Control over my images sold for a song

[Walrus]

Some of my images have been selling for ridiculously macro money. I have complained to Alamy and followed their suggestions but still images are sold for as little as $1.46.

 

I get for Alamy it's a numbers game and Alamy is a business after all is said and done. While Alamy can make $1000 by selling 1000 images for $1.x, a photographer being paid $1 for one image is criminal. However, Alamy says it's on the side of the photographers and yet does nothing to stop the macro-money sales of rights managed images. It's clear abuse of the photographer, IMO.

 

What I have suggested and should be possible is to allow the photographer option to set a minimum price. I would set mine at something like $49.99. Buyer can pay that price, or go elsewhere. IME, when a buyer wants your image, they will find that extra $100, or whatEver is the asking price. If photographers want to compete by setting lower prices, then can do. Personally, I would rather lose sales than sell mine for a song.

[Radim]

I understand your exasperation.
This issue has been addressed many times on the forum. Just search.
Alamy's position is clear. Alamy will do nothing about it.
Our position is also clear. Unfortunately, we are not in an equal position.
Either you accept these terms or you can go elsewhere. Alamy will tell you the same but in more flowery words.

[geogphotos]

To have control over your fees you need to sell direct.

 

But that is far easier to say than to achieve.

 

If you choose that route then I would wish you every success but would stress how difficult it is likely to be to attract customers and offer them something that the mega agencies/portals don't already offer at far lower prices.

Edited September 29 by geogphotos

[Sultanpepa]

I would agree with you entirely but the chances are my sales would drop to zero. I would like to try the experiment though. Remember, PAlamy basically sells a lot of these cheap images to itself, that's why they bought Alamy in the first place. They are unlikely to let us dictate prices.

[Phil]

On 29/09/2024 at 07:15, Walrus said:

What I have suggested and should be possible is to allow the photographer option to set a minimum price. I would set mine at something like $49.99. Buyer can pay that price, or go elsewhere.

 

Buyers are driving price reductions. They will/do go elsewhere.  Photo libraries such as Alamy have to meet customer pricing demands to stay competitive and keep their doors open. 

 

There is a gross over-supply of stock media fueled by a continuing stream of unsuspecting new-comer content producers many in less-developed countries working to cash in from the easy passive-income stock media low-hanging fruit.  

 

On another stock platform I'm on for selling footage they allow setting our own prices.  It does no good. Their contributor's contract has a clause that allows the library final say to set prices to make sales. 

 

It's ugly - but it is what it is.

Edited Thursday at 19:15 by Phil
typo

[Sultanpepa]

16 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Buyers are driving price reductions. They will/do go elsewhere.  Photo libraries such as Alamy have to meet customer pricing demands to stay competitive and keep their doors open. 

 

There is a gross over-supply of stock media fueled by a continuing stream of unsuspecting new-comer content producers many in less-developed countries working to cash in from the easy passive-income stock media low-hanging fruit.  

 

On another stock platform I'm on for selling footage they allow setting our own prices.  It does no good. Their contributor's contract has a clause that allows the library final say to set prices to make sales. 

 

It's ugly - but it is what it is.

 

That's ok if we're all in the same boat but contributors are in a dinghy with no paddle and a leaking hull. 

[Phil]

4 hours ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

That's ok if we're all in the same boat but contributors are in a dinghy with no paddle and a leaking hull. 

 

Yep.

 

This was all predicted some years ago:

 

https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/future-of-stock-photography

 

[Chuck Nacke]

On 29/09/2024 at 03:15, Walrus said:

Some of my images have been selling for ridiculously macro money. I have complained to Alamy and followed their suggestions but still images are sold for as little as $1.46.

 

I get for Alamy it's a numbers game and Alamy is a business after all is said and done. While Alamy can make $1000 by selling 1000 images for $1.x, a photographer being paid $1 for one image is criminal. However, Alamy says it's on the side of the photographers and yet does nothing to stop the macro-money sales of rights managed images. It's clear abuse of the photographer, IMO.

 

What I have suggested and should be possible is to allow the photographer option to set a minimum price. I would set mine at something like $49.99. Buyer can pay that price, or go elsewhere. IME, when a buyer wants your image, they will find that extra $100, or whatEver is the asking price. If photographers want to compete by setting lower prices, then can do. Personally, I would rather lose sales than sell mine for a song.

This morning, I wrote a long response to this "Question or Statement" and when I went to Submit it, it disappeared? So, I will try once more and will try to keep it brief.  Please keep in mind that everything I write hear is just my own opinion.

 

I've advocated for Alamy to pay more attention to the licensing of images that are of higher value or are illustrative of current global events, people, etc. to no avail. The problem, again just my opinion, is that many of the images being licensed are worth exactly the fees that they are being licensed for.  Yes, there was a time before Royality Free, Micro-stock and the over saturation of images on the market that all license fees or picture sales in general were substantially higher.   That was also a time when there were many more print publications.  I have written many times on this forum that "It is not a numbers game, it is about the image" and I am afraid that currently I do not believe that statement is completely true.  I do still believe that the image, the captions and keywords, the exclusivity and the global news value of any image is still very important, but the value of a "Stock Image" is much less in 2024 than it was in 19xx.  Web usage pays a much lower fee than a major print publication.

 

The main reason for my response, I've said this directly to Alamy a few times over the years, is to suggest that Alamy set aside a small group of experienced picture editors who could deal image by image on valuable, newsworthy, pictures that are only licensed by Alamy.  That in my opinion would be the difference between a "Stock Agency" and the type of "News Photo Agencies" that I had worked with for decades.  What I would like to see is to see Alamy becoming a modern "Photo Agency" one that is a natural progression and combination of Photo Library and News Photo Agency.  The real question is, does Alamy want to be a "Stock Agency" (library) or a "Photo Agency" I will add that of the major News Photo Agencies that I've worked with around the world during the last 40+ years only one is still in the business (G). 

 

In closing as I have written many times on this Forum, I Trust Alamy and the people that I've dealt with at Alamy.  Alamy has treated me well and been fair to me, almost 20 years now.  The day that I do not Trust Alamy or feel that my images are not handled properly (licensed) by Alamy, I will not be a contributor to Alamy.

 

Chuck

Edited Monday at 14:31 by Chuck Nacke
spelling

[Lynchpics]

On 06/10/2024 at 06:33, Chuck Nacke said:

The real question is, does Alamy want to be a "Stock Agency" (library) or a "Photo Agency"

 

Alamy is a stock photography agency, PA images is the 'news photo agency' part of the company, i can not see the PA media group making any changes to how they are set up. 

[Mr Standfast]

58 minutes ago, Lynchpics said:

 

Alamy is a stock photography agency, PA images is the 'news photo agency' part of the company, i can not see the PA media group making any changes to how they are set up. 

Yes.