Jump to content

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Nevertheless, I have to say that I think 2006 was much better for Alamy contributors.

For me it was 2007 and 2008. I Made more money in those 2 years than in the following 6 combined, and I've not had a $25k year for 9 years.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

i'll go for legal being legal. 

 

Do Alamy have a proper legal department or do they engage the services of an external firm? A firm who perhaps bill by the hour...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a bit off the radar for a while, for so many reasons, only to come back and find this...

 

I dropped shutterstock last year for their shenanigans regarding contributor payout, and had been managing things with the aim of moving entirely exclusive here. I.e. I stopped pushing things to other places with intention of closing them.

 

Now, what a waste that has turned out to be. 

 

I think I "might" be ok to stay in that "gold" level - definitely based on last years earning, possibly based on this years earnings. But now not sure I should bother at all.

 

When I think of all the time I have put in, and what I have gotten out.... jeesh, this pays poorly!

 

Not entirely sure I should continue at all. Certainly not with anything "editorial" focused. Not that I was submitting great stuff on that front. Think will pull my focus to landscape (where I need practice) and wildlife (which I enjoy immensely), and focus more on improving in those fields and selling myself. Or something.

 

Stock industry just always seems like is intent on taking itself down.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, chris_rabe said:

Stock industry just always seems like is intent on taking itself down.

 

It's the way of the World now.

 

Neoliberal capitalism a-go-go.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

Personally the stock photo industry today, is not for me. I am exiting the industry entirely. No stock photographs for sale anywhere, including Alamy.

Regrettably I shall almost certainly be following Bill out of the door. Like many I'm not dependent on Stock for the money - though it does help fund/justify some of my more extravagant photographic purposes and the new regime seems too onerous for a return of a few hundred dollars a year.

 

Most of all I shall miss researching my subjects. Whether searching the history of a building, or identifying plants or wildlife, contributing to stock has provided an added dimension to my photography. I can still do the research of course, but without publishing it it loses some of its purpose.

 

I'll miss this forum too. Lots of knowledgeable photographers, and specialists in a huge range of subjects from all over the world. And all of it (mostly) good natured. So thank you all for your support over the years.

 

I'll wait to see if there are any really significant changes this week, then make a final decision, but it would need to be a fairly radical rewrite for me to stay.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

Do Alamy have a proper legal department or do they engage the services of an external firm? A firm who perhaps bill by the hour...

According to Ms Shelley, they (presumably PA, not Alamy per se) have in-house lawyers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Thyrsis said:

Personally I wouldn’t put ‘Oxford Mail’ and ‘journalism’ in the same sentence!! 😀


I would agree with you, they cut journalists and even more so photographers extensively, like much of the local press. A Mail photographer I knew, Yuri Anderegg, was made redundant long ago, he was very bitter.   Last saw him in Grove years ago. Another photographer I’ve known longer had his shifts cut, and sadly passed away from a heart attack a few years ago. He mainly covered sport for them. All now have cut services to the bone.

Edited by sb photos
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, sb photos said:


I would agree with you, they cut journalists and even more so photographers extensively, like much of the local press. A Mail photographer I knew, Yuri Anderegg, was made redundant long ago, he was very bitter.   Last saw him in Grove years ago. Another photographer I’ve known longer had his shifts cut, and sadly passed away from a heart attack a few years ago. He mainly covered sport for them. All now have cut services to the bone.

 

My local paper crowdsources its photography under the guise of a "Readers' Photography Club".

 

Lots of free "good enough" quality photos with which they fill their pages.

Edited by Russell Watkins
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

We're not dealing with Alamy, we're dealing with PA Media.

Alamy sold us out. Our new 'owners' can, and will, do what they want.

We can, and will, deal with that however we want.

But we can't turn back the sale, no matter how much we try to 'bargain' our way out of this stage of 'grief'.

 

 

The 7 stages of grief
  • Shock and denial. This is a state of disbelief and numbed feelings.
  • Pain and guilt. ... 
  • Anger and bargaining. ... 
  • Depression. ... 
  • The upward turn. ... 
  • Reconstruction and working through. ... 
  • Acceptance and hope.
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the way I see it is that PA Media has a different crystal ball from Alamy. I believe they actually want to go the way of G, and this is a first step. If they took the giant step all at once, they’d lose way more photographers than is happening right now. I agree with Bill that they are simply easing us into the final step. This is just the first leg of it. You might say the second leg…since Alamy began it before the sale, but that very well could have been a condition of the sale required by PA.

Selling a company doesn’t happen overnight. Usually there are months of analysis, talks, yada, yada.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One Tony and Chelsea Northrup video I watched recently said that stock photography used to be done by stock agencies with paid photographers.   The whole outsourcing business means that the "entrepreneurs" are not covered by minimum wage and in some countries, like the US, won't get health benefits, and The Man, to borrow that term from sharecropping in the rural South, doesn't have to monitor the work since the market place will make decisions for him.   PA/Alamy don't want the legal liabilities of having allowed people to upload photos taken in restricted spaces, or in breach of copyright (book and album covers with no context).  Buyers don't want to have to contact individual record companies and book publishers directly (and in some cases, the publishers aren't around anymore). 

 

I suspect that a number of people here have their own opinions of the Northrups, but here's a link to the video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQQDysiedRA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Basically, the way I see it is that PA Media has a different crystal ball from Alamy. I believe they actually want to go the way of G, and this is a first step. If they took the giant step all at once, they’d lose way more photographers than is happening right now. I agree with Bill that they are simply easing us into the final step. This is just the first leg of it. You might say the second leg…since Alamy began it before the sale, but that very well could have been a condition of the sale required by PA.

Selling a company doesn’t happen overnight. Usually there are months of analysis, talks, yada, yada.

 

 

Two things that happened in 2019, the year before the sale, were the attempt to lower the photographer's share was supposed to drop to 40% and Live News was restricted to fewer photographers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

unintended consequences from massive increase in infringement chasing regardless of how light the touch, busywork will be created for buyers who will think why should i use that photographer or alamy when there are many others who dont create this busywork for us, legal fee by alamy is business deduction for photographer and must include detailed breakdown of how fee was determined especially if future review of photographers taxes by HMRC IRS or others in 3 or 5 years or more

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MizBrown said:

One Tony and Chelsea Northrup video I watched recently said that stock photography used to be done by stock agencies with paid photographers.

 

 

I'm not denying what the Northrups say, but it differs a bit from my understanding and experience. I didn't jump into stock until the 1990s. I knew some entrepreneurial photographers who shot more conceptual work and made a decent living with stock, but I knew far more people who used stock to sell outtakes. Whether you were on assignment for a magazine or commissioned by an ad agency, most photographers I know owned any images that did not end up getting used. There was nothing wrong with those images. Stock allowed the photographer to pad their assignment income and it allowed other companies to have big budget images without the cost. Eventually, there were so many stock images available that assignments and commissions started to dry up. Which gets us to where we are where nearly all stock photographers are now entrepreneurs.

 

Given that stock photography has always been about saving companies money, I guess it's inevitable that we ended up here. While I'm sympathetic to Alamy's employees and investors wanting more money, we're now in a world where I'm paying the entire cost of producing images, not to mention trying to generate an income that gives me food, shelter and healthcare. Reduced royalty rates and plummeting licensing fees don't get me where I need to be.

 

Edited by SeaKevin
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

but other agencies, even MS agencies that i checked,  are protecting themselves against this by saying they are not taking liability if the contributor has misrepresented the facts, or not done their homework about the rules and laws. 

 

Alamy is passing on liability even if the contributor was not in the wrong and the fault was on Alamy or the customer. 

 

Slavery in the day made some people an incredible amount of money.  Not having to pay the producers means all the money goes to the vendors. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Foreign Export said:

keep going team- nearly 100 pages

 

This thread better wrap up soon. I'm running out of tortilla chips. 😁

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

This thread better wrap up soon. I'm running out of tortilla chips. 😁

 

I'm running out of reading glasses.

 

Allan

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I'm running out of reading glasses.

 

Allan

 

 

At least you aren't putting on weight. 🍪

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AndrewP said:

For me it was 2007 and 2008. I Made more money in those 2 years than in the following 6 combined, and I've not had a $25k year for 9 years.

 

I joined in 2003 but didn't actually start submitting until 2007. Those were great years. Seems like a different world now...

  • 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.