Add option to set minimal price

[Walrus]

I din't sign up to 10¢ sales. I would rather eat broken glass than have Alamy give away my images. Therefore, if I could set a minimal price, I would set it (experiment with it: no sales, lower price; too many, raise it!). One thing is for sure, minimal price would NOT be below $49.99.

 

I understand the current policy, which relies on numbers for Alamy to make a profit, but it benefits only the buyers and Alamy, NOT the photographers, unless they sell, say, 3000---5000 images a year at $1 each.

[geogphotos]

Sadly, you are going to be on the broken glass diet. 

[spacecadet]

Unfortunately you did sign up to 10c sales- the contract reserves price setting to Alamy, no agent would let a client set prices. No-one expected prices to go so low but that's not the point.

My average sale hasn't been above $49.99 for a decade.

Edited February 5 by spacecadet

[Panthera tigris]

On 05/02/2023 at 18:27, Walrus said:

I din't sign up to 10¢ sales.

 

I am just on Alamy direct sales (none of the additional sales methods or distribution) and I don't (fingers crossed) get these low prices when one sells. It is still low (say average of 25 gross at moment) but not cents gross. I don't think anyone is in stock as a "job" anymore, just a little side money on existing images/catalogues. My last 3 were 20, 25, 125 (not had one of this for a loooong time)

Edited February 7 by Panthera tigris

[Shawn Hendricks]

I agree with the original poster.  This IS the page were we suggest changes to Alamy.   12 US cents per image is too low.  Some buyer, and we are NOT told whom, just got one of my images for universal use in perpetuity.  Does that mean they can resell the image?  I'm not a lawyer.  The pricing we were shown on a photograph's page, and the pay we expected is far and away higher than 12 US cents per image.  "But we made a deal outside the pricing structure," goes far outside our contractual expectations so please correct that disconnect. 

 

I respectfully submit two potential courses of action.  First, permit members to opt out of sales not displayed in the pricing pages of each of our images.  Second, permit members to set a floor price for our images.  They are our images, and our expectations should not be ignored.  Otherwise, buyers will expect those low prices to be the norm for photography professionals and Alamy's profits will slide downward accordingly. 

 

PHOTOGRAPHERS own the supply, not Alamy.  PHOTOGRAPHERS decide pricing.  Just because the supply is huge doesn't mean we have to accept low prices for our hard work. 

[Phil]

On 05/02/2023 at 14:53, spacecadet said:

...no agent would let a client set prices.

 

Actually there is one agency that lets contributors set their own media prices.

 

However, in spite of that their contributor's contract has the perennial clause that gives the agency the right to adjust prices as they see fit.  No need to guess the results of that.

[Ed_Downunder]

Interesting thread. There should be some consideration for exclusive to Alamy images. $0.10 for an exclusive to Alamy is hard to justify. Alamy is not a penny dreadful shop. When looking at the image sales page, There is a - By this stock now with a pricing structure. There is also a View discounts button. This is the information available to a purchaser and contributor. There is an issue when images are sold in perpetuity for very low value. Even if it is editorial, there needs to be limits on use. I wouldn't like a job in the sales department trying to get sales, so I am cautious with my criticism… Exclusive to Alamy is a strong sales point and should be exploited. Looks like something happened in the sales department from 2020. Hopefully, this will turn around.

[geogphotos]

At the time of the commission decrease for Exclusive images ( 50% to 40%) Alamy stated that around 7% of the images were Exclusive and that they saw no commercial value in image exclusivity

 

You can opt out of Novel Use to avoid a lot of these 10 cents sales, also opt of Distribution in the very low paying areas.

 

Apart from that there is not much any of us can do. These days low fees to key clients is just the way the stock photo business operates.

Edited May 22 by geogphotos

[Ed_Downunder]

Thank you for the kind reply. With the change to the contract, I would assume many with exclusive and non-exclusive images are confronted with choice. Some have commented that all their images will now be non-exclusive. I have gone the other way. I had some images on other sites for assessment, These images were worth pennies, and so I removed them. All my images are now exclusive. It's possible others have the same thoughts. For the future, perhaps it will build up the stocks of exclusive images. It was the change in contract that brought me to be interested in the blog.  I will be interested in what others think. Is exclusive a good road or is the future non-exclusive?

[geogphotos]

16 hours ago, Ed_Downunder said:

Thank you for the kind reply. With the change to the contract, I would assume many with exclusive and non-exclusive images are confronted with choice. Some have commented that all their images will now be non-exclusive. I have gone the other way. I had some images on other sites for assessment, These images were worth pennies, and so I removed them. All my images are now exclusive. It's possible others have the same thoughts. For the future, perhaps it will build up the stocks of exclusive images. It was the change in contract that brought me to be interested in the blog.  I will be interested in what others think. Is exclusive a good road or is the future non-exclusive?

 

 

All my images are marked as non-exclusive even though the majority are actually exclusive. This is because I want to keep control over pursuing infringements,

[Chuck Nacke]

I will say that the "old days" of just snapping a photo and releasing it to an agency or library and seeing it license or "sold" for a reasonable fee are pretty much gone, my opinion and keep in mind that i have not and still do not consider myself a "stock photographer."  I do keep two pseudonyms on Alamy, one for pictures that I believe have "real value" and one for

images that I believe will be licensed for publication and web display to illustrate a story.  

 

The issue that I have with Alamy and I've had it for years is that images that are news or illustrate a large international story or person are not licensed for "Real (appropriate) Fees" that are in line with the value of the image or images.

 

For a simple example, photos of signage.  A simple McDonalds sign might be licensed, but it will accordingly be for a small fee.  A photo of a common house fly on Vice President Dan Quail's forehead during a press conference is licensed for a respectable fee (if it is the only one available.) I have wished for a long time that Alamy had the ability to set license fees based on demand and market.  That is what the Photo Agencies of the old days did, but not many of them are still around.  If licensing a few of my images for rates I believe are low keeps Alamy as one of the libraries that still exist, I will contribute, but again I wish that Alamy could do more to get better fees for exclusive newsworthy images.  I would also include historical, rare images in the group.

 

Another part of the equation is the web and I really don't have a solid suggestion concerning web use.  I also do not believe that any agency or library that lets photographers set the license or sale price of imagers will last very long.

 

Chuck

Edited May 23 by Chuck Nacke
addition

[Ed_Downunder]

11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

All my images are marked as non-exclusive even though the majority are actually exclusive. This is because I want to keep control over pursuing infringements,

The infringement is a real issue. However, there is another issue to consider. The client. If the client wants or needs exclusive content, how do they get it? I am looking for the exclusive to Alamy on the sales page. If a client cannot determine if an image is exclusive or non-exclusive, there is no value in exclusive images. How does anyone purchasing an exclusive image know it is exclusive?

[gvallee]

17 minutes ago, Ed_Downunder said:

The infringement is a real issue. However, there is another issue to consider. The client. If the client wants or needs exclusive content, how do they get it? I am looking for the exclusive to Alamy on the sales page. If a client cannot determine if an image is exclusive or non-exclusive, there is no value in exclusive images. How does anyone purchasing an exclusive image know it is exclusive?

 

If asked by a buyer, Alamy will send you an e-mail asking you if the image is exclusive to Alamy. It happened to a few of us. I think it was for a book cover. I never heard anything afterwards though.

 

[sb photos]

8 minutes ago, Ed_Downunder said:

The infringement is a real issue. However, there is another issue to consider. The client. If the client wants or needs exclusive content, how do they get it? I am looking for the exclusive to Alamy on the sales page. If a client cannot determine if an image is exclusive or non-exclusive, there is no value in exclusive images. How does anyone purchasing an exclusive image know it is exclusive?

 

There are two types of exclusive, the common exclusive to Alamy, with this I don't see why a client would need to know if the image was only for sale by Alamy. The other would involve discussion with Alamy and possibly the contributor as the license would be exclusive to the client for a set time period. This I suspect isn't so common and should command a much higher license fee. This does not relate to the Alamy exclusive tick box.