Jump to content

Recommended Posts

!7 years with Alamy and it's turned out to be the biggest disappointment in my life and getting worse. Why bother charging anything for OUR images....just give them away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

At least that's not as low as the Polonium level, where you have 0% and pay extra £2 for every of your images sold

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CMEckert said:

!7 years with Alamy and it's turned out to be the biggest disappointment in my life and getting worse. Why bother charging anything for OUR images....just give them away.

They've got that covered: "there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content"

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the pittance you charge clients for our images, we have a hard time even reaching your Silver limit. ie. 15 photos of mine sold totalled under $190.? It’s a joke. I made more on one individual sale I sold directly, and I confirmed my credit would appear, knew exactly where it would be published & limited how long the agreement was for. 40% is taking advantage of photographers. We have all worked hard to submit info and key words with our photos, thousands of hours, under an agreement of 50%, and this is Alamy’s reply? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Nathaniel Noir
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 😡

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Upvote 1
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.