Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DDoug said:

 Perhaps a Fair Trade stock agency that guarantees to pay contributors no less than 50 percent of fees for rights managed licenses would have a good market opportunity.

 

But would Fair Trade work when it's a company doing the purchasing ?

Can't see companies having too much of an ethical stance when sourcing their stock pictures.

I know some companies, such as the supermarkets, do source Fair Trade produce from poor countries. I expect most stock photographers are based in the wealthy countries, so no one will care ☹️

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

You're mistaking PA for an entity which cares what we think.

 

For a start, instead of that haze about removing the exclusive incentive because of a 'sizeable minority' of people being dishonest, they should have just come out straight from the beginning and said, "We are PA, we are not the old Alamy. We have a different vision for this company. We envision having an elevated collection with a fancy name, for which you will retain 65%. This is the sort of images we want in the elevated collection ... words and examples. If you feel you have images already in your portfolio which meets these criteria, please submit them to XXX for consideration. Going on, (there will be a tick box for submitting specific images for consideration for the elevated collection, or some other way of nominating specific files added in future).

 

Lower Alamy's take on second or third sales of the same image.   That's easier to do than hire eyeballs to look at photos and make decisions, and less personal.   The market is not always wrong, and for PA/Alamy sales are always necessary.  

 

Rejecting people can be tricky.  Most publishers have a bland non-confrontational printed rejection slip or letter for people they don't particularly want to see work from again.   If they want to see more, they will say that.   One reason many publishers and most film companies won't look at un-agented material is that they want a buffer between the delusional and their editorial staff.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

 

But would Fair Trade work when it's a company doing the purchasing ?

Can't see companies having too much of an ethical stance when sourcing their stock pictures.

I know some companies, such as the supermarkets, do source Fair Trade produce from poor countries. I expect most stock photographers are based in the wealthy countries, so no one will care ☹️

 

also not sure how you guarantee fair trade, how do you make sure models were paid fairly?  what about agency/grouping that hire photog to produce the image, KW etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just working through an edit received back from elsewhere. A fantastic, hugely experienced editor with such a great eye and who picks out the winners. They are always so friendly and supportive, always find something positive to say, and don't bother saying anything about what they don't want ( unlike a former editor in Spain who did the exact opposite 😄). No stress about releases as they are all going as editorial, if somebody wants to use them commercially that is down to them. Anything dubious I think the editor just knows to avoid by working to guidance and using experience. No worries. 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

I've added a green arrow to restore balance! Er is that off topic?🤔

Got a red arrow for that. Twerp!

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I don't see it as breaking their rules incidentally, I was simply asked to temporarily lift the restrictions that I had put on that image by checking 'For editorial use only', namely:

 

Don't sell for advertising and promotion

Don't sell for consumer goods

 

My picture certainly wasn't going to be used in a way that suggested that the cyclists would be promoting the company concerned and so I think I shouldn't have checked the box in the first place. The new contract as it is written at the moment makes this much more problematic and I have suggested on several occasions in the past that Alamy should give more guidance on the use and implications of the 'Editorial use' box. 

 

 

 

Wholeheartedly agree. We need more feedback from Alamy about the use of the "editorial box" in light of the new contract -- e.g. should we be checking the box for every image that has someone with a recognizable face in it? I haven't been doing this.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Wholeheartedly agree. We need more feedback from Alamy about the use of the "editorial box" in light of the new contract -- e.g. should we be checking the box for every image that has someone with a recognizable face in it? I haven't been doing this.

I've had a look on one of the larger competitor sites, and from the pics I looked at they do appear to do that.  Rightly or wrongly I'm working my way through mine now, ticking 'editorial only' on most things bar plants and animals - don't need the stress

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, kay said:

I've had a look on one of the larger competitor sites, and from the pics I looked at they do appear to do that.  Rightly or wrongly I'm working my way through mine now, ticking 'editorial only' on most things bar plants and animals - don't need the stress

 

 

33 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Wholeheartedly agree. We need more feedback from Alamy about the use of the "editorial box" in light of the new contract -- e.g. should we be checking the box for every image that has someone with a recognizable face in it? I haven't been doing this.

 

 

 

based on Alamy's current client base i am not as worried at this point, especially after removing distribution. 

 

 

but i will point out that even Alamy automatically puts "For Editorial Only" on all submission through Live News when they move to stock (had to remove many of them on weather and cute animals), so i do have Editorial Only on similar types of images now, but not on image of a castle where someone is secondary yet

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kay said:

I've had a look on one of the larger competitor sites, and from the pics I looked at they do appear to do that.  Rightly or wrongly I'm working my way through mine now, ticking 'editorial only' on most things bar plants and animals - don't need the stress

 

Thanks for the sharing that. I'm slowly working through my images (glad I don't have a larger collection), but I've been checking "The Box" selectively up until now. Still hoping to receive more guidance from above.

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

 

Thanks for the sharing that. I'm slowly working through my images (glad I don't have a larger collection), but I've been checking "The Box" selectively up until now. Still hoping to receive more guidance from above.

If you click the "Editorial only" box (as it seems many of us now are), don't forget to check the "personal use" box below it. You have to check it separately. It doesn't automatically check when you hit the editorial box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Just working through an edit received back from elsewhere. A fantastic, hugely experienced editor with such a great eye and who picks out the winners. They are always so friendly and supportive, always find something positive to say, and don't bother saying anything about what they don't want ( unlike a former editor in Spain who did the exact opposite 😄). No stress about releases as they are all going as editorial, if somebody wants to use them commercially that is down to them. Anything dubious I think the editor just knows to avoid by working to guidance and using experience. No worries. 

 

 

 

That editor on the Iberian Peninsula is famous for that.

 

I've had images rejected by other agencies that now do quite well on Alamy. I'm not sure that editors can always pick "winners." However, you sound happy with the results so far.

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Photo said:

If you click the "Editorial only" box (as it seems many of us now are), don't forget to check the "personal use" box below it. You have to check it separately. It doesn't automatically check when you hit the editorial box.

 

Thanks. I'm OK (sort of) with personal use for the time being. My PU sales usually look as if they could be ligit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Photo said:

If you click the "Editorial only" box (as it seems many of us now are), don't forget to check the "personal use" box below it. You have to check it separately. It doesn't automatically check when you hit the editorial box.

I've opted out of 'Personal Use', though Presentation Use seems to offer similar benefits for the unscrupulous. I think we'd all like to see tiered file sizes for these types of offerings.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I've opted out of 'Personal Use', though Presentation Use seems to offer similar benefits for the unscrupulous. I think we'd all like to see tiered file sizes for these types of offerings.

 

I've recently done that on my own website, offered three sizes (500, 1500, and 2500 pixels) at different prices for education and personal use.

 

But we digress...

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hans Muelder said:

Alamy has lost it: a leftist greedy company that is alienating its contributors. And without contributors Alamy is nothing. For the many small photographers who just occasionally sell a photo your commission drops from 50% to just 20%. That is robbery. 

 

I resigned, but I rather see their point -- lots of people are playing at being photographers and making minimal sales.  If the small photographers fill some odd ball niches, then they're a bit more useful than not.  If the occasional sales are of subjects that other people have also covered more or less as well, then the photographer doesn't bring anything unique to Alamy.

 

I think people who have portfolios with many repeat licenses should be rewarded.   I think after three years of trying, people aren't doing $250 a year/12 sales per 1,000 photos up, that's a sign that something's wrong, and if those of us who fall in that category want to stay in stock, we need to fix what's wrong.  

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

 

I resigned, but I rather see their point -- lots of people are playing at being photographers and making minimal sales.  If the small photographers fill some odd ball niches, then they're a bit more useful than not.  If the occasional sales are of subjects that other people have also covered more or less as well, then the photographer doesn't bring anything unique to Alamy.

 

I think people who have portfolios with many repeat licenses should be rewarded.   I think after three years of trying, people aren't doing $250 a year/12 sales per 1,000 photos up, that's a sign that something's wrong, and if those of us who fall in that category want to stay in stock, we need to fix what's wrong.  

i think you have a point,  one problem is that 12 licenses doesn't ensure 250$ anymore, when my last 5 PUs average 37% discount from market value set by Alamy it seems the risk is one sided. 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MizBrown said:

I think people who have portfolios with many repeat licenses should be rewarded.   I think after three years of trying, people aren't doing $250 a year/12 sales per 1,000 photos up, that's a sign that something's wrong, and if those of us who fall in that category want to stay in stock, we need to fix what's wrong.  

When I first joined Alamy in 2004 there was a rule which said that if you did not make $75 in a year you were out. After a year I assumed I was out as I hadn't heard anything and mistakenly thought Alamy would tell me when I made a sale (😂) . Then I got a payment of $180 into my bank account. 🙂

 

Kumar

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i think you have a point,  one problem is that 12 licenses doesn't ensure 250$ anymore, when my last 5 PUs average 37% discount from market value set by Alamy it seems the risk is one sided. 

 

I can see Alamy's POV as well. However, as you suggest, given today's low prices, I think that number of sales per year rather than income would be a fairer metric to use when setting thresholds. I had two low $ "tiddlers" (both images have licensed for high fees in the past) show up today. Mind you, I've also had a $200 license this month plus a couple of high $$ ones as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I can see Alamy's POV as well. However, as you suggest, given today's low prices, I think that number of sales per year rather than income would be a fairer metric to use when setting thresholds. I had two low $ "tiddlers" (both images have licensed for high fees in the past) show up today. Mind you, I've also had a $200 license this month plus a couple of high $$ ones as well.

 

 

i think you need a mix.   Because someone with your numbers should clearly qualify, even if you didn't get the licence ordinal number.   I'll should be fine based on recent since i do seem to be getting at least one mid $$ licence per month.

 

 but i do think that someone who that demonstrates they produce material that customer want should be considered valuable by Alamy, even if they got hit by some promotional discount that Alamy offered. 

 

 

btw congrats on your nice results. 

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

But we digress...

Definitely seems logical to me, better than handing out full res files for the proverbial peanuts

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still a bit confused about what happens to me now as a "Blue model" contributor? Does my original contract remain in effect, or will I be going from 50% commission on my exclusively Alamy images to 20% if sales continue to be slow? (With no difference in commission between Exclusive and Non-Exclusive images any longer--and regardless of Silver/Gold/Platinum level?

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

i think you have a point,  one problem is that 12 licenses doesn't ensure 250$ anymore, when my last 5 PUs average 37% discount from market value set by Alamy it seems the risk is one sided. 

 

One thing I know from publishing -- if the house and one's agent don't make money, they disappear.  One editor was fussy about editing some series books by a writer she disdained.  The writer went into either the publisher's office or the editor-in-chief's office and slammed his fist down and said, "I make you money.  Fire the bitch."  The editor was fired and set up as an editorial consultant.  

 

I also suspect that the recent contract was "what can we get away with."   Resisting that contract probably wasn't a surprise to PA and they're going to show us a revision.   Happened before and will happen again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MizBrown said:

 

 

I also suspect that the recent contract was "what can we get away with."   Resisting that contract probably wasn't a surprise to PA and they're going to show us a revision.   Happened before and will happen again.

 

 

i have a feeling they expected the resistance to be more on the commission, and the fact people took notice of the other clauses, including some that were already more or less there, may have caught them off guard, especially since these are likely from the lawyers and top brass probably didn't really focus on that part. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shelly R said:

I am still a bit confused about what happens to me now as a "Blue model" contributor? Does my original contract remain in effect, or will I be going from 50% commission on my exclusively Alamy images to 20% if sales continue to be slow? (With no difference in commission between Exclusive and Non-Exclusive images any longer--and regardless of Silver/Gold/Platinum level?

 

Alamy's contracts were written to be amended, and if you don't say otherwise, you'll be under the terms of the new contact on July 1st. 

  • Like 1
  • 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.