Jump to content
  • 0

I Only Got Paid $7.10 for a Photo On A News Site


Question

Got my first photo published on a news site, https://nyheter24.se/nyheter/954756-trump-valkomnades-i-new-york-med-gigantisk-ratta

 

Shouldn't I get paid more than $7.10? Who handles this?

 

Wrolf Courtney

wrolf@wrolf.net

  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

As per the Contract  we have given the rights to Alamy to negotiate all deals and licensing fees they feel is appropriate.  Sadly getting paid $7.10 for an on-line news site for a stock image is probably above median nowadays.  Most of the ones i get i end up with around $3-5, soon to drop by 20% 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 01/07/2021 at 13:41, Thyrsis said:

With only 24 images you’ve done really well to make a sale at all! 🤗

 

Two of which are sideways!

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 30/06/2021 at 18:54, Wrolf said:

Got my first photo published on a news site, https://nyheter24.se/nyheter/954756-trump-valkomnades-i-new-york-med-gigantisk-ratta

 

Shouldn't I get paid more than $7.10? Who handles this?

 

Wrolf Courtney

wrolf@wrolf.net

 

Sweden seems to be a very poor country.

 

wim

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 30/06/2021 at 12:54, Wrolf said:

Got my first photo published on a news site, https://nyheter24.se/nyheter/954756-trump-valkomnades-i-new-york-med-gigantisk-ratta

 

Shouldn't I get paid more than $7.10? Who handles this?

 

Wrolf Courtney

wrolf@wrolf.net

Well Wrolf,

 

I had my first picture published in 1975..... (not meant as an insult to you).  I have decades of experience as an

agency photographer.

 

My opinion:

 

Unfortunately Alamy, like many agencies and image libraries are licensing images for very small fees for web use.

Last month Alamy licensed one on my images, shot for a major magazine in the 1990's.  The image cost the magazine

several thousand $ for me to make and it was published 3/4 page.  Alamy licensed it for $5.00.

 

Sad and I will tell you that it is not only Alamy, all of the agencies / libraries see to be in a race to the bottom.

 

I have written on this forum that there are times when it would be better for Alamy to just refuse to license a image

at a small fee.

 

Chuck (Still the original one)

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chuck Nacke said:

My opinion:

 

Unfortunately Alamy, like many agencies and image libraries are licensing images for very small fees for web use.

 

As the years roll by it's likely that print use will increasingly reduce, and with falling prices for web use and for agency contributors, the current model will eventually be unsustainable. Killed off by the race to the bottom.

Edited by sb photos
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I have written on this forum that there are times when it would be better for Alamy to just refuse to license a image

at a small fee.

This would be one way forward in my view, but unfortunately I don't see it happening.

 

Alamy could also allow us to set a minimum below which we won't go, but again I don't see them doing that either.

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)

To give this perspective I think you need to realise what Getty are offering They have global reach and offer subscription deals to virtually all the media and publishing companies in the world. Once broken down the fee per image it is very low indeed, and given Getty's commission what the photographer ends up receiving can literally be a few cents.

 

But one major difference between Getty and Alamy is that these super sweetheart deals are ONLY available to these media partners. If an individual, small company, charity, any non-subscriber, rocks up for an image the cost will typically be very high. The Alamy fee will be much more affordable on most occasions for that sort of user. 

 

So, there is market segmentation in place. $7.10 for web use by a media company is actually, in comparison with Getty, fairly 'good'.

 

We also need to remember that as sb Photos says above the media is not making money from internet publishing compared with what they have lost in advertising revenues from the high circulation print business model that they used to have. 

 

And then the elephant in the room whenever there is any discussion of low fees is micro-stock. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Figure yourself lucky, I just had a sale which netted less than a dollar.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, geogphotos said:

To give this perspective I think you need to realise what Getty are offering They have global reach and offer subscription deals to virtually all the media and publishing companies in the world. Once broken down the fee per image it is very low indeed, and given Getty's commission what the photographer ends up receiving can literally be a few cents.

 

But one major difference between Getty and Alamy is that these super sweetheart deals are ONLY available to these media partners. If an individual, small company, charity, any non-subscriber, rocks up for an image the cost will typically be very high. The Alamy fee will be much more affordable on most occasions for that sort of user. 

 

So, there is market segmentation in place. $7.10 for web use by a media company is actually, in comparison with Getty, fairly 'good'.

 

We also need to remember that as sb Photos says above the media is not making money from internet publishing compared with what they have lost in advertising revenues from the high circulation print business model that they used to have. 

 

And then the elephant in the room whenever there is any discussion of low fees is micro-stock. 

NO Ian,

 

You are missing the point that I tried to make on this forum as well as in many posts before.  I have a lot of experience with G, but I will tell you and everyone that

G understands the value of an image and they do not license a valuable image for pennies.  I did have a problem with occasional low fee licenses from G. but I was

happy with numerous healthy licenses from them.  The secret is to be making "valuable images" and for them to be exclusive to one source and tightly controlled.

It is also just as important that the agency or library be able control the licensing and fees for "valuable images."

 

Another problem is that not every image made with the push of a button and processed in Lightroom is valuable, there is a lot more to the equation.

 

In my opinion many low fee licenses for web use downgrade the value of an image in the long-term and I have seen that with a number of my images and it concerns me.

 

PS I do not give a Rat's A.. about mirco, It has little effect on the images that I am talking about.

 

I also believe that there are too many in the agency / library business that do not come from a photo imaging background (publication and journalism) and too many do not have the best interests of the photographers and their own agency or library in mind.  They only see the short term. 

 

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Nacke
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

NO Ian,

 

You are missing the point that I tried to make on this forum as well as in many posts before.  I have a lot of experience with G, but I will tell you and everyone that

G understands the value of an image and they do not license a valuable image for pennies.  I did have a problem with occasional low fee licenses from G. but I was

 

 

 

I feel sure that is not the experience of many Getty contributors. 

 

Your stance always seems to be about your own exceptionalism and value compared to others.

 

That may be true but also, by definition, it is not representative of the experience of the majority. 

 

Getty may indeed value your rare historical images. That is not really my point. G do licence the vast majority of their content to media companies for very low fees. Fact.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

.I have a lot of experience with G, but I will tell you and everyone thatG understands the value of an image and they do not license a valuable image for pennies.  I did have a problem with occasional low fee licenses from G. but I was happy with numerous healthy licenses from them.

You contradict yourself right there,

1. "G. do not licence a valuable image for pennies."

2. "I did have a problem with occasional low fee licences from G."

It could well be that the sort of bulk buyers who have use for hundreds of images per month seldom have a need for very specific historical niche shots (but sometimes do), while niche publishers seldom need a large 'premium' deal.

Both G. and Alamy will sell unique photos at the buyer's negotiated bulk discount rate.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I feel sure that is not the experience of many Getty contributors. 

 

Your stance always seems to be about your own exceptionalism and value compared to others.

 

That may be true but also, by definition, it is not representative of the experience of the majority. 

 

Getty may indeed value your rare historical images. That is not really my point. G do licence the vast majority of their content to media companies for very low fees. Fact.

Ian,

 

For the record, I do not put myself above anyone else.  I do have a lot of "Photo Agency" experience (43 years) and was contract with G many years ago.

If I liked them so much, I would not be here.  I've been very happy contributing to Alamy and I do hope to see them making the right decision for their

contributors.

 

Chuck

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Ian,

 

For the record, I do not put myself above anyone else.  I do have a lot of "Photo Agency" experience (43 years) and was contract with G many years ago.

If I liked them so much, I would not be here.  I've been very happy contributing to Alamy and I do hope to see them making the right decision for their

contributors.

 

Chuck

 

 

Many years ago Getty was not as Getty is today. 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.