Jump to content
  • 0

Paid $0.15 for a photo


Alank
 Share

Question

19 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
6 hours ago, NYCat said:

 

Already being discussed here..  https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/15193-the-lowest-of-the-low/

 

 

 

Paulette

Paulette,

You are right. It has been discussed. But NO answer have been offered by Alamy. It is appalling the lack of respect shown by Alamy. We are the ones who produce the images that Alamy sell. They should do better than this.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 31/12/2021 at 19:43, ribeiroantonio said:

Paulette,

You are right. It has been discussed. But NO answer have been offered by Alamy.

 

Alamy did respond to a similar issue in another thread:

 

Alamy response:

 

"I’ve had a look and this particular customer has an image pack with us where they pay a set fee and can licence a set number of images for that. The fee is then split between the contributors. The stock industry has become very competitive and in order to keep customers we have to consider our pricing and offer image packs in order to keep customers. Our sales teams work extremely hard to negotiate on deals with all forms of customers and always try to get the best market value possible for each license."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Phil, can you link to this discussion please?

If the issue is similar, but not the same, it would be interesting to know more. 

Image packs or not, 0.04 is not an acceptable return. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 hours ago, Taina said:

Phil, can you link to this discussion please?

If the issue is similar, but not the same, it would be interesting to know more. 

Image packs or not, 0.04 is not an acceptable return. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

is today still a holiday?

 

"From December 23rd until January 5th, response times from Contributor Relations and QC will be longer than usual. We'll be up and running to normal speed as quick as we can when we're back from a short break."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

Gnans, thank you for the link.

 

Alamy should give an explanation as regards to the New Year's 0,15/0.04 sale. Is this the new direction for Alamy? Ultra cheap images? We have the right to know how our work is priced. 

There should be a way to opt out image packs. RM images should never be licensed in these volume packs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

"From December 23rd until January 5th, response times from Contributor Relations and QC will be longer than usual. We'll be up and running to normal speed as quick as we can when we're back from a short break."

 

thanks.  So they gave themselves two day buffer on return, makes sense.  i'm curious if we will ever get feedback on the "measures clean up", last month was again really low at 0.44 Alamy wide CTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Just now, Taina said:

 

Gnans, thank you for the link.

 

Alamy should give an explanation as regards to the New Year's 0,15/0.04 sale. Is this the new direction for Alamy? Ultra cheap images? We have the right to know how our work is priced. 

There should be a way to opt out image packs. RM images should never be licensed in these volume packs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not sure i would want to be out of negotiated image packs, i would lose about half my sales, and 25% of my revenue is i did.  i do agree on minimum $

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
50 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

thanks.  So they gave themselves two day buffer on return, makes sense.  i'm curious if we will ever get feedback on the "measures clean up", last month was again really low at 0.44 Alamy wide CTR

 

I've had an email today from Contributor Services in reply to mine so at least some staff are back working today. The one I sent about potentially using the Reportage route for pics of 13th century wall paintings. Remember?

 

Being self-employed the whole holiday period seems too long for me and I can't wait for things to get back to normal.

 

Obviously, not begrudging anybody their well-deserved holiday. 

 

Getting a QC backlog approaching 500 images starts to play on the mind a little.......especially having uploaded them in small batches because  my normal Photoshelter FTP is not working. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

If there's no response from Alamy on this today, I'm pulling the plug on my account - and that will be the end of microstock for me after 10 years.   4 cent sales aren't even funny; those images are obviously going to be resold for a lot more.   This is a borderline scam IMHO.

Edited by jimh
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Yes the price is ridiculous but Alamy didn't start the micro stock subscription business model.

 

Those photographers who have willingly helped support that business model maybe should reflect on that fact.

  • Like 4
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

is today still a holiday?

It is in Scotland. We get two days at New Year. It's not that long ago Christmas wasn't even a holiday here as Hogmanay was the big holiday. Then people were allowed a half day on Christmas day itself. Now Christmas is just as big a holiday as Hogmanay, perhaps more so. But I realise that the question was related to the English holidays and Alamy's office opening hours. I've had some emails from them today.

Edited by Sally
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Yes the price is ridiculous but Alamy didn't start the micro stock subscription business model.

 

Those photographers who have willingly helped support that business model maybe should reflect on that fact.

Enough blaming micro stock photographer. It's  a distorted thinking that puts you in a superior seat while making yourself a victim.

Remember that stock photography is made up of libraries, buyers and contributors, you can't put it all on (some) contributors.

It's just plain wrong and ethically questionable.

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Like 2
  • Dislike 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 minutes ago, CarloBo said:

Enough blaming micro stock photographer. It's  a distorted thinking that puts you in a superior seat while making yourself a victim.

Remember that stock photography is made up of libraries, buyers and contributors, you can't put it all on (some) contributors.

It's just plain wrong and ethically questionable.

 

If you support a business model based on very low fees then do not complain when you get very low fees. 

  • Like 7
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, CarloBo said:

Enough blaming micro stock photographer. It's  a distorted thinking that puts you in a superior seat while making yourself a victim.

Remember that stock photography is made up of libraries, buyers and contributors, you can't put it all on (some) contributors.

It's just plain wrong and ethically questionable.

I’m sorry, but I have to agree with Ian (geogphotos). Traditionally, stock was a well-paid profession. It just was. Images didn’t sell for pennies, or even a few dollars. Professionals made a living with only moderate portfolios, or way smaller ones compared to today’s needs. It wasn’t uncommon to license an image for hundreds, even thousands. People made a good living from stock.

When the microstock agencies bloomed into existence, shortly followed (or was it at the same time?) as digital cameras, that began the demise of stock as it had always been.  So many non-photographers bought a digital camera and were thrilled to sell their pictures for 10 cents a download.
When I joined Alamy, the microstock effect was already having an influence, but I still was getting a lot of $300 licenses and one $700 one..  Nothing like the low prices now.  It’s not a blame game, it is a fact. Just like WW11 is a fact.

Now, if one doesn’t have 100,000 images in their portfolio, they can’t make a living. Realize the ones who make a living (or try to), and don’t have a side job with benefits, they have to pay for a lot of things other people don’t. Like here in the U.S., that would include expensive medical insurance until Medicare age.

Microstock has driven prices down to nothing. And that is a fact. Just like if I painted my house bright purple, I’d ruin the neighborhood. And I’d make my neighbors mad just like microstock made the serious photographers who’ve been at this for years mad.

  • Love 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I experimented with microstock but found the whole experience debilitating. Every time I saw another $0.10 sale show up I felt like a sucker, so I closed all my micro accounts. My takeaway: You can't have decent prices and eat them too. To each his or her own, of course.

 

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.