Is this the new norm?

[Ed Endicott 269]

I'm not one to usually complain about a license...but....

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Placement: Single Placement
Image Size: up to full area
Start: 01 November 2014
End: 01 November 2017
Use on website and social media, worldwide for 5 years.

 

for $6.00 gross ($3.00 net to me)?

 

What's this all about?  Is this Alamy or a microsite?  There has to be an error in the terms...it states three years but goes further to detail 5 years.  But seriously, $6.00?  I'm hoping it's a novel use license even though we don't do those anymore.

[Sultanpepa 958]

I had a $6 license today too in what is obviously a bulk deal. It was an image I never expected to see a sale from so not too distressed about the fee however had it been one of my better images and let's face it it could have been, I would have had a face.

[John Mitchell 4,234]

I'm not one to usually complain about a license...but....

 

Country: Worldwide

Usage: Editorial

Media: Editorial website

Placement: Single Placement

Image Size: up to full area

Start: 01 November 2014

End: 01 November 2017

Use on website and social media, worldwide for 5 years.

 

for $6.00 gross ($3.00 net to me)?

 

What's this all about?  Is this Alamy or a microsite?  There has to be an error in the terms...it states three years but goes further to detail 5 years.  But seriously, $6.00?  I'm hoping it's a novel use license even though we don't do those anymore.

 

Not sure if it's the new norm, but I've also had a few low sales (along with some decent ones, thankfully) this month, including a distributor sale that will net me the price of a small cup of coffee.

[Ed Endicott 269]

Yeah....unfortunately, this is an image that was also pirated from another agency by a local photographer here in Colorado and used in a YouTube video that his company produced in 2012.

 

Image starts to appear at 1:32 (with watermark)

 

http://youtu.be/raC-bxSx2QQ?t=1m34s

 

This is the image licensed....

 

 

I certainly hope that Alamy licensing this image at $6.00 doesn't establish the "commercial value" of the image from a copyright perspective or I'm screwed - and that's EXACTLY why I left microstock.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ed Endicott

[John Mitchell 4,234]

Bummer. If the image is going to be used on social media, you'll probably see it mysteriously popping up elsewhere as well. Symptom of our times, unfortunately.

[Ed Endicott 269]

Yep - that's not the only place it was found...but that's where it originated from.  I've sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, and I've sent a message to the photographer/videographer that created the video (no telephone number listed and a P.O. box listed for an address).  I've also notified the agency that it was lifted from to see if they can pursue it.

 

I've determined if there is no response then I will pursue their client for the infringement....but again, if I am limited to 3x commercial value, I'm stuck at $18 if Alamy is making these deals....and I don't know of an attorney out there that would pursue this for $18.

 

It's frustrating and disheartening.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ed Endicott

[CMEckert 17]

I'm down but not out.

Edited November 10, 2014 by CMEckert

[John Mitchell 4,234]

Yep - that's not the only place it was found...but that's where it originated from.  I've sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, and I've sent a message to the photographer/videographer that created the video (no telephone number listed and a P.O. box listed for an address).  I've also notified the agency that it was lifted from to see if they can pursue it.

 

I've determined if there is no response then I will pursue their client for the infringement....but again, if I am limited to 3x commercial value, I'm stuck at $18 if Alamy is making these deals....and I don't know of an attorney out there that would pursue this for $18.

 

It's frustrating and disheartening.

 

I see your point now. Hadn't thought of that.

[Olivier Parent 675]

Got 2 of those $6.00 this morning.

[Peter Jordan 156]

I have had four of those at $6.33 each this month (Daily Mail on Line)

[Mark Baigent 158]

Those $6.33 are getting more common :-(

[Inchiquin 848]

I certainly hope that Alamy licensing this image at $6.00 doesn't establish the "commercial value" of the image

 

 

I'm sure it will if people keep insisting on publishing the details of their low fees

 

Alan

[Foreign Export 292]

Hope it's not the norm - I had 9 of them in one day earlier this month

[Paulstw 237]

I had one last week too. Busts my gut. 

[Martin P Wilson 1,140]

Hardly new! Been all too common for far too long.

[Olivier Parent 675]

I know it has already been discussed on the forum but I still think we should be able to define a price under which an image can not be sold.

This could easily be added to the "restrictions" fields. Then, when we think an image is worth it, we could set a minimum price for it to be licensed.

That would not have been relevant a few years ago, when prices were still high enough.

Now, there are some of my images I would not want to see on the web at full size, licensed for peanuts. I would rather not sell it at all.

But I do not want to delete them either. Anyway, what would Alamy collection look like if we all delete our best images in order not to have them sold for pennies?

So, a "minimum price" option seems the most reasonable feature to me.

What do you (contrbutors and Alamy staff of course) think of it?

 

Edit: I just started a new topic about that request, please leave your comments.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Olivier Parent

[Robert Brook 361]

"Hello there. Is that Alamy?  This is the Daily Fart here.  I see you are charging our competitor rag $6.  How do we know?  It's all over that whingers' forum you run.  How come you've been charging us $8??!  From now on it's $4 ($2 less to make up for all the overcharging you've been doing.  What's that you say?  Sorry, we’re not in a mood to haggle".   Slam.

  

[Ed Endicott 269]

"Hello there. Is that Alamy?  This is the Daily Fart here.  I see you are charging our competitor rag $6.  How do we know?  It's all over that whingers' forum you run.  How come you've been charging us $8??!  From now on it's $4 ($2 less to make up for all the overcharging you've been doing.  What's that you say?  Sorry, we’re not in a mood to haggle".   Slam.

 

That's perfectly fine.  CNN licenses their images from Shutterstock.  I'm perfectly happy to pass up a low paying customer to continue to provide value to those willing to pay more.  Oh wait, you mean Shutterstock doesn't have that same newsworthy image from that one event 7 years ago?  I guess you're going to have to loosen that pocket book a little bit aren't you?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ed Endicott

[vpics 631]

I also had two of those. Not happy either. 

 

I'd be grateful if someone from Alamy could clarify. Looks a bit dodgy to me.

Edited October 31, 2014 by vpics

[colin paterson 21]

Hi ALL.

1 here don't really care !!

Colin.

[Pearl 961]

I know it has already been discussed on the forum but I still think we should be able to define a price under which an image can not be sold.

This could easily be added to the "restrictions" fields. Then, when we think an image is worth it, we could set a minimum price for it to be licensed.

That would not have been relevant a few years ago, when prices were still high enough.

Now, there are some of my images I would not want to see on the web at full size, licensed for peanuts. I would rather not sell it at all.

But I do not want to delete them either. Anyway, what would Alamy collection look like if we all delete our best images in order not to have them sold for pennies?

So, a "minimum price" option seems the most reasonable feature to me.

What do you (contrbutors and Alamy staff of course) think of it?

 

Edit: I just started a new topic about that request, please leave your comments.

Why don't you restrict them so they can't be used for editorial websites?

 

Pearl