$0.18 sale!!!

[sb photos]

7 hours ago, Nick Hatton said:

Just had the exact same sale come in $0 .18 what is it all about?

 

Could indicate the end of stock photography for contributors is accelerating if not balanced with much higher value sales.

[aphperspective]

So far this month my biggest fee by far is my DACS payment, the rest are pushing me quickly towards photographic apathy as far as A is concerned.

[meanderingemu]

6 hours ago, aphperspective said:

So far this month my biggest fee by far is my DACS payment, the rest are pushing me quickly towards photographic apathy as far as A is concerned.

 

same here.  yesterday had a bad weather day, set up my small portable light box and took Zero picture. 

Edited November 24, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Ognyan Yosifov]

5 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

same here.  yesterday had a bad weather day, set up my small potable light box and took Zero picture. 

I just was warned and my post was deleted from this thread within 5 mins. Which means they read everything right away...

They said for bad language and they were right (not happening very often)

I really hope some of you, guys, read it ...

Peace!

 

[geogphotos]

I've had better day with sales, though the 40% rankles.

 

I contacted another, fresh looking agency. Guess what - their commission for RM is 30% !!!!

[SRJUK]

Just had two sales at the $0.18 price mark. This is not why I take photos. National newspapers should be paying more than this! I’d rather not have the sale. 
 

Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Editorial, Use in syndicated editorial news features, single context only. Includes archive rights in-perpetuity.
Media: Newspaper - national
Print run: Unlimited
Insert: more than 25
Placement: National
Image Size: up to full area
Start: 23 November 2021
Duration: In perpetuity

[Radim]

9 minutes ago, SRJUK said:

Právě měl dva prodeje za cenu 0,18 $. To není důvod, proč fotím. Celostátní noviny by měly platit víc! Prodej bych raději neměl. 
 

Země: Spojené království
Použití: Redakční, Použití ve funkcích syndikovaných redakčních zpráv, pouze jeden kontext. Zahrnuje archivní práva na dobu neurčitou.
Média: Noviny - národní
Náklad: Neomezený
Vložení: více než 25
Umístění: Národní
Velikost obrázku: do celé plochy
Začátek: 23. listopadu 2021
Trvání: Navěky

I haven't had such a low sale yet, but a few very close ones. Then I always feel like someone is was spit in my face.

[MarkK]

8 hours ago, aphperspective said:

So far this month my biggest fee by far is my DACS payment, the rest are pushing me quickly towards photographic apathy as far as A is concerned.

same here......highest income this month by far is from DACS and that is not much

[Ognyan Yosifov]

1 minute ago, Radim said:

I haven't had such a low sale yet, but a few very close ones. Then I always feel like someone is was spit in my face.

What about 0.18 $ for magazine cover and multiple usages across a few channels.

Used from April on, reported yesterday with a 23th November license date?

Ridiculous!!!

[MarkK]

On 23/11/2021 at 03:29, geogphotos said:

 

 

I think we all understand what is happening Phil. But whether it is good business to sell 5 or 6 high res images, available for syndication, and in perpetuity, to a national newspaper for just $1 is what is under discussion. And expecting photographers to accept 5p/7c as commission as 'fair' reward.

 

 

Of course, contributors take it as an insult to have their images treated this way. And whether it is good business to be so demotivating as to deter contributors from contributing I would very much doubt.  

 

Unfortunately I am not allowed to mention other agencies. 

I think they are doing what a lot of companies are doing right now who have independent 'contractors'.  They are testing to see how low the payments can be in terms of acceptance by the contributors.  If we speak up, stop submitting, etc. they will likely see what this low bar is.  If we keep accepting these low prices it tells them to keep testing the lower threshold.  I personally have been deleting every photo that is sold under a personally/professionally identified level and move it to the other sites where I will make the same, if not more, but many times over. 

[Radim]

40 minutes ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

What about 0.18 $ for magazine cover and multiple usages across a few channels.

Used from April on, reported yesterday with a 23th November license date?

Ridiculous!!!

Yes it's shameful

[Nick Hatton]

Perhaps there could be an option to opt out of package sales?

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I've had better day with sales, though the 40% rankles.

 

I contacted another, fresh looking agency. Guess what - their commission for RM is 30% !!!!

Ssssssh! Don't give A ideas!

[Radim]

13 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Ssssssh! Don't give A ideas!

I would see it sometime next year

[Radim]

14 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

Could indicate the end of stock photography for contributors is accelerating if not balanced with much higher value sales.

I took pictures all summer.
I had a plan to process the photos by the spring, but I resigned.
I will no longer submit these photos to Alamy or any other agency. It doesn't make sense anymore.

I dusted off my old Rolleiflex. 
I'm looking forward to new photos, the calm of my mind.

[John Mitchell]

17 minutes ago, Radim said:

I would see it sometime next year

 

I'd give it two years myself (2023), but it's inevitable.

[Radim]

7 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I'd give it two years myself (2023), but it's inevitable.

A two-year gap would be real, but everything is accelerating. Even the inconvenience. That's why I leaned towards the next year.

[sb photos]

Just now, Radim said:

A two-year gap would be real, but everything is accelerating. Even the inconvenience. That's why I leaned towards the next year.

 

Recently I set myself a year to continue submissions. Then I revue wether it's worthwhile continuing. If our commission drops again or the majority of sales are for $.18 or ms prices then I'll bring forward the decision.

[Phil]

4 hours ago, MarkK said:

I think they are doing what a lot of companies are doing right now who have independent 'contractors'.  They are testing to see how low the payments can be in terms of acceptance by the contributors.  If we speak up, stop submitting, etc. they will likely see what this low bar is.

 

I certainly hope Alamy has no nefarious testing to determine the price threshold-of-pain for their contributor base.  Alamy has stated in essence they are reacting to pricing pressures from their existing and potential image licensing customers.  

 

That's the 800 lbs/362.9 kg gorilla in the room driving prices down.  Alamy's customers demand the cheapest image license they can squeeze out.

 

Customers have little/no interest in the results of their pricing pressure that propagates into tiny licensing revenues for contributors.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by Phil

[Cryptoprocta]

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

 Alamy's customers demand the cheapest image license they can squeeze out.

 

Customers have little/no interest in the results of their pricing pressure that propagates into tiny licensing revenues for contributors.

And yet Alamy claims, "We have face to face meetings with world leading publishers who ask us specific questions about where the images on Alamy come from and who takes them. They are keen to source images from a diverse mix of providers that demonstrate equal opportunities and ethical dealings. "

[Phil]

42 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

And yet Alamy claims, "We have face to face meetings with world leading publishers who ask us specific questions about where the images on Alamy come from and who takes them. They are keen to source images from a diverse mix of providers that demonstrate equal opportunities and ethical dealings. "

 

It's one thing to be a "woke" company inquiring about equal opportunity, diversity, ethical dealings and all the other social/cultural hot-buttons these days. But quite another when it comes to negotiation of image license pricing from provider agencies with thousands of faceless contributors who have no place at the table.  

[geogphotos]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

 

It's one thing to be a "woke" company inquiring about equal opportunity, diversity, ethical dealings and all the other social/cultural hot-buttons these days. But quite another when it comes to negotiation of image license pricing from provider agencies with thousands of faceless contributors who have no place at the table.  

 

 

Firstly, I want to object to this 'woke' nonsense currently in vogue from right-wingers who are intent of pursuing some strange twisted culture war.

 

I don't know about Texas ( where Phil is based) but in UK where most of the ultra low fees seem to be happening newspapers have stated policies about treating suppliers fairly. This is because that is what their readers expect - they don't want them to be uncaring capitalist exploiters. My guess would be that many of the readers of these newspapers would be appalled to learn that photographers are being paid 5p for an image. To me it seems entirely appropriate that these publications are asked to justify these deals that they drive with picture agencies and that such information comes out into the open.

 

Yes, I have emailed the editor of the newspaper that has used my image resulting in my fee of 5p.

Edited November 25, 2021 by geogphotos

[Alamy]

We've left this thread running for as long as possible, but it's now run it's course so we're locking it down. 

 

For a bit more background on this current deal that has been discussed, we have limited the licences here to the novel use pool images. As we indicate within the definition of novel use, licenses can include high volume low single value type prices. Novel use is an optional scheme you can opt out of if you wish in April each year.

 

Our average price across the board remains pretty static at around $30 across all licences and this has been the case for the last few years. 

 

Alamy

 

 

[Alamy]

45 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Yes, I have emailed the editor of the newspaper that has used my image resulting in my fee of 5p.

 

And a note on this, clause 4.5 of the contributor contract states:

 

4.5 Where the Content has been licensed to a Customer in accordance with this Contract, you will not contact that Customer for any reason pertaining to the sale or the use of the Content.

 

Contacting the customer in relation to a licence would represent a breach of the Alamy contributor contract.

 

Alamy