"I've never made even half of 25K in one year. It would be interesting to know how many do qualify."

[FocusUno]

(quote from locked thread)

Paradoxically, Alamy top sellers, by far, are those offering huge numbers of "free" images from US Library of Congress, & possibly other sources.

Those sources limit number of downloads daily but may waive limit & a few Alamy contributors have figured out how to qualify.

(or maybe they use multiple accounts)
IMO, at least a couple or more are grossing over $100K/yr & at least one is netting $100K/yr or more.

Its not me cup of tea, but a free historical photo of, say, Albert Einstein, even with competing same photo, could gross $100/yr...?
Now multiply that by 10K most frequently licensed historical photos...

[geogphotos]

I have a small number of historical photos and other public domain images such as from NASA. These are ones that I have just come across and have found interesting.

 

I do have a 'Migrant Mother' by Dorothea Lange which I uploaded just to see what would happen. Yes, it has sold several times for me. Also a Brunel standing infront of those chains - also sold. I uploaded these almost in amazement that Alamy does not have any regulation of the vast numbers of duplicates of these most famous images.  I did, however, open these up in Photoshop and do some work on them as with the majority of such images that I have. 

 

My public domain images are very selective but in proportion they do outsell my own ( which are not tightly edited).

 

With 40% it could well be a worthwhile avenue to develop but as you say Jeff it is not really everybody's ' cup of tea'. 

 

I haven't heard any evidence of what earnings these people are making - I guess it is as variable as with any other content. 

 

There certainly are some contributors with a million and more images hoovered up from all over the internet seemingly done automatically without human intervention, rhyme, or reason. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

One collection I have uploaded I found in Flickr Commons put into the public domain by a national photography archive. They were captioned in a non-English language and many were in poor condition in terms of scratches and dust. So, it was time-consuming to translate the captions and re-write them in addition to the Photoshop time.

 

I actually feel positive about doing those and making them available for use by stock clients.

 

The work I put in has paid for itself and I enjoyed being 'the editor'.

Edited August 8, 2021 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

Would the 'red arrow' contributor care to enter into a discussion of his/her viewpoint? 

 

Thought not.  🤪

Edited August 8, 2021 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

19 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Would the 'red arrow' contributor care to enter into a discussion of his/her viewpoint? 

 

Thought not.  🤪

 

someone upset that you enjoyed yourself doing anything 😉

[zxzoomy]

On 08/08/2021 at 17:20, geogphotos said:

One collection I have uploaded I found in Flickr Commons put into the public domain by a national photography archive. They were captioned in a non-English language and many were in poor condition in terms of scratches and dust. So, it was time-consuming to translate the captions and re-write them in addition to the Photoshop time.

 

I actually feel positive about doing those and making them available for use by stock clients.

 

The work I put in has paid for itself and I enjoyed being 'the editor'.

Years ago I naively put some on flickr as open to use free and agencies were not slow in selling a few. I've uploaded a few out of copyright items but it would seem dreary (for me) to do it all the time. If people want or need to do loads of such uploads then it's legal so fine. When I am long gone the agencies are welcome to my images so there's give and take inevitably.

[geogphotos]

12 minutes ago, zxzoomy said:

Years ago I naively put some on flickr as open to use free and agencies were not slow in selling a few. I've uploaded a few out of copyright items but it would seem dreary (for me) to do it all the time. If people want or need to do loads of such uploads then it's legal so fine. When I am long gone the agencies are welcome to my images so there's give and take inevitably.

 

 

The ones I mention were historic images 1930s -1960s from a Scandinavian national photography organisation. They released them into the public domain. I really liked some of the images. Alamy allow this. I did the work on them which was time-consuming.

 

In a sense I felt as though I had 'rescued' them and made them live again - much the same feeling I get when I copy old slide photos and bring them to market. 

 

I do not have the luxury of being able to do things without any hope of financial return. 

 

Money is the lubricant not necessarily the objective.

[John Mitchell]

I'm not ready to join "Hooverstock" yet, but I do occasionally upload public domain images since it is allowed on Alamy. They are usually images I like or ones that I think complement images in my own collection. Some have licensed, usually in the low $$ range. I have mixed feelings about this, but I feel that I am offering something of a research service. Also, I spend time fixing the images up if necessary -- e.g. adjusting contrast and brightness, removing serious blemishes, etc. I don't see this as a road to riches for me, though. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Michael Ventura]

I have a handful (about 50) public domain photos in my collection as well.  How I got mine was back in the film days, a text book company hired me to go to the National Archives (just outside of DC) to photo copy on medium format film, these fifty photos for a book on U.S. history.  A researcher had the photos already pulled from the archives and so it took me all day to photocopy them.  The National Archives actually has a room dedicated for this purpose...copy stands and now places for people to bring in their own scanners.  I was paid nicely to perform a service of getting the free photos to the publisher.  So I figured that I am continuing to perform that service by making big clean scans of the historical photos...it has been worth it for me to do have done this and have often thought of going back to do more, but haven't.  There are companies that this is their whole business model such as Popperfoto, Everett Collection, Pictorial Press, AF Archive...it goes on and on.  

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Michael Ventura said:

I have a handful (about 50) public domain photos in my collection as well.  How I got mine was back in the film days, a text book company hired me to go to the National Archives (just outside of DC) to photo copy on medium format film, these fifty photos for a book on U.S. history.  A researcher had the photos already pulled from the archives and so it took me all day to photocopy them.  The National Archives actually has a room dedicated for this purpose...copy stands and now places for people to bring in their own scanners.  I was paid nicely to perform a service of getting the free photos to the publisher.  So I figured that I am continuing to perform that service by making big clean scans of the historical photos...it has been worth it for me to do have done this and have often thought of going back to do more, but haven't.  There are companies that this is their whole business model such as Popperfoto, Everett Collection, Pictorial Press, AF Archive...it goes on and on.  

 

I have about 50 as well. One licensed last month, and it was actually one of my better sales, which isn't saying too much lately. I guess it's all about one-stop shopping for some Alamy clients. Yes, all those "Hooverstock" companies that you mentioned are mind-blowing.  🤯

[wiskerke]

I have a couple as well and one has been licensed today for $ 0.22.

So not all is gold with this stuff.

 

wim

[John Mitchell]

16 hours ago, wiskerke said:

I have a couple as well and one has been licensed today for $ 0.22.

So not all is gold with this stuff.

 

wim

 

Ouch! My last two licensed for over 100 times that much, which still isn't gold but not all that bad these days. 

 

NASA images certainly have been Hoovered up.

Edited August 10, 2021 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

When I upload these types of images, I always click the "sourced from the public domain" box in AIM, and the source shows up on the image page. I can't help noticing that the vast majority of the zillions public domain images on Alamy are not marked as such. I suppose this is because they are coming from other collections -- many of them huge -- who don't want to reveal the source of their images, which makes me wonder if I should do the same.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Michael Ventura]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

When I upload these types of images, I always click the "sourced from the public domain" box in AIM, and the source shows up on the image page. I can't help noticing that the vast majority of the zillions public domain images on Alamy are not marked as such. I suppose this is because they are coming from other collections -- many of them huge -- who don't want to reveal the source of their images, which makes me wonder if I should do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, same here, I always check the box for Public Domain

[John Mitchell]

42 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

Yes, same here, I always check the box for Public Domain

 

It seems to be the right thing to do, but I wonder why the rules aren't the same for everyone.

 

Also, I make mine RM, but I'm not sure that makes sense.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Michael Ventura]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

It seems to be the right thing to do, but I wonder why the rules aren't the same for everyone.

 

Also, I make mine RM, but I'm not sure that makes sense.

 

 

 

I mark them RM as well.  Was never sure about that but that is what I have done.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

I mark them RM as well.  Was never sure about that but that is what I have done.

 

They always license for specific uses, so I guess it's kosher. Also, the majority on Alamy seem to be RM.

 

Still, it seems a bit illogical, but that's nothing new.

[FocusUno]

> IMO, at least a couple or more are grossing over $100K/yr & at least one is netting $100K/yr or more.

 

update: at least one UK contrib has ~5M public domain images under varied pseudos & is, IMO, netting ~$250K

 

question: does Alamy require public domain images to be offered only as RM or is RF also allowed...?  TIA

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, FocusUno said:

> IMO, at least a couple or more are grossing over $100K/yr & at least one is netting $100K/yr or more.

 

update: at least one UK contrib has ~5M public domain images under varied pseudos & is, IMO, netting ~$250K

 

question: does Alamy require public domain images to be offered only as RM or is RF also allowed...?  TIA

 

Good question. Interestingly, when you click the "sourced from the public domain" box in AIM, a note appears on the image page saying that Alamy charges a "fee" to download these types of images-- i.e. there is no license type mentioned. The "Hoover" contributors with ginormous RM collections don't seem to check the public domain box, so this info doesn't appear, for obvious reasons I suppose. 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by John Mitchell

[FocusUno]

contributor of a public domain image owns 0 rights to that public domain photo AFAIK

so common sense says RM aka rights managed is impossible

as there are no rights to manage

yet most or all public domain images on Alamy seem to be RM 

 

 ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️  ⁉️

Edited August 22, 2021 by FocusUno

[John Mitchell]

RF for public domain makes more sense to me than RM for the reason mentioned (no rights to manage). I guess there's nothing stopping individual contributors from setting them as RF. However, would it make any difference, one wonders. It's a weird world out there.

[Phil]

6 hours ago, FocusUno said:

 

update: at least one UK contrib has ~5M public domain images under varied pseudos & is, IMO, netting ~$250K

 

 

How does someone live long enough to write descriptions and keyword 5M images?   Am I missing something?  Do public domain images already contain the description and keyword metadata so it's just plug n play?

Edited August 22, 2021 by Phil

[John Mitchell]

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

How does someone live long enough to write descriptions and keyword 5M images?   Am I missing something?  Do public domain images already contain the description and keyword metadata so it's just plug n play?

 

Some public domain images already have captions and keywords of sorts. Usually they are pretty bad. It depends on the source. Good question, though. I imagine that some of these outfits that gobble them up by the millions hire people to do the grunt work. Also, there are images -- PD and otherwise -- on Alamy that appear to have no keywords, just basic captions. Not sure how they get through the gate.

[FocusUno]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

How does someone live long enough to write descriptions and keyword 5M images?

Two possibilities: (maybe more)
a. some kind of online bot image-text grabber & then batch actions to go live

b. or manually, if one nets $250K/yr, one can easily pay others to do busywork (& its tax deductible)

 

Just did 1 test image, could imagine working rate of 1 min/image total manually

or only 28.6 yrs per 5M images at 8 hrs/day 364...  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬

maybe energy drink IV will bring it down to 30 sec/image & 14.3 yrs....

Edited August 23, 2021 by FocusUno

[Chuck Nacke]

Just my own opinion, but I do believe that there is a "Special Place in Photo HELL" for people who "Profit from

images that they did not press to shutter release to make."  I only make money from images that I make, well 

twice I did but I played a major part of bringing the images to market and they were EXCLUSIVE and newsworthy.

 

Chuck