Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Ed Rooney]

I believe I've said many times in this forum that I no longer do stock photography for the money. I haven't seen any real money from stock since Tony Stone retired to the South of France. 

 

But I don't like being abused and this new bunch who are now calling themselves Alamy are abusing us all. 

[gardenbush]

1 minute ago, Barry Hitchcox said:

As you can see I'm only very small fry indeed and such as I are surely the target for these new rules. I feel truly sorry for all you guys with thousands up, the average seems to be about 4-5000 images. Photography has no standing and no respect anymore.

I agree...

[imageplotter]

 

2 hours 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. 

 

That would be fair enough. If image quality was truly the main factor why certain images sell and others don't.

 

But for a lot of common, often searched subjects, placement is key. And the algorithm for page 1 placement does not necessarily appear to rely on image quality as the main factor. Previous sale is rightly a factor, but often that means page 1 brings up images that are not only a bit dated, but also may not be of fantastic quality, they've sold before and are there, and so they will sell again, and so they will remain on page 1...at least that's what it looks like when I skim through some of those pages. I'm sure we all have those images where we're mystified why they were sold in the first place, and why they then keep selling, even though we have a lot of other, better images of the same subject that never even get a zoom. 

 

I do not want to speculate how much weighting is given to other factors such as length of time a contributor has been with Alamy, their overall sales performance (so some people just keep on sellin', innit?, and many others don't), preferential treatment of certain agencies vs. individual contributors etc. Who knows. All I know is that 'quality' is very subjective in that case.

[Nathaniel Noir]

4 minutes ago, John Richmond said:

You forgot the 'whilst poisoning you slowly and painfully until death is a welcome relief from your torments''.

 

Yes correct, that was kinda implied 😉

[Gabbro]

8 hours ago, BidC said:

 

This is probably a query built on misunderstanding, but there is a difference between 'sales' and 'earnings' (refer to the dashboard). My query is: does the tier cut off refer to 'sales' (ie total amount which includes Alamy commission ) or 'earnings' of the contributor..

 

Why does it matter? None of us will live to see it happen anyway. 🙄

[furundul]

"Our growth plans are beginning to take shape. Your own individual results on our platform will vary, but overall sales via our website in 2021 are 45% higher than they were in the first 4 months of 2020. This increases the earning potential for all our contributors and we want to be sure our model supports sustainable growth."

This does not mean mathematically that each contributor earns more. but that means Alamy earns close to 45% more.

 

If you want to do a decent  job, listen to the Photographers' request:

Give photographers the right to set a minimum price

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Malcolm Park said:

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned in this thread, perhaps the top level should be rebadged the Unobtainium Level.

 

Or the Onepercentium Level.

 

Actually my guess is that less than 1% of Alamy contributors make $25K annually. Whatever the number, they certainly are an "exclusive" group.

[Nathaniel Noir]

Here is another crazy idea, how about corporations and companies like Alamy get taxed significantly more and the money is redistributed to us in the form of universal income, that way we can just sit back and relax and get money. That way instead of one guy buying a mansion for 50 million, there is a chance that eventually 50 people can buy a one bed flat in London and actually live like human beings. Wouldn't that be lush! 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Nathaniel Noir

[Bionic]

I think what I find particularly galling/offensive is the fact they have the nerve to effectively say that the reason for for reduced the rate for exclusive images is that we (the suppliers of their merchandise) are deemed to be too dishonest for our declaration of exclusivity to be taken seriously 😡

[imageplotter]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

This makes no sense to me - we can mark something as exclusive even if we sell directly through our own websites. I don't want Alamy chasing someone I have sold a license to directly without consulting me first, which is why I responded as such when that recent email was sent out. Some clarification is needed please.

 

Yes please, definitely!

[vpics]

5 minutes ago, furundul said:

.If you want to do a decent  job, listen to the Photographers' request:

Give photographers the right to set a minimum price

I disagree. Some photographer will set their price at $100 per image whilst others, that don't rely on photography income, will undercut this big time. You'll end up with microstock prices.

[MizBrown]

6 minutes ago, imageplotter said:

 

 

That would be fair enough. If image quality was truly the main factor why certain images sell and others don't.

 

But for a lot of common, often searched subjects, placement is key. And the algorithm for page 1 placement does not necessarily appear to rely on image quality as the main factor. Previous sale is rightly a factor, but often that means page 1 brings up images that are not only a bit dated, but also may not be of fantastic quality, they've sold before and are there, and so they will sell again, and so they will remain on page 1...at least that's what it looks like when I skim through some of those pages. I'm sure we all have those images where we're mystified why they were sold in the first place, and why they then keep selling, even though we have a lot of other, better images of the same subject that never even get a zoom. 

 

I do not want to speculate how much weighting is given to other factors such as length of time a contributor has been with Alamy, their overall sales performance (so some people just keep on sellin', innit?, and many others don't), preferential treatment of certain agencies vs. individual contributors etc. Who knows. All I know is that 'quality' is very subjective in that case.

 

The first photo to show up in a couple of searches for Nicaragua was a Costa Rican toucan.   I had a photo of a stink bug zoomed along with one other which apparently was a Guardian search.  The photo that was taken showed the stink bug on a flower.

[antonsrkn]

Really disappointing. I'm primarily a wildlife photographer - I have some images in my portfolio which represent the ONLY photos of a particular species, many others which are very rarely seen or photographed. The costs of obtaining these images are not insignificant with tropical disease, travel to remote locations, equipment wear, etc...  While I'm not delusional, I know my small biodiversity focused portfolio is of no real consequence to Alamy - I'm joining my voice to the others here.  I have been exclusive with Alamy since I joined.  I no longer see any reason to do so - I might as well cast a wide net and make them available everywhere to maximize my own profits. 

[AlexH]

2 minutes ago, antonsrkn said:

Really disappointing. I'm primarily a wildlife photographer - I have some images in my portfolio which represent the ONLY photos of a particular species, many others which are very rarely seen or photographed. The costs of obtaining these images are not insignificant with tropical disease, travel to remote locations, equipment wear, etc...  While I'm not delusional, I know my small biodiversity focused portfolio is of no real consequence to Alamy - I'm joining my voice to the others here.  I have been exclusive with Alamy since I joined.  I no longer see any reason to do so - I might as well cast a wide net and make them available everywhere to maximize my own profits. 

 

I think those contributors that have some sort of niche material, particularly if it has some rarity and demand, have the opportunity to explore more direct routes to market. Sites like photoshelter, Picfair, Smugmug where you can set your prices. The down side is you have to do your own marketing; hence why I think it really only works for niche hard to produce content with a known marketplace. Unfortunately much of the stuff we (and I include myself here) add to Alamy is very generic and not particularly interesting or exclusive. There aren't many other places to even put a lot of what Alamy peddles, never mind hope to license it.

[KellyC]

I know I am a very tiny minnow in a very big pond and that my staying or leaving makes no difference to anyone but me, but sorry, that lowest tier is a slap in the face. Obviously small contributors are not wanted. Who knows, I might actually make the $250 limit--I've had some sales this year. But if I don't, I am being punished, not encouraged to contribute more. My life is enough of a shit storm already without having to worry about getting bumped down to the ripoff level. For those of you who have been stock photographers for a long time, for those who rely on this for income--I am so sorry.

[Bill Kuta]

My summary of the contract changes, so far, is that Alamy will be paying us a smaller share, while trying to put on us the blame and cost for anything that might go wrong.

[jillhyland]

25 minutes ago, KellyC said:

I know I am a very tiny minnow in a very big pond and that my staying or leaving makes no difference to anyone but me, but sorry, that lowest tier is a slap in the face. Obviously small contributors are not wanted. Who knows, I might actually make the $250 limit--I've had some sales this year. But if I don't, I am being punished, not encouraged to contribute more. My life is enough of a shit storm already without having to worry about getting bumped down to the ripoff level. For those of you who have been stock photographers for a long time, for those who rely on this for income--I am so sorry.

I agree. Also, it is Alamy's job to sell the photos so why are the contributors being punished for low sales? 

[John Mitchell]

34 minutes ago, vpics said:

I disagree. Some photographer will set their price at $100 per image whilst others, that don't rely on photography income, will undercut this big time. You'll end up with microstock prices.

 

Good point. There is a certain photo website that allows contributors to set their own "fair" prices, and most of the prices are ridiculously low. Photographers are sometimes the last ones to treat themselves fairly. There's a reason why some microstock agency owners are able to buy mansions in the Hamptons.

[AlbertSnapper]

I don't like this 😠

 

 

[gardenbush]

3 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Good point. There is a certain photo website that allows contributors to set their own "fair" prices, and most of the prices are ridiculously low. Photographers are sometimes the last ones to treat themselves fairly. There's a reason why some microstock agency owners are able to buy mansions in the Hamptons.

Hold on here - on Alamy, they set the prices, not the photographers - I get 4 cents for images of Tibet - not right - photographers should have a say on the mim that that they want...

[Keith Douglas]

4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Good point. There is a certain photo website that allows contributors to set their own "fair" prices, and most of the prices are ridiculously low. Photographers are sometimes the last ones to treat themselves fairly. There's a reason why some microstock agency owners are able to buy mansions in the Hamptons.

It could show either the Alamy price or the contributor's minimum price, whichever is the greater. There again I might have missed out on a 43 cent (gross) sale last week had my minimum been applied!!

[Jill Morgan]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

I believe I've said many times in this forum that I no longer do stock photography for the money. I haven't seen any real money from stock since Tony Stone retired to the South of France. 

 

But I don't like being abused and this new bunch who are now calling themselves Alamy are abusing us all. 

 

Ed, I too do not do stock for money.  It is simply a way to justify the money I have spent on equipment, and hopefully to earn enough to cover the cost of said equipment.  

And since I do a lot of graphics work, I have PS and Illustrator etc. anyway, so might as well use them beyond graphics.  But like Betty, I may spend more time creating art from my images than than scanning for dust spots at 100%.  Might find that more rewarding.  And more fun.

 

I certainly won't remove my images and I will probably add more, but certainly expand to other venues.  The stock image market hasn't really been a viable source of income for the past few years.  I certainly can't see any fresh faced college grads heading into it in the near future. I would assume right now 90% of stock contributors are like me and simply do stock for fun because they love photography and have to do something with all those images.

 

Jill

[Jill Morgan]

duplicate post

Edited May 17, 2021 by Jill Morgan

[Bill Brooks]

I think it is now time to remove the money worm from my photographic apple.

 

Flickr here I come. No money but more fun, less personal risk, nice forum.

FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM
 

[SeaKevin]

I am really upset at Alamy's insinuation that photographers who want to approve any infringement actions are cheating the exclusive system. Alamy's own definition of exclusive clearly states that I am allowed to sell prints and license images through my own website and still be considered exclusive to Alamy. So why am I out of line in wanting Alamy to check with me first before potentially harassing my customers?

 

I've been spending some time with my sales reports today and have come to realize that the occasional $1,000 sale really masks the poor fees I'm getting most of the time.  I did give notice to close my account after the 2018 changes, but a personal email from their photography director convinced me to stay. Alamy is now the smallest part of my business, but the biggest source of heartache.