Would a paywall have made the Getty move acceptable?

[Robert Brook]

Dustydingo - precisely - a fair trade tag or sticker. After all fair trade started from nothing and has totally taken off. I worked in coffee business for almost 20 years - so was always passionately interested in knowing that the growers/farmers/workers in a far away country, much much poorer than ours were making a fair living - and that in some way it was being policed. Whatever it should be called that tag or sticker (or dare I say it something embedded!) - would surely be a mark that the contributor was being fairly treated. If it became the industry "norm" it would have to be accepted. Why is that not possible - inoffensive to any party and a guarantee of quality image and proper treatment of togs.

 

RB - very valid points. I once emailed Alamy CEO who not only emailed me back but actually rang me to discuss the points raised and it was clear he genuinely cared. Regarding talent or not talent - (beauty in the eye of the beholder) - I personally believe that Alamy should cut back on the "holiday snaps" that will always linger on page 50 or 60. Tighten up the collection.They seem obsessed with having the most images. They should be largely be making money for the togs with talent and drive - that would raise the bar.

 

I agree.  There will be a significant number of images that neither sell nor are zoomed.  Alamy could have a system where such images go into 'special measures': contribitors can look at them, check keywording etc, but if after a year there is still no activity, they disappear.  Or perhaps the contributor will be required to edit out a percentage of them.  Or something similar - perhaps include ranking as an additional criterion.  Could be easily done since all the info is already in the system.

 

I don't know why Alamy is so keen on being the biggest online collection, since it must be well known that annual revenue is a fraction of that of two other well known collections with slightly smaller (online) collections.

 

RB

[Mirco Vacca]

I really believe that we have to accept Alamy selling photos for much smaller prices. If everywhere else images have a low price range why clients would pay 5 times more. I would for sure not. It is hard for us all and we can be angry that Alamy revenues are often just 14 dollars or arround that but asking for more is very unrealistic. Especially after the Getty move. We can not set the price for same potatoes 5 times higher then others and think that it will sell. For sure not. I think if Alamy doesnt react it will loose. I see companies like Shutterstock making no loose with it since they are starting to build a large collection of editorial images. Clients can buy a licence there for just few dollars and avoid ads on their websites. For few dollars it is worth it.

 

Lets wait for the next period.

 

Mirco

 

 

 

 

[David W]

RB - that is a seriously good idea which I and I believe many would support wholeheartedly. I heavily edit my collection around every 18 months - its really only about being honest with yourself I guess.

 

Mirco - 1st of all congratulations on birth of your son. 

 

I can't say I agree but see where your coming from. Perhaps a new type of license system is needed because what is happening is that RM prices are now not so very different from micro stock prices. 

 

Still think that a "fair trade" style tag or sticker as suggested by Dustydingo is an idea with considerable legs. The battle goes on!