Jump to content

Selling for pennies


Recommended Posts

On the last 2 days of December 121 Chinese sales, nearly doubling my number of sales total (253)

 

A shame the total (gross) sales did not amount to much, 18,15 in total. ūü§™

 

(Another 4,000 dollar would be welcome....)

 

Edited by Ger Bosma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More low sales here too. 

 

I have sixteen (16) 0.15 sales, netting me 0.04 each between 30-31 Dec. 

All RF or RF editorial. I opted out Novel Use in 2017. 

 

What is happening??

 

Fellow contributors, what are your plans with new uploads?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  hardly know whether to laugh or cry that I haven't seen even one of these impossibly cheap Chinese licences. I'm sure that all my images being RM is affording some protection against this onslaught, notwithstanding some contributors having seen some RM images licensed in this way.

 

For those who have had a RM licence sold in this way, on what terms was the licence purchased? I can  understand RF licences being purchased in bulk as they can be used over and over again - a fatal flaw in the RF licence model from the contributor's point of view, but what kind of RM licence would be sold to a Chinese buyer at such a low price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

I  hardly know whether to laugh or cry that I haven't seen even one of these impossibly cheap Chinese licences. I'm sure that all my images being RM is affording some protection against this onslaught, notwithstanding some contributors having seen some RM images licensed in this way.

 

For those who have had a RM licence sold in this way, on what terms was the licence purchased? I can  understand RF licences being purchased in bulk as they can be used over and over again - a fatal flaw in the RF licence model from the contributor's point of view, but what kind of RM licence would be sold to a Chinese buyer at such a low price?

Whatever the licence, Alamy have no right to give my images free. And some here berate microstock for selling cheap. Alamy are the lowest. How do I contact support as there doesn’t seem to be an email address on the site, except for customers  ?

Edited by Marb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marb said:

Whatever the licence, Alamy have no right to give my images free. And some here berate microstock for selling cheap. Alamy are the lowest. 

 

It shows as zero on your dashboard but if you look at the licence details it probably is a $0.15 sale.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

It shows as zero on your dashboard but if you look at the licence details it probably is a $0.15 sale.

 

2 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

It shows as zero on your dashboard but if you look at the licence details it probably is a $0.15 sale.

Still pathetic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this isn‚Äôt a sign of things to come from Alamy. I wouldn‚Äôt be surprised if all these images get redistributed from China to other markets. I also had a number of ‚Äėsales‚Äô at $0.15 and will opt out of Novel Use as soon as I can. Alamy doing nothing for its reputation here!¬†

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

I  hardly know whether to laugh or cry that I haven't seen even one of these impossibly cheap Chinese licences. I'm sure that all my images being RM is affording some protection against this onslaught, notwithstanding some contributors having seen some RM images licensed in this way.

 

For those who have had a RM licence sold in this way, on what terms was the licence purchased? I can  understand RF licences being purchased in bulk as they can be used over and over again - a fatal flaw in the RF licence model from the contributor's point of view, but what kind of RM licence would be sold to a Chinese buyer at such a low price?

 

but at this point, even the RM has the same flaw.  I have confirmation from Alamy that an image licensed as RM allowed the client to use over unrelated articles, in perpetuity, including a second use where the image is barely linked  to the article content 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pjmimages said:

I hope this isn‚Äôt a sign of things to come from Alamy. I wouldn‚Äôt be surprised if all these images get redistributed from China to other markets. I also had a number of ‚Äėsales‚Äô at $0.15 and will opt out of Novel Use as soon as I can. Alamy doing nothing for its reputation here!¬†

 

the Chinese 0.15 cents were not Novel Use, this was pure classic Alamy distribution usage.  In addition, some of us who opted out of distribution under the new contract, still got hit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pjmimages said:

Judging by all the comments and anger I think some sort of explanation from Alamy is needed! 

 

paraphrasing what will likely come

 

"We made this deal to ensure our rate was sustainable. This allowed us to deal with some operational challenges around growing distribution partner in an area of target growth. The simplified  rate structure, same price for all, supports growth of the distributors base, which has been exponential over the last 12 months" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

but at this point, even the RM has the same flaw.  I have confirmation from Alamy that an image licensed as RM allowed the client to use over unrelated articles, in perpetuity, including a second use where the image is barely linked  to the article content 

 

In perpetuity I can understand as any website usage is likely to persist in some archive form or another for an unforeseeable period. But multiple uses in unrelated articles is what is really unacceptable and breaches the RM model as I understand it. If Alamy are licencing to buyers with that expectation, surely it is a breach of their contract with the contributor?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

In perpetuity I can understand as any website usage is likely to persist in some archive form or another for an unforeseeable period. But multiple uses in unrelated articles is what is really unacceptable and breaches the RM model as I understand it. If Alamy are licencing to buyers with that expectation, surely it is a breach of their contract with the contributor?

 

answer was

 

'the recent license covers both of the uses below'

 

 

 

bold, underline mine.  "Uses", plural. I guess the agreement states that they can make any agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Tony ALS said:

Opted out of distribution on 3 June 2021 but have a Rights Managed image to China with distribution deducted dated 31 December 2021.

Price $8.82 gross.

What is the point of opting out if this happens?

That opting out window was specifically introduced as opt out under the new contract (preempting Alamy claiming this wasn't an April opt out),  so we will likely be told the download likely happened prior to July 23rd, 2021. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually glad to see this post already started.  My teeth just about dropped out last night when I saw 3 sales for the total of $0.45.  Yes three sales at 15 cents each.  They were all very small file sizes (sold) but that is just not acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Abiyoyo said:

I do not know but it seems, at least for me, that a BIG Chinese travel web site is on the way and they are buying thousands and thousands of images with a big discount rate.

I kinda of doubt they only downloaded the low res photos as the licenses claimed. 

Edited by Gabbro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just discovered I've got one of these infamous $ 0.15 Chinese sales too. I also got one of the other versions, the $ 8.82 sale. Both were dated December 31.
There is clearly a Chinese publisher or reseller who has collected a gazillion low-res images for a few thousand dollars from Alamy. I guess Alamy's guys could know why.
Just a curiosity, what the difference in price (0.15 vs 8.82) could be due to? In my case, both images are RF and low-res, both purchases were from China on the same day, but one reports "China, Magazine - print, digital and electronic" while the other reports just "China". Possibly, different customers?

Edited by riccarbi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 December - two New Forest ponies in heather

31 December - lion stalking in the grass of the Serengeti

 

$0.15 each and sold to 'China'. 

 

Ker-ching. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just discovered that there have been 4 of this $0.15 sales of the same picture to China (oddly - phases of the moon during an eclipse). Perhaps their space program needs to know how to find the moon and they are not sure what it looks like? ūüôā

 

https://www.alamy.com/image-details-popup.asp?Imageid=284BED40-D4B2-4849-9BA6-102EC99F46F2  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic

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
√ó
√ó
  • 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.