$7.90 for a Full Front Cover - acceptable?

[John Walker]

I had the following image used by an Indian quality magazine called Liquid and paid for.  It showed as 1/8 inside page use and the fee charged by Alamy was $7.90.

 

I have since found that it was in fact used as the magazine front cover.  My feeling are that it should have commanded a much higher fee.

 

Alamy were contacted back in March and have been chased up again since but still no conclusion.

 

So...   What do other forum member feel - am I wrong to expect a better payment?

 

John

 

[John Mitchell]

Ouch! You definitely deserve much better payment.

 

I always wonder what actually happens to some of those 1/8 page and "spot use" leases.

 

Good luck. Keep us posted.

[Jane Hobson]

Should have been £200 minimum. As they have broken the contract, they should be charged at least double what they should have originally paid. Keep the pressure up. Best of luck.

[David F]

Crikey, I had a magazine front cover distributor sale in Greece that was reported as an 1/8 page in 2010 for $62.20 (calculator should have been £300 GBP if I remember correctly) and I thought that was bad.

 

I queried it and over a year later and several emails Alamy simply said it was not possible to be 100% specific on usage and that distributors charge what they think is competitive.  They also said these are customers we wouldn’t normally reach.

 

While I have had a few half decent sales via distributors, I pulled out of all of the countries that I felt would give me the lowest returns.  Glad I did if front covers are going as low as $7.90.

 

Clearly the race to the bottom is not over by a long way

[John Walker]

Thanks for your replies.  This wasn't a distributor sale, and I'm guessing Alamy wasn't aware that it had been used as a full cover shot.  

 

I've sent another screenshot like the one I attached and also one showing it used as the Jan/Feb issue front cover with the image included.

 

I feel that 300+ is nearer the mark.

 

Regards

John

[Richard Coombs]

It certainly should be more, no doubt about it. 300+ would be good, but not in todays market unfortunately.

[Guest]

Thanks for your replies.  This wasn't a distributor sale, and I'm guessing Alamy wasn't aware that it had been used as a full cover shot.  

 

I've sent another screenshot like the one I attached and also one showing it used as the Jan/Feb issue front cover with the image included.

 

I feel that 300+ is nearer the mark.

 

Regards

John

 

I'm afraid you are not going to get that. A cover for a business trade mag in China runs to around $40-50, in Canada about $80 for one in the mining sector.......that's prices within last couple of quarters. India does not pay well for print media, you can get a years subscription for a mag like India Today for about £15 a year 1.5million circulation/weekly.

 

On the other hand, you can get skilled photoshop work done for $5 an hour, that's the market in India.

[CMEckert]

Reminds me of text book runs of 5,000 copies. It's not even worth while to set up a print run of 5k. It should be removed from the useless calculator. This is truly a sad state of affairs. Alamy should step in and correct this misfortune.

[spacecadet]

I've just had this

Country: Germany
Usage: Editorial
Media: Retail book - print only
Print run: up to 5,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/4 page

Start: 01 May 2014
End: 01 May 2015

Anyone got an opinion of where it's going? Petrolheads' calendar?

[Phil Robinson]

The last magazine cover I had was $600 - that was to France.

[Russell Watkins]

 

Thanks for your replies.  This wasn't a distributor sale, and I'm guessing Alamy wasn't aware that it had been used as a full cover shot.  

 

I've sent another screenshot like the one I attached and also one showing it used as the Jan/Feb issue front cover with the image included.

 

I feel that 300+ is nearer the mark.

 

Regards

John

 

I'm afraid you are not going to get that. A cover for a business trade mag in China runs to around $40-50, in Canada about $80 for one in the mining sector.......that's prices within last couple of quarters. India does not pay well for print media, you can get a years subscription for a mag like India Today for about £15 a year 1.5million circulation/weekly.

 

On the other hand, you can get skilled photoshop work done for $5 an hour, that's the market in India.

 

 

So they should license their cover images from a cheaper source; a source that fits with their budget. 

 

If they really, really wanted to use John's image on the cover, they should have coughed up the appropriate amount.

[Russell Watkins]

As a rider to my last post, I guess it's interesting that we're* being exploited by India for once...

 

 

*i.e. John is...

[Dyn Llun]

I had the following image used by an Indian quality magazine called Liquid and paid for.  It showed as 1/8 inside page use and the fee charged by Alamy was $7.90.

 

I have since found that it was in fact used as the magazine front cover.  My feeling are that it should have commanded a much higher fee.

 

Alamy were contacted back in March and have been chased up again since but still no conclusion.

 

So...   What do other forum member feel - am I wrong to expect a better payment?

 

John

 

This is the inevitable result of supplying full size images when the client says they only wish to use it for, say, as above, a 1/8 page. Once they have downloaded the full size image they can pretty much do as they wish with it - for ever.

 

This was discussed on this forum s couple of weeks ago. I realise that in the colour transparency days the clients might do the same, especially if the original, like mine were then, mostly medium and large format. However, libraries then also charged much higher fees and were very pro-active in chasing both licence infringements and 'lost' transparencies and imposed punitive penalty fees, which was for both the library and the photographer's benefit. With fees generally now so low, libraries feel it is not cost-effective to chase even the most blatant licence infringements such as the example here. This in turn encourages theft which forces libraries to lower their fees even more etc. etc. A downward spiral. 

[John Mitchell]

 

I had the following image used by an Indian quality magazine called Liquid and paid for.  It showed as 1/8 inside page use and the fee charged by Alamy was $7.90.

 

I have since found that it was in fact used as the magazine front cover.  My feeling are that it should have commanded a much higher fee.

 

Alamy were contacted back in March and have been chased up again since but still no conclusion.

 

So...   What do other forum member feel - am I wrong to expect a better payment?

 

John

 

This is the inevitable result of supplying full size images when the client says they only wish to use it for, say, as above, a 1/8 page. Once they have downloaded the full size image they can pretty much do as they wish with it - for ever.

 

This was discussed on this forum s couple of weeks ago. I realise that in the colour transparency days the clients might do the same, especially if the original, like mine were then, mostly medium and large format. However, libraries then also charged much higher fees and were very pro-active in chasing both licence infringements and 'lost' transparencies and imposed punitive penalty fees, which was for both the library and the photographer's benefit. With fees generally now so low, libraries feel it is not cost-effective to chase even the most blatant licence infringements such as the example here. This in turn encourages theft which forces libraries to lower their fees even more etc. etc. A downward spiral. 

 

Hate to say it, but the "Basking in Appreciation" story title on the cover of the magazine is more than ironic in this case.

[Sheila Smart]

 

 

I had the following image used by an Indian quality magazine called Liquid and paid for.  It showed as 1/8 inside page use and the fee charged by Alamy was $7.90.

 

I have since found that it was in fact used as the magazine front cover.  My feeling are that it should have commanded a much higher fee.

 

Alamy were contacted back in March and have been chased up again since but still no conclusion.

 

So...   What do other forum member feel - am I wrong to expect a better payment?

 

John

 

This is the inevitable result of supplying full size images when the client says they only wish to use it for, say, as above, a 1/8 page. Once they have downloaded the full size image they can pretty much do as they wish with it - for ever.

 

This was discussed on this forum s couple of weeks ago. I realise that in the colour transparency days the clients might do the same, especially if the original, like mine were then, mostly medium and large format. However, libraries then also charged much higher fees and were very pro-active in chasing both licence infringements and 'lost' transparencies and imposed punitive penalty fees, which was for both the library and the photographer's benefit. With fees generally now so low, libraries feel it is not cost-effective to chase even the most blatant licence infringements such as the example here. This in turn encourages theft which forces libraries to lower their fees even more etc. etc. A downward spiral. 

 

Hate to say it, but the "Basking in Appreciation" story title on the cover of the magazine is more than ironic in this case.

 

 

Which reminds me of a European publisher nicked one of my images and placed it on a front cover of a novel entitled (in Rumanian) Plagiarism.  The irony did not go unnoticed and they coughed up 1,100 euro when confronted with the infringement.  Also a UK police department nicked one of my images of a bicycle shadow and it was on a brochure on "how to report bicycle theft"! - that cost them a great deal of money!

 

Sheila