"Only available on Alamy"

[Doc]

Seems to me that there must be a subgroup of buyers who would be interested to see images only available on Alamy, or know if they were only available on Alamy, and I would guess Alamy may well consider making it more obvious if they have a decent number of images which are indicated as such. 

 

Ideally I would like to see a tab "Only available on Alamy" next to "New" "Relevant" and "Creative"

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

[Jansos]

'Only available on Alamy' should IMHO give the seller some benefit but I can't see that it does. I guess it also poses a problem of sorts for Alamy. How could they possibly know whether anyone was infringing that category. i.e listing as only available on Alamy, getting the benefit from doing so, and then posting on numerous other sites. With time and feedback they could block/ban the user but it would carry a heavy admin overload. Not sure if it is a category worth having/using as it currently is.

BW, John

[DDoug]

Using Copyright Infringement Finder or a similar browser add-on, it appears easy enough to see when images are offered on several stock agency sites. Spot checking is probably all they would need to do.

 

The question seems to me to be whether there is a benefit to the buyer. If so, it would be in the option to purchase exclusive rights for some period of time.

 

If that option benefits the buyer and they're willing to pay substantially more for it, then it would in turn benefit both Alamy and the contributor.

 

edit: and be worth a bump up in rank.

[Chuck Nacke]

All I can say is that I am currently allowing "only Alamy" to license the new images that

create, including news.  I have never understood putting images with a number of agencies.

[fotoDogue]

All I can say is that I am currently allowing "only Alamy" to license the new images that

create, including news.  I have never understood putting images with a number of agencies.

 

I can understand working with several agencies if, for example, one is better at selling specific subjects than another, if they have different distribution areas, or an entirely different client base. Putting the same images with different agencies doesn't make much sense to me. Experienced photo buyers will simply shop around for the lowest price.

[DDoug]

Years ago I worked in graphics and found it was common for a paper vendor to say to a printer, "I'll give you the ten thousand pound price on everything you buy if you buy all your paper from me."

 

The same type of arrangement in stock sales, coupled with the fact that agencies honor each others' bulk-rate deals, is the main reason I chose to opt out of Distribution. This evidently takes time to take effect, since there have been two distributor sales so far this month. However, one of them was for a quarter of Alamy's book rate for use in TV ("Quantity discount. Flat rate per image.") The other went for a [paltry sum] for a full page in a magazine (plus digital).

 

I may opt back into Distribution next April, and/or make a different decision about submitting to multiple agencies, but for the moment I continue to think that working exclusively with Alamy is the best way to keep the price per license at a reasonable level.

 

edit: removed specific amount

[spacecadet]

"Triple" means to multiply by 3. "In triplicate" means existing as 3 copies- it's not used as a verb. So you would say "tripling". Quadrupling is right.

[spacecadet]

No problem. Your usual English is perfectly understandable, but i know that the small italics mean that you're open to refinements.

[Stephen Barnes]

I've a bit of an issue with this field: does it mean images currently only available from Alamy, or have only ever been available from Alamy?  I've got quite a few (!) images which were submitted to both Alamy and Demotix - they were taken into the Getty collection, which have since been removed from sale.