Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As the percentage to photographer goes down and never up why would anyone starting out bother supplying Alamy with the prospect that the cut they get will go down from the already low levels. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since joining alamy in 2008 and only using this agency commision has dropped from 60% at the start to 40% now soon they will be charging to upload to them, Alamy was always the best agency to be with, Not Any More.

My first and last post.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rachelle said:

Gets fewer every day but there are still some decent ones so not all hope is lost yet.

 

You have fewer than sixty illustrations up and no photographs, zip, nada.  What experience do you have with editorial photography?

 

In general, most of what I've noticed in the two magazines I subscribe to are from Getty, Shutterstock, and Alamy.   Whole thing is reminding me of various discussions of literary agents back in my SF writing days.  No agency can sell a bad book.   No agency can fail to sell a good book.  No agent will accept a writer just because the writer has a contract offer.  The converse of this is believed by any number of wannabes. 

 

And both Getty and Shutterstock have pulled changes on their photographers that make this by Alamy look mild.

 

A lot of people set up as literary agent back in the last century who were simply in it for the bragging rights.   Some charged $250 (1980 dollars) to evaluate manuscripts. 

 

It might have been kinder to just dump those of us who don't sell a minimum of $250 a year.  Or not.  Alamy/PA is giving the under performers a chance to improve their value to Alamy. 

 

 

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

It's unenforceable. How can a contributor possibly ensure that? Surely liability is the publisher's.

 

But I don't care to get into a legal battle or hire a lawyer to tell the judge that the clause is overly broad. I'm outta here. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

I changed all my images to non-exclusive.  I too am off to check out other options.  And it isn't even about the money, I think the real thing that kicked me was getting people to mark exclusive then when all that work is done, take away the benefit.  If they found some were cheating (and I'm sure some marked exclusive that weren't were just human error) the contributor should have been notified.  If having to notify a second time, all their images would be marked non-exclusive no matter if they were or weren't.

 

We all know the stock photo market is bloated with images, much more supply than demand, so it leaves us as simple pawns in the stock game.  We are easily replaced, as many are willing to sell their stuff for next to nothing (which lately on Alamy is getting  more common) so the exodus of even 10,000 contributors would not really put much of a dent in any image library. 

 

Jill

 

you should wait.  don't give Alamy the 20% on any sales over the next 45 days.

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

Alamy/PA is giving the under performers a chance to improve their value to Alamy

 

Yes, by unilaterally raising their own commission at our expense. Mission achieved! 😂

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Pure greed, I sell a few photos a year but will probably revert to Silver, what is the point of spending untold hours adding photos for 20%. I will certainly be looking to sell my photos elsewhere. 

Edited by Johnba712
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

I'm in the process of deleting my (video) portfolio from Shutterstock because they imposed a new commission structure which makes even the new Alamy contract look positively benign. There may be a better world somewhere out there, but I doubt SS or any other microstock agency is part of it.

 

A couple of people in the past suggested that Alamy had too many mediocre photos and should trim back on work that simply wasn't selling.   Dunno.  This forces a decision on what value we have onto us.   Maybe some of us, me included, should get out or go bigger. 

 

Some agencies make their profit from services, not sales -- like paying for server space, evaluations, editorial help, etc.   Alamy has accepted a wide range of contributors without charging them fees during the time I've been with Alamy.

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

 

A couple of people in the past suggested that Alamy had too many mediocre photos and should trim back on work that simply wasn't selling.   Dunno.  This forces a decision on what value we have onto us.   Maybe some of us, me included, should get out or go bigger. 

 

Some agencies make their profit from services, not sales -- like paying for server space, evaluations, editorial help, etc.   Alamy has accepted a wide range of contributors without charging them fees during the time I've been with Alamy.

Pay us shit for commissions AND charge us fees? Don't give them any ideas.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

A couple of people in the past suggested that Alamy had too many mediocre photos and should trim back on work that simply wasn't selling.   Dunno.  This forces a decision on what value we have onto us.   Maybe some of us, me included, should get out or go bigger. 

 

Some agencies make their profit from services, not sales -- like paying for server space, evaluations, editorial help, etc.   Alamy has accepted a wide range of contributors without charging them fees during the time I've been with Alamy.

 

If Alamy starts charging contributors to upload their images to them I will be out immediately.

 

Allan

 

Edited by Allan Bell
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a defence. I'm extremely unhappy about the proposed changes. But to be honest, I've been wondering for a while now how Alamy's business model is even viable anymore when competing with microstock. How can they compete when competitors are racing to the bottom....? 😢

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of that time we spent fighting for our 50% until we got it with exclusivity, I can see it now. People behind closed doors, rubbing their hands, saying, “We’ll let them think they won for now. Wait until they see our next move...hahahaha!”

 

Also at issue with our permission for Alamy to chase uses...they can recover costs of chasing??? Hmmm. I wonder if a contributor will ever see a $ of recovery? More likely, a clause will be written where they chase, but Alamy charges us for the chase. We get nothing or may be debited for the chase. You all notice the timing of this “benefit to us” was released first.

Then this new contributor contract which makes all of us who were grateful to Alamy for chasing, now feel like if we want our images chased, we must stay exclusive.

From now on, anything Alamy announces for our benefit must be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Fool me once.....

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CarlMillerPhotos said:

Pay us shit for commissions AND charge us fees? Don't give them any ideas.

Alamy tried to charge for QC and impose storage fees on every image submitted. That is why I have so few images on file: if they tried it once, they can do it again. Back then they were so small that the photographers could force them to back down. Now Alamy holds all the cards.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I wonder if a contributor will ever see a $ of recovery?

 

I've never seen a single $ to date so why would I expect to see one in future? Nice try Alamy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

If Alamy starts charging contributors to upload their images to them I will be out immediately.

When Alamy first started they had 3 different commission rates to choose from (red, green and blue) and one of them paid out a higher royalty in exchange for paying a per-image storage fee of a few cents. I can't remember the exact figures but it was something like 80/20 in the photographers favour.

 

I've found an archive of the page from 2004 and for Alamy Red there was a $2 fee per image uploaded and 10c per month storage fee but the royalty was 85%/15%

https://web.archive.org/web/20040610173518/http://www.alamy.com/royalty-free-images-terms.asp

Edited by AndrewP
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

If Alamy starts charging contributors to upload their images to them I will be out immediately.

 

Allan

 

 

Yeah, I can't afford to invest more in something that may not pay off enough to justify doing this and not teaching English on line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Colblimp said:

This will backfire on Alamy spectacularly as everyone will now go non-exclusive.

For me a lot will depend on whether Alamy's infringement chasing team has real teeth. If they are successful at chasing infringements on their exclusive images and they charge infringers a premium (and don't simply grant retrospective licences at normal fees) this could be a useful source of additional revenue and an incentive to keep images exclusive. But....  previous Alamy infringement team chasing hasn't inspired confidence in this respect.

 

Mark

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AndrewP said:

When Alamy first started they had 3 different commission rates to choose from (red, green and blue) and one of them paid out a higher royalty in exchange for paying a per-image storage fee of a few cents. I can't remember the exact figures but it was something like 80/20 in the photographers favour.

No. The choice between the three plans was only offered after Alamy tried to impose fees and the contributors revolted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Alamy may not lose any sleep if photographers with general stock remove their images or make them non-exclusive, as they may have many alternatives, but I wonder if they would feel the same about those providing specialised images that no one else - or very few others - have?

 

How many pictures of the Eiffel Tower does one agency need? However, some photographers are quite specialised. About a quarter of my stock is in this "specialised" category. No one is shooting these types of images but me, or if they are, they are not doing it to my level or have my access.

 

I've literally had guns pulled on me. I'd rather take my images off the site, than sell them for poor fees. It simply isn't worth the risk, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

(On a side note, I've long wondered if specialist photography should have separate fees. If a magazine buys a photo of Big Ben and a photo of the front line in Afghanistan, for example, surely these should not be sold at the same price?)

 

Edited by Michael Photo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always done quite well on Alamy all things considered. Back when there was a monthly "Top 500" club," I was a regular member (much to my surprise). However, my annual gross income never exceeds $10K (average for the past ten years is around $8K per year), so the $25K threshold is unattainable. I can't help thinking that this new tiered structure is a response in some way to the recent changes at SS, who have have now become leaders in showing other stock agencies what they can get away with. As I see it, the only way that Alamy can now regain the trust of its contributors is to negotiate higher licensing fees. Not allowing distributors to license images at microstock prices would be a good place to start.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

Yes, by unilaterally raising their own commission at our expense. Mission achieved! 😂

 

60% of nothing is still nothing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the end for me. Alamy is now run by a journalist and look what has happened to journalism. So she is taking it out on photographers by grinding us down to journalistic rates. (i.e: nil) The writing was on the wall as soon as PA took over.

As for content, how dare they judge what might or might not sell? Several years ago I attended a lecture where former Alamy CEO James.... gave an example of a pic. that had made a big sale. £15,000 for a terrible shot of an extremely obscure subject. It made his point very effectively, that you can never tell!

With only a very small portfolio I am sentenced to 20% for life! They are just common thieves.

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

I've always done quite well on Alamy all things considered. Back when there was a monthly "Top 500" club," I was a regular member (much to my surprise). However, my annual gross income never exceeds $10K (average for the past ten years is around $8K per year), so the $25K threshold is unattainable. I can't help thinking that this new tiered structure is a response in some way to the recent changes at SS, who have have now become leaders in showing other stock agencies what they can get away with. As I see it, the only way that Alamy can now regain the trust of its contributors is to negotiate higher licensing fees. Not allowing distributors to license images at microstock prices would be a good place to start.

 

to be honest I can see the reasoning for the lower tier.  There is still a cost to Alamy to review submission, maintain images, opportunity cost of mislabelled off market images etc.. So if you won't bring Alamy a minimal amount of sales you are lower on scale  In fact this has been requested many times in the forum (of course it wasn't linked with a reduction- more a bonus for diamond and platinum level)  In addition giving the first year to prove yourself- new contributor starting at Gold is beyond the competition- would however favour a rolling 12 months over date specific.  

 

That said, the rest falls flat.  99% of the bread and butter individual contributor will be in the Gold level, with as you stated no chance whatsoever of going up to Platinum.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

For me a lot will depend on whether Alamy's infringement chasing team has real teeth. If they are successful at chasing infringements on their exclusive images and they charge infringers a premium (and don't simply grant retrospective licences at normal fees) this could be a useful source of additional revenue and an incentive to keep images exclusive. But....  previous Alamy infringement team chasing hasn't inspired confidence in this respect.

 

Mark

Have we ever been told how much are Alamy going to give back to the photographers. They don't have a very good track record on these things. Personally I would rather go after the infringers myself . Looking at the new contract that won't be happening anytime soon.

 

What a freckin start to the day!!!! 

 

You would think that someone in Alamy would be smart enough to come up with a way of increasing profit rather than the old and trusted screw the supplier method. Not one of them has a better idea than this??? Lol

 

 

Shergar

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.