and birds going about their business. That isn't news and is an obvious abuse of the platform, possibly to shoehorn in bad quality photos. There doesn't appear to be a great lot of moderation going on at the LN platform.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Cal said:

 

 

 

In regards to selections, I had a quick look at the live news feed today and had to do virtually no scrolling to find a picture of a cat being petted and birds going about their business. That isn't news and is an obvious abuse of the platform, possibly to shoehorn in bad quality photos. There doesn't appear to be a great lot of moderation going on at the LN platform.

 

 

just wait until that Cat gets reported as a sale in two days 😉.  this was my experience a few months ago complaining about some content, and image did actually sell so i've stopped questioning- but i agree.  What i find worse, is that most of these are coming from agencies.....  the one that got me in the feed was the Grey Heron: 22 images, none with any "story" (i've done a couple birds that were weather-seasonal based) and most extremely marginal-  By contrast the 2 house sparrows image fighting at feeders are clean, have a story and "newsable" in that niche 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by meanderingemu

[Normspics]

On 06/12/2020 at 15:34, Joseph Clemson said:

I did see somewhere that Alamy were thinking about opening up video contributions again. This is something I personally very much like to see and, following the decimation of contributor commission at a major microstock site,  there is some considerable appetite among stock video makers for a new outlet for editorial video - one wthat pays a reasonable rate of commission, that is.

Video is a really complicated issue, there is only really one site doing it well, the investment required by Alamy to do video based on their dominance of editorial stock photography is probably not worth it to them and us to diversify.

[Lynchpics]

35 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

By contrast the 2 house sparrows image fighting at feeders are clear, have a story and "newsable" in that niche 

I think these images were captured by one of the photographers whose work inspired me to go and study photography as a mature student in the 90's. The Independent newspaper was essential reading back then.