Jump to content

Recommended Posts

While I quite welcome PU sales, they pay better than newspaper web usage, there are some that it is difficult to imagine anyone wanting for their own use. I'm seeing an increasing percentage of PU deals.  Included is one of my latest sales, an abandoned campsite with a burnt out fire, litter, and a discarded flattened tent. Score for artistic interpretation or aesthetic appeal  zero. Surely this must be a commercial or campaign group usage and should be charged accordingly. 

 

Search terms used "illegal camping mess"

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale.
Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use

 

Abandoned tent and camp fire with discarded drinks cans and bottles, illegal camping, north east England, UK Stock Photo

Edited by Bryan
  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at the number of Presentations reported in the Images Sold thread (I have 6 this month so far). Who could believe it's genuine? But no, when I mentioned it previously on this forum, I was told I should not be complaining. I've never been good at being an ostrich. Sorry.

Edited by gvallee
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s the precise reason I’m opted out of PU - licence misuse. Something needs to be done about these buyers taking Alamy and its contributors for a ride. It’s scandalous. 

Edited by Colblimp
Repairing my shoddy apostrophe usage
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

That’s the precise reason I’m opted out of PU - licence misuse. Something needs to be done about these buyers taking Alamy and it’s contributors for a ride. It’s scandalous. 

 

The trouble is that even opting out of PU still allows them to download for "presentations" at the same price.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gvallee said:

Just look at the number of Presentations reported in the Images Sold thread (I have 6 this month so far). Who could believe it's genuine? But no, when I mentioned it previously on this forum, I was told I should not be complaining. I've never been good at being an ostrich. Sorry.

 

That's an impressive number of presentation sales alright. However, could the the popularity of virtual meetings -- e.g. Zooming -- during the pandemic not account (in part anyway) for the increase in presentation licenses?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bryan said:

While I quite welcome PU sales, they pay better than newspaper web usage, there are some that it is difficult to imagine anyone wanting for their own use. I'm seeing an increasing percentage of PU deals.  Included is one of my latest sales, an abandoned campsite with a burnt out fire, litter, and a discarded flattened tent. Score for artistic interpretation or aesthetic appeal  zero. Surely this must be a commercial or campaign group usage and should be charged accordingly. 

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale.
Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use

 

 

 

Have to admit, that is a bit weird.

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

 

That's an impressive number of presentation sales alright. However, could the the popularity of virtual meetings -- e.g. Zooming -- during the pandemic not account (in part anyway) for the increase in presentation licenses?

 

 

 

This month, 1x presentation to the US, 1x presentation to the EU, 4x presentations to ROW, i.e Australia (not in lockdown ). I have been getting several a month from ROW, regular as clockwork for several months now. Why?  Because i dropped out of PU, so they choose the next one down. I have  busted enough PU mis-uses in the past not to be cynical. Sorry.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get the frustration about PU. 

I feel like I'm in another world though.  So far this month, out of 11 sales, two PU sales for $15 and $20 gross, are by far my highest prices.  Sad.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Reimar said:

I totally get the frustration about PU. 

I feel like I'm in another world though.  So far this month, out of 11 sales, two PU sales for $15 and $20 gross, are by far my highest prices.  Sad.

Agree, it is sad! 

It really is time to be able to put a minimum price on what we're prepared to accept.

Phil 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

This month, 1x presentation to the US, 1x presentation to the EU, 4x presentations to ROW, i.e Australia (not in lockdown ). I have been getting several a month from ROW, regular as clockwork for several months now. Why?  Because i dropped out of PU, so they choose the next one down. I have  busted enough PU mis-uses in the past not to be cynical. Sorry.

 

Yes, some buyers will always find ways of gaming the system. As I'm sure you remember, before PU and presentation sales were introduced, it was "spot use," the cheapest licensing option available at the time. I used to see quite a few of those types of sales.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Yes, some buyers will always find ways of gaming the system. As I'm sure you remember, before PU and presentation sales were introduced, it was "spot use," the cheapest licensing option available at the time. I used to see quite a few of those types of sales.

 

Oooh! That's a trip down memory lane! I had forgotten about 'spot use'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When microstock became a thing swore I would never sign-up for that and never have. Now I'm selling at micro prices against my will. Given that Alamy has managed ONE sale me to date this year at PU pricing I'd love the opportunity to set a minimum price for each of my images. It's not like I'm making up the difference in quantity that micro sites offer. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2021 at 02:08, Bryan said:

While I quite welcome PU sales, they pay better than newspaper web usage, there are some that it is difficult to imagine anyone wanting for their own use.

 

Likely bucking the trend, the few PU sales I've had were likely genuine, and as you mentioned Bryan, they pay far better than typical newspaper web use. Currently I see no economic reason to quit PU sales.

Edited by sb photos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sb photos said:

 

Likely bucking the trend, the few PU sales I've had were likely genuine, and as you mentioned Bryan, they pay far better than typical newspaper web use. Currently I see no economic reason to quit PU sales.

 

This makes no sense at all to me. Would a non-genuine PU have sold for newspaper web use? No. Its likely correct use would have cost x2 or x3 times more. 

 

To clarify, I would have nothing against PU if they were genuine.

 

Edited by gvallee
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

This makes no sense at all to me. Would a non-genuine PU have sold for newspaper web use? No. Its likely correct use would have cost x2 or x3 times more. 

 

To clarify, I would have nothing against PU if they were genuine.

 

This is the real issue here... We need to know that PU are indeed genuine and if not then correct pricing should be applied.

 

Phil

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

This makes no sense at all to me. Would a non-genuine PU have sold for newspaper web use? No. Its likely correct use would have cost x2 or x3 times more. 

 

To clarify, I would have nothing against PU if they were genuine.

 

 

The two PU sales I've had were of speakers at rallies. I've only found one of these also used in a magazine, Country Living, and they purchased the appropriate license. I've no reason to doubt the few PU sales I've made weren't genuine. "Its likely correct use would have cost x2 or x3 times more", no, not in the UK. The both PU sales were at the maximum UK and USA rates.  Compared to web use in the Guardian, a UK national newspaper, their last license fees were only $8.70 gross, hence my PU sales were preferable. I am only speaking from my experience, I realise other contributor experiences will differ, with the PU images most unlikely to be genuine.

Edited by sb photos
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

This is the real issue here... We need to know that PU are indeed genuine and if not then correct pricing should be applied.

 

Phil

 

I found several PU mis-uses and for two of them, the corrected price turned out above $200. How many have I not discovered?

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sb photos said:

 

  Compared to web use in the Guardian, a UK national newspaper, their last license fees were only $8.70 gross, hence my PU sales were preferable. 

I don't believe that a newspaper or other media outlet is going to pay PU prices when they already have a cheaper deal in place...The issue is with usages that should be billed at more than PU fees but the unscrupulous buyers are cheating the system and if the usage is an offline one then there is little chance of tracking them down. Alamy needs to have a proper check in place to assure the usage is as declared by the buyer. 

Phil

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sb photos said:

 

The two PU sales I've had were of speakers at rallies. I've only found one of these also used in a magazine, Country Living, and they purchased the appropriate license. I've no reason to doubt the few PU sales I've made weren't genuine. "Its likely correct use would have cost x2 or x3 times more", no, not in the UK. The both PU sales were at the maximum UK and USA rates.  Compared to web use in the Guardian, a UK national newspaper, their last license fees were only $8.70 gross, hence my PU sales were preferable.

 

I haven't explained myself very well. 

I don't doubt some PUs are genuine. I'm happy for you that yours were.

 

Yes, I was talking about the UK market where I lived for 28 years prior to Australia and contributed to Alamy from there. So yes, I know the Guardian newspaper. My first ever license was to them actually.

 

I was saying that non-genuine PUs would not have licensed to a newspaper anyway, so it's pointless to compare prices. 

I do not recall exact figures now as it's been a while (about 8 years), but in the UK the difference then between PU prices and the correct license was indeed about x2 or x3 times bigger. Of course, this has very likely changed since.

 

I've recently had a slewth of presentations from a ROW buyer for prices between $8 to $10. Other usages for the region tend to be around $20. I believe this amount would be more in line.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 18/04/2021 at 09:51, gvallee said:

 

I found several PU mis-uses and for two of them, the corrected price turned out above $200. How many have I not discovered?

Lots and lots and lots. Image buyers and picture editors read this forum and when they see folks saying how much they love so-called 'personal sales' they chuckle and rub their hands with glee. (I know they do because they have told me). They probably know the saying from my hero the late great W.C.Fields when he said 'My boy, never give a sucker an even break'. Easy way to check if it's a genuine PU. It should not have been bought by an account client so will be paid by credit card before download. (They get a full size image of course to use in perpetuity ad infinitum). On that basis it should appear in your 'cleared balance' column right away. Doesn't mean that you will get paid right away of course, only when your balance is over $50 and at the end of the month.  Don't blame Alamy or the buyers for cheating and low prices, it's up to photographers to have a bit of pride and solidarity. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dyn Llun said:

Easy way to check if it's a genuine PU. It should not have been bought by an account client so will be paid by credit card before download. (They get a full size image of course to use in perpetuity ad infinitum). On that basis it should appear in your 'cleared balance' column right away.

No.

Nothing clears before 45 days.

Contributor contract s28.

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx#definitions

Cleared Funds

"Sales are posted to Contributors' accounts immediately and are listed as “uncleared”. They will not clear for at least 45 days from the sale date.

Credit card sales will automatically be deemed cleared on day 45 as long as the transaction has not been returned as fraudulent, is not suspected of being fraudulent by Alamy or is in dispute."

 

I trust Alamy when they say they have a system for monitoring PU misuse. I haven't found one myself, others have.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dyn Llun said:

Don't blame Alamy or the buyers for cheating and low prices, it's up to photographers to have a bit of pride and solidarity. 

Erm... we seem to have both pride and solidarity already. What we don't (and can't) do is set prices. And why offer buyers an easy way to "cheat"?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2021 at 08:19, gvallee said:

 

This month, 1x presentation to the US, 1x presentation to the EU, 4x presentations to ROW, i.e Australia (not in lockdown ). I have been getting several a month from ROW, regular as clockwork for several months now. Why?  Because i dropped out of PU, so they choose the next one down. I have  busted enough PU mis-uses in the past not to be cynical. Sorry.

I have not opted out and I get both quite regularly as well. No busts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dyn Llun said:

Lots and lots and lots. Image buyers and picture editors read this forum and when they see folks saying how much they love so-called 'personal sales' they chuckle and rub their hands with glee. (I know they do because they have told me). They probably know the saying from my hero the late great W.C.Fields when he said 'My boy, never give a sucker an even break'. Easy way to check if it's a genuine PU. It should not have been bought by an account client so will be paid by credit card before download. (They get a full size image of course to use in perpetuity ad infinitum). On that basis it should appear in your 'cleared balance' column right away. Doesn't mean that you will get paid right away of course, only when your balance is over $50 and at the end of the month.  Don't blame Alamy or the buyers for cheating and low prices, it's up to photographers to have a bit of pride and solidarity. 

 

I just checked the 10 Presentations I had this month and they are all 'uncleared', presumably because of the reason given my Spacecadet. So off goes your theory.

As to not blaming the buyers for cheating, you are taking the mickey. 

  • Upvote 2
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.