Lynn Palmer Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It was incredibly easy to opt in to the newspaper scheme when I started my Alamy account but how does one opt out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme? John, opting out of one newspaper scheme is irrelevant - and even a distraction. If it was only the Alamy UK newspaper scheme which was based on this type of payment model then there would be little problem. But several major agencies, competing with each other, are offering more and more rights destroying and ridiculous fee bulk packages and access subscriptions to media / publisher / book clients across Europe and now in the US. (And also, as a result, photographers good direct sales to these clients are rapidly disappearing). That's why I say ALL agencies need to put the brakes on this fee slaughter before it is too late. Unfortunately those agencies who have tried to maintain fee levels, including some I know in the US, are having the legs cut off them by other agencies swooping in with these undercutting deals. Its a vicious circle - for working editorial stock photographers it's a deathly downward spiral. Last agency to pull out of the dive is a chicken. We're the turkeys. These fee models concern all photographers, not just those in the UK or those signed up for one agency's UK newspaper deal. If the agencies really think these deals are, for them, nonviable then you would expect to see them reversed. Instead they are spreading. Broadly speaking, the (editorial) agencies are taking a gamble on being able to fly their machines on free, crowd-sourced air alone. Their low fees are shutting off the flow of both aviation fuel and skilled pilots. Like Saint-Exupery's south american pilot finally choosing to glide in that beautiful, serene place high above the storm clouds he could not outrun - they may talk a while with the gods but inevitably gravity cuts in. Tough to argue with this. Well said. This might sound subversive, and I don't mean to come across as being ungrateful to Alamy, but if everyone were to pull out of the existing newspaper scheme at once, it could be a big step in the right direction. It might even benefit Alamy since they could start negotiating fairer prices and usage terms. Again, just surmising, not trying to instigate a revolution. Any thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme? John, opting out of one newspaper scheme is irrelevant - and even a distraction. If it was only the Alamy UK newspaper scheme which was based on this type of payment model then there would be little problem. But several major agencies, competing with each other, are offering more and more rights destroying and ridiculous fee bulk packages and access subscriptions to media / publisher / book clients across Europe and now in the US. (And also, as a result, photographers good direct sales to these clients are rapidly disappearing). That's why I say ALL agencies need to put the brakes on this fee slaughter before it is too late. Unfortunately those agencies who have tried to maintain fee levels, including some I know in the US, are having the legs cut off them by other agencies swooping in with these undercutting deals. Its a vicious circle - for working editorial stock photographers it's a deathly downward spiral. Last agency to pull out of the dive is a chicken. We're the turkeys. These fee models concern all photographers, not just those in the UK or those signed up for one agency's UK newspaper deal. If the agencies really think these deals are, for them, nonviable then you would expect to see them reversed. Instead they are spreading. Broadly speaking, the (editorial) agencies are taking a gamble on being able to fly their machines on free, crowd-sourced air alone. Their low fees are shutting off the flow of both aviation fuel and skilled pilots. Like Saint-Exupery's south american pilot finally choosing to glide in that beautiful, serene place high above the storm clouds he could not outrun - they may talk a while with the gods but inevitably gravity cuts in. Very true but not all agencies follow Alamy's budget pricing / low volume approach. Low volume compared to micros. Another RM I'm with successfully manages to licence my images at acceptable $'s on a regular basis. While Alamy gave me about $90 for 5 sales in Jan, this other agency managed $1700 for 5 sales. This isn't unusual either. Don't get me wrong, I will still submit to Alamy (for now at least), but they are falling down the pecking order in terms of time spent taking photos for them and how quickly they get them. One of my biggest gripes with them is how infrequently they update their creative images, very slow. They are supposedly trying to compete for more creative customers yet these customers can buy the images that Alamy has elsewhere for good $'s but you can't find them at all here in their Creative Section. By the time they elevate them to Creative, they have already been sold a number of times over elsewhere. They need to find away of identifying these images quickly and get them in front of clients otherwise creative customers will stay with Corbis & Getty etc. It seems like they could be sat on a gold mine of images but they just don't get them in front of the right people quick enough. Once they get the best in front of customers, they then need to resist selling them for pennies. They are not micro nor should they try to be. Let micro manage micro images..... they have the volume of customers / very high sales to make up the difference, Alamy doesn't. *Rant over* and breath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyMelbourne Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out! If you opt out of the scheme then the newspaper scheme papers cannot view your images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Walker Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I believe the newspapers self-invoice so no work for Alamy unless we the photographer happen to spot one that we haven't been paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstw Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Not only are the media getting the images for buttons. They are taking far too long to pay for them too. Imagine if their ad revenue providers suddenly started paying 9-12 months after the clicks? I'm sure the Mail would have something to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM photo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Takes more than "+1" to trigger change... Yes, it takes everyone to opt out of the newspaper scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolf Adlercreutz Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Slartybartfast, on 06 Feb 2014 - 12:47 AM, said: I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out! So did I. And I now get better paid for my pictures and I don't get upset by low priced sales as much either.Rolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM photo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Slartybartfast, on 06 Feb 2014 - 12:47 AM, said: I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out! So did I. And I now get better paid for my pictures and I don't get upset by low priced sales as much either.Rolf Yes, absolutely. Perhaps others will follow suit. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out! If you opt out of the scheme then the newspaper scheme papers cannot view your images. Are you sure about this? Can't they just look in the general Alamy collection, which as far as I know isn't censored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out! If you opt out of the scheme then the newspaper scheme papers cannot view your images. Are you sure about this? Can't they just look in the general Alamy collection, which as far as I know isn't censored? James has confirmed this on this forum. Editors can however log out and view the whole collection. But with 44.86 million amazing creative and editorial images why would they? Ok this is what you can do about it: shoot stuff the newspapers don't like. That'll teach them. (And get you better rates.) wim edit: I was seeing double quotes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out! If you opt out of the scheme then the newspaper scheme papers cannot view your images. Are you sure about this? Can't they just look in the general Alamy collection, which as far as I know isn't censored? If they are searching as part of the scheme then they can only see images opted in however if they search outside the scheme, which means they have to pay the normal price, they can see them all. I have two accounts and at one time one was opted in and the other opted out. Searches appeared in Measures for the opted in account but were missing from the opted out account. It is likely they only search outside it when they really can't find what they want. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I opted out some time ago now but I still get newspapers buying my images, however I now get far better prices than I did under the scheme. moral is just opt out! If you opt out of the scheme then the newspaper scheme papers cannot view your images. Are you sure about this? Can't they just look in the general Alamy collection, which as far as I know isn't censored? If they are searching as part of the scheme then they can only see images opted in however if they search outside the scheme, which means they have to pay the normal price, they can see them all. I have two accounts and at one time one was opted in and the other opted out. Searches appeared in Measures for the opted in account but were missing from the opted out account. It is likely they only search outside it when they really can't find what they want. Pearl That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 "You can opt in or out at any time." http://www.alamy.com/editorialuse.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartybartfast Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I don't know where the newspapers searched for my images but the point is they did despite being outside the scheme. The last couple were a re-use of a picture that was used a couple of years ago by the same paper (under a standard national newspaper licence) and the other has shown up as an IQ sale but was definitely used by the Times(online at least). These earned 3 and 5 times respectively what my last sale to a newspaper did when I was in the scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme? I've seen an official post from Alamy which says that newspapers in the scheme don't see any Alamy images which aren't opted in. I'm reluctantly in it because of that, but I've had a few sales to UK newspapers at better than NS prices, so I guess some newspapers aren't in the scheme (maybe not big enough buyers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbro Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Ok, let's say newspaper search won't see my photos because I didn't opt in. So what do I miss? A few $5.95 sales, and boat load of insult and frustration. Spare me, please.... Daily Mail can take their $5.95 and shove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbro Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Geez, I need get my eyes checked. I am seeing double, or it's triple... Too many similars, Jeff G. Now we know how you get to 100K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This thread doesn't concern me directly because I'm not based in the UK, but I'm wondering why so many contributors stay in the newspaper scheme. Wouldn't it be better to opt out? Looking back through my sales, I have what appear to be leases to UK newspapers outside the scheme. The fees were certainly a lot fairer than what are being mentioned here. Is it a question of much higher sales volume within the scheme? I've seen an official post from Alamy which says that newspapers in the scheme don't see any Alamy images which aren't opted in. I'm reluctantly in it because of that, but I've had a few sales to UK newspapers at better than NS prices, so I guess some newspapers aren't in the scheme (maybe not big enough buyers). Hmmm... In than case, it seems to me that all a newspaper editor or photo researcher would have to do is log out of Alamy and then search the website as an anonymous buyer, and he or she would then be able to see all 44.88 million (and counting) Alamy images. Or am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I have had search results that seem to align nicely with purchased newspaper licenses from other contributors who ARE in the newspaper scheme (I'm NOT signed up to the scheme). The search terms have been specific and unique enough to suggest that these have not been searches for general popular news items of the day. All of which seems to suggest to me that it's quite common for paper picture researchers to log out and use a general search for the item they are looking for - even if they don't like my pictures ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolf Adlercreutz Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My guess you are not opted in. If you were, it doesn't matter where you are based, they will use your photos, and pay you ~$5.95 per use, 6 months later. The worst part is, those photos will be all over the world, in multiple languages, and you don't get paid a penny because is "Third party use". The only way to fight back this kind of abuse, opt out! I may not get the occasional $5.95, but at least I don't feel being kicked on the groin from time to time. Ironically, I got a few sales from UK newspaper and magazine for much better fee recently. Go figure. Couldn't agree more! Rolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I would just be happy if the images were reported as sales promptly so that we at least avoid the angst and frequent chasing that accompany these sales. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I would just be happy if the images were reported as sales promptly so that we at least avoid the angst and frequent chasing that accompany these sales. dov Yup, agreed - that applies to all sales, not just NS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.