Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Click on any RM or RF image and look at the pricing AND resolution size at the right.  Is it true that a buyer could check the Presentation size and download the highest resolution size for $15?  The highest resolution size is showing for "Website" and "Marketing Package" as well.  Tell me THIS IS NOT TRUE! 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... seems to be the case. In fact, I think I possibly had one this month.

 

It wouldn't be so bad if there was a high volume of these sales to compensate for the lower returns. As long as the corporate usage and book prices hold firm then we can always hope for one or two of them each month  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click on any RM or RF image and look at the pricing AND resolution size at the right.  Is it true that a buyer could check the Presentation size and download the highest resolution size for $15?  The highest resolution size is showing for "Website" and "Marketing Package" as well.  Tell me THIS IS NOT TRUE! 

 

 

I know it doesn't matter much but £ 15.00  not $... However, still disappointing :|

 

(I didn't set £ for my account, I chosed $).

Edited by Arletta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$29 for website use. Why would anyone even need a 70mb file for a website?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$29 for website use. Why would anyone even need a 70mb file for a website?

That's EXACTLY the point!  Other agencies only allow MUCH smaller image files for website use!!!  So, a Buyer could think to himself, "Whoa, why should I pay a high price when I can get the full size, highest resolution file for only $15".

This is totally insane folks!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is totally insane and that is the reason I am seriously thinking of opting out completely!  It is just not economic of any pro photographer to accept prices such as these.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is totally insane and that is the reason I am seriously thinking of opting out completely!  It is just not economic of any pro photographer to accept prices such as these.

Sheila,

I can accept $15 for webs use if the buyer was allowed to only download a small file like 600px x 900px for that price.  But to allow a 50MB or 70MB file to be downloaded for $15 simply because the buyer says he is going to use it for web use is insane. 

 

You and I both know there are countless other agencies, even microstock agencies, that only allow SMALL files to be downloaded for web use at a lower price.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Alamy can comment??

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I am seriously thinking of opting out completely! ...

 

I'm sorry but opt out of what? Is this some program? What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tweeted about this and Alamy replied:

 

"That is just displaying the max size available, the client would likely download a much smaller version."

 

A contact said: "I could be wrong here but once they have the large file they are free do pretty much whatever with it, no?"

 

Alamy replied:"No, it's not being sold as RF. A use outside of the licence would be an infringement, the same as normal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be outside the licence of course but who is going to police and enforce it? The only reason for downloading a larger file than needed for web purposes must be for print use.  The chances of the photographer concerned spotting it among a world of printed publications is minimal. If you pay for low res you must only be allowed to download low res. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy replied:"No, it's not being sold as RF. A use outside of the licence would be an infringement, the same as normal."

 

 

Images with RF are in the same price...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From our experience serving designers over recent years, they ask for the highest res whatever the resolution of their output.  Most designers require a full res file to do their design before they publish it for web resolution.  When we offered popular pricing packages we took this experience and decided to treat self serving designers the same and not limit the resolution.  

 

We also need to allow flexibility - sometimes designers only want a very small section of an image and will need to crop heavily accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be outside the licence of course but who is going to police and enforce it? The only reason for downloading a larger file than needed for web purposes must be for print use.  The chances of the photographer concerned spotting it among a world of printed publications is minimal. If you pay for low res you must only be allowed to download low res. 

 

So how would you have dealt with this 20 years ago when the same original image would have been supplied to every client regardless of the stated usage?

 

Alan

Edited by Inchiquin
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would be outside the licence of course but who is going to police and enforce it? The only reason for downloading a larger file than needed for web purposes must be for print use.  The chances of the photographer concerned spotting it among a world of printed publications is minimal. If you pay for low res you must only be allowed to download low res. 

 

So how would you have dealt with this 20 years ago when the same original image would have been supplied to every client regardless of the stated usage?

 

Alan

 

Simple answer is that you couldn't of course as original transparencies were supplied. However, in my experience then (over 20 years ago when I was a little more heavily into stock - pre-internet), image theft was much rarer, as were the number of agencies that used stock photography. To 'steal' an image for print then meant getting expensive four colour separations and printing plates made so was fairly prohibitive. Picture libraries also charged punitive fees for 'lost' or damaged transparencies. The quantity of stock imagery has risen exponentially since then, which brings with it benefits but also related problems. Technology has made image theft easier and is rife. I suppose I am attempting to find and use every means we have to limit it for the benefit of all photographers given the average low fees for stock work now . I have always taken a zero tolerance attitude to policing my own work out there and we should all do the same in every way we can. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alamy replied:"No, it's not being sold as RF. A use outside of the licence would be an infringement, the same as normal."

 

 

Images with RF are in the same price...

 

 

Yep, and if these go through a distributor we'll achieve the grand sum of $4.50 - less Tax! That translates to about 20+ licenses of a 70mb file before a payout is due .

 

Not exactly encouraging!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the late 1970s when I worked in an office of a stock photo agency that was later bought by Tony Stone they use to send the slides(35mm,2-1/4,4x5) in sealed plastic.Outside would be a bold orange sticker  that stated if you opened the plastic seal holding the slides it would cost you $500.00.

 

 

L

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It would be outside the licence of course but who is going to police and enforce it? The only reason for downloading a larger file than needed for web purposes must be for print use. The chances of the photographer concerned spotting it among a world of printed publications is minimal. If you pay for low res you must only be allowed to download low res.

So how would you have dealt with this 20 years ago when the same original image would have been supplied to every client regardless of the stated usage?

 

Alan

Simple answer is that you couldn't of course as original transparencies were supplied. However, in my experience then (over 20 years ago when I was a little more heavily into stock - pre-internet), image theft was much rarer, as were the number of agencies that used stock photography. To 'steal' an image for print then meant getting expensive four colour separations and printing plates made so was fairly prohibitive. Picture libraries also charged punitive fees for 'lost' or damaged transparencies. The quantity of stock imagery has risen exponentially since then, which brings with it benefits but also related problems. Technology has made image theft easier and is rife. I suppose I am attempting to find and use every means we have to limit it for the benefit of all photographers given the average low fees for stock work now . I have always taken a zero tolerance attitude to policing my own work out there and we should all do the same in every way we can.

Yes, but that doesn't really answer the question. We weren't talking about online image theft, but about a client paying for a small usage and then using the full-size file for a larger use, something that could just as easily have happened in the days of transparencies and would have been just as difficult to track down. Online theft isn't going to be an issue if the larger use is for print, as you yourself suggested it would be, and it's unlikely that the client would make the full-size image available online anyway.

 

I just don't see an issue here. You trusted a customer 20, 30, 40 years ago to use the image in the way that the contract stated, and you trust the customer now. If the usage is for the web then the image will be available for theft whether the customer sticks to the contract or not.

 

Alan

Edited by Inchiquin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From our experience serving designers over recent years, they ask for the highest res whatever the resolution of their output.  Most designers require a full res file to do their design before they publish it for web resolution.  When we offered popular pricing packages we took this experience and decided to treat self serving designers the same and not limit the resolution.  

 

We also need to allow flexibility - sometimes designers only want a very small section of an image and will need to crop heavily accordingly. 

 

But then how do you ensure that it is only used as licenced? How do you police those downloading large images for low-cost uses to make sure they are not using it inappropriately.? We all know that web images, especially, get ripped off pretty much as a matter of course and many web publishers are not professional designers with knowledge of copyright and contract law. Judging by the inability for agencies, not just Alamy, to police major UK newspapers and ensure that they report and pay in a timely manner it is difficult to have confidence that these large, low-cost, downloads are not abused.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about $29 for five-year website use? I charge (grudgingly) a minimum of $50 for one-year editorial website use through my PhotoShelter website. I made a $650 website use (corporate, three years) sale on my own a couple of years ago. I realize that it's a jungle out there, but something is drastically wrong with this picture IMO.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this sale yesterday for $29.  It's also one of those strange beasts, being a RF image.  I'm sure the corporation could have spent more to build their web site.

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Non-Editorial Electronic and web uses
Media: Corporate website, single design
57 MB
6981 x 2848 pixels
2 MB compressed
Image Size: Any size
Start: 27 May 2014
End: 27 May 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this sale yesterday for $29.  It's also one of those strange beasts, being a RF image.  I'm sure the corporation could have spent more to build their web site.

 

Country: Worldwide

Usage: Non-Editorial Electronic and web uses

Media: Corporate website, single design

57 MB

6981 x 2848 pixels

2 MB compressed

Image Size: Any size

Start: 27 May 2014

End: 27 May 2019

I agree. Most corporations will pay much more if they really want an image. While it's always good to make a sale, why give them away like this?

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting the low ball prices against the image like that drives down prices and sets the bar very low for negotiating. How do you negotiate up from peanuts for a 70Mpx image for other uses? By doing this Alamy (and others) have already said we value this image at no more than ...

 

Hardly surprising prices have been in freefall, everybody is racing each other to the bottom.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is this NU and UK Newspaper scheme, just take the low balling to a whole new level. -_- I just can't believe people actually "opt-in". For what, peanut shell?

 

We call that cut your nose off to spit on your face. :blink:

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • 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.