Brian Lawrence Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Considering that Alamy has approx. 38 million images and tens of thousands of photographers, does it keep all its contributors happy with their sales ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 I very much doubt it, but it is possible that some contributors may expect more happiness than their contributions can reasonably deliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Well, I don't think the current state of the stock business - with Alamy as a fairly prominent member - is going to get the majority of contributors punching the air in triumph. And, of course, there are a few contributors who seem determined to be as grumpy as possible until the Grim Reaper comes calling. I'm happy to be scratching a living from doing two things I love - writing and photography - rather than, say, working in a shoe shop or a call centre. I'm happy with Alamy's transparent dealings... but not so thrilled about the price per image. So, on the whole, I'd say I'm stoical about my Alamy sales... rather than deliriously happy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneWay Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 sales prices overall Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManWay Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Short answer is no. They used to keep most people (contribs) happy enough when they were 'growing the business' but now they have become greedy and cynical. It does of course make business sense in that they can sell OUR images for peanuts whilst still pulling in a handsome profit - due to the number of images on sale. However, I would qualify that statement by saying that they are 'the best of a bad bunch' when it comes to this type of 'all inclusive' agency. I'm sure that many image providers are happy enough to get the occasional payment but then many are happy enough just to see their work published for free. Sign of the times really. I'm thinking that I should 'go back to go forward' and work with the old photographic processes to produce 'ART'. Regards Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 If we just consider sales, most average Alamy editorial contributors are probably reasonably happy with the frequency of sales but not with the falling prices. Otherwise, Alamy does more to try to please its contributors than any other agency that I've dealt with. Jeff is likely correct about the bell curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travelshots Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 I used to be happy but I am not any longer. I want my agent (alamy) to stop giving my work away for peanuts. I want to be able to set a minimum selling price for editorial print sales of $50. I would like to do this with other agencies as well, and until photographers are given this option then we will all gradually go out of business. There may be plenty of images that are available for less than 50$ but I should have the right to set a minimum selling price for my own work. If you sell things on Pond5 you can set your own prices.. some people sell complex videos for almost nothing but I price my few videos on Pond5 for $120 -$200 and I do sell them. Setting minimum prices gives the purchaser the option of choosing your image or a cheaper shot/video. That is fine by me. I have been selling stock for over 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I used to be happy but I am not any longer. I want my agent (alamy) to stop giving my work away for peanuts. I want to be able to set a minimum selling price for editorial print sales of $50. I would like to do this with other agencies as well, and until photographers are given this option then we will all gradually go out of business. There may be plenty of images that are available for less than 50$ but I should have the right to set a minimum selling price for my own work. If you sell things on Pond5 you can set your own prices.. some people sell complex videos for almost nothing but I price my few videos on Pond5 for $120 -$200 and I do sell them. Setting minimum prices gives the purchaser the option of choosing your image or a cheaper shot/video. That is fine by me. I have been selling stock for over 25 years. I just noticed this one: D0862A. Have a look at the Description. (Just entered minimum price in the search box.) Would that work? Could that agency have set a real minimum? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I used to be happy but I am not any longer. I want my agent (alamy) to stop giving my work away for peanuts. I want to be able to set a minimum selling price for editorial print sales of $50. I would like to do this with other agencies as well, and until photographers are given this option then we will all gradually go out of business. There may be plenty of images that are available for less than 50$ but I should have the right to set a minimum selling price for my own work. If you sell things on Pond5 you can set your own prices.. some people sell complex videos for almost nothing but I price my few videos on Pond5 for $120 -$200 and I do sell them. Setting minimum prices gives the purchaser the option of choosing your image or a cheaper shot/video. That is fine by me. I have been selling stock for over 25 years. I just noticed this one: D0862A. Have a look at the Description. (Just entered minimum price in the search box.) Would that work? Could that agency have set a real minimum? wim I don't know anything about the Carl Simon Estate, but it appears that all the images in the collection (well the few that I looked at), have this minimum price written into the description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Alamy isn't an agency. It's an image library. So they are not an agent and do not have an agency relationship with or fiduciary responsibility to contributors. Moaning about low prices isn't going to change this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManWay Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Alamy isn't an agency. It's an image library. So they are not an agent and do not have an agency relationship with or fiduciary responsibility to contributors. Moaning about low prices isn't going to change this. Alamy is an Agency and they act as our agent.......... "Alamy Rights Managed End User License Agreement (EULA)This is a legal agreement between you or your company, firm or other organization ("you") and Alamy Inc. ("Alamy"). Alamy has been appointed agent by its Contributors to grant this License on their behalf." This from Alamy site terms and conditions. Regards Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManWay Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Alamy isn't an agency. It's an image library. So they are not an agent and do not have an agency relationship with or fiduciary responsibility to contributors. Moaning about low prices isn't going to change this. Furthermore..... This from Alamy yesterday; "We've got a client working on a project where they specifically need images taken with either a Nikon D600 or D800. If you have images online with us taken with this camera then let us know here and we will point our client at your work. There are no guarantees of sale but your images will be looked at and considered." They are pointing out specific images to a client, this is the work of an 'agent' and 'agency' not a mere 'image library'. Alamy also use their staff to help clients in picture/image research. Regards Richard Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 You can keep all of the people happy some of the time. You can keep some of the people happy all of the time. You cant keep all of the people happy all of the time. Alamy is a business. In order to prosper it must keep both its customers and suppliers as happy as market conditions and the economy allow. At the moment we are in a position of an excess of supply and a shortage of demand with a background of a global weak economy. Lets hope that the future will redress the balance. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizair Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 You can keep all of the people happy some of the time. You can keep some of the people happy all of the time. You cant keep all of the people happy all of the time. Alamy is a business. In order to prosper it must keep both its customers and suppliers as happy as market conditions and the economy allow. At the moment we are in a position of an excess of supply and a shortage of demand with a background of a global weak economy. Lets hope that the future will redress the balance. dov This is the most sensible and pragmatic post I have seen for the last two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve B Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I couldn't agree more with both Bizair and dov above.... I gave you both a green arrow each.. to get rid of the red ones that you had recieved...so I now duly expect my red mark..(just an idea, when giving a red mark maybe the giver should give their name and the reason tor giving the said red mark) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I couldn't agree more with both Bizair and dov above.... I gave you both a green arrow each.. to get rid of the red ones that you had recieved...so I now duly expect my red mark..(just an idea, when giving a red mark maybe the giver should give their name and the reason tor giving the said red mark) Careful Steve, discussing the red arrows and the cowards who dish them out really is a case of "don't mention the war" :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I used to be happy but I am not any longer. I want my agent (alamy) to stop giving my work away for peanuts. I want to be able to set a minimum selling price for editorial print sales of $50. I would like to do this with other agencies as well, and until photographers are given this option then we will all gradually go out of business. There may be plenty of images that are available for less than 50$ but I should have the right to set a minimum selling price for my own work. If you sell things on Pond5 you can set your own prices.. some people sell complex videos for almost nothing but I price my few videos on Pond5 for $120 -$200 and I do sell them. Setting minimum prices gives the purchaser the option of choosing your image or a cheaper shot/video. That is fine by me. I have been selling stock for over 25 years. I just noticed this one: D0862A. Have a look at the Description. (Just entered minimum price in the search box.) Would that work? Could that agency have set a real minimum? wim Setting, or at least stating, a minimum price for one's work. What is the world coming to, and will it catch on? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I couldn't agree more with both Bizair and dov above.... I gave you both a green arrow each.. to get rid of the red ones that you had recieved...so I now duly expect my red mark..(just an idea, when giving a red mark maybe the giver should give their name and the reason tor giving the said red mark) If Alamy want the forum to be open and transparent as stated on the other thread, maybe we should be able to see who gives a red arrow? I've dished out a few greens to counteract the reds to you, Bizair, Dov & DD as there was nothing in your posts that could be construed as deserving red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addict Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Oh, just ducky ! I'm very happy ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I couldn't agree more with both Bizair and dov above.... I gave you both a green arrow each.. to get rid of the red ones that you had recieved...so I now duly expect my red mark..(just an idea, when giving a red mark maybe the giver should give their name and the reason tor giving the said red mark) If Alamy want the forum to be open and transparent as stated on the other thread, maybe we should be able to see who gives a red arrow? I've dished out a few greens to counteract the reds to you, Bizair, Dov & DD as there was nothing in your posts that could be construed as deserving red. I'm not crazy about the red arrow system either but I just put a green arrow on any posts that I think have been unfairly given a red one. Perhaps it makes a difference. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Alamy isn't an agency. It's an image library. So they are not an agent and do not have an agency relationship with or fiduciary responsibility to contributors. Moaning about low prices isn't going to change this. Furthermore..... This from Alamy yesterday; "We've got a client working on a project where they specifically need images taken with either a Nikon D600 or D800. If you have images online with us taken with this camera then let us know here and we will point our client at your work. There are no guarantees of sale but your images will be looked at and considered." They are pointing out specific images to a client, this is the work of an 'agent' and 'agency' not a mere 'image libary'. Alamy also use their staff to help clients in picture/image research. Regards Richard Richard Symantics. A true agent has a fiduciary responsibility to its clients (that would be us). This means they put the clients' economic well being ahead of their own. They do not. So they really aren't an agent no matter how the agreement states it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 We couldn't possibly know if everyone is happy unless a poll of all of Alamy's contributors is undertaken. And unless anyone has asked 'most' contributors they couldn't possibly know for sure what those people are thinking either. It is entirely plausible that many have lost interest or become so disillusioned that they have given up. But it is also plausible that there are many contributors doing very well and are too busy shooting, editing, uploading and keywording their images to join our hypothetical discussion. As far as Alamy's responsibility to its clients is concerned I think I wouldn't be stretching reality to suggest that any such responsibility would come second to its primary duty of making a profit so it can pay its bills. To end this post I would like to quote Robin Williams' version of the saying mentioned earlier.. "you can please some of the people some of the time and ***k the rest off!" I think he was actually referring to politicians, but whatever works :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensplace Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Never had a sale yet, but Im happy enough with alamy so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Chriss Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I am happy but then I am no longer reliant upon photography as my main source of income. Regarding prices, it started going south with the advent of the digital camera. There are now so many images of everything, that prices were bound to tumble. This was the main reason why I took early retirement from my studio. I was very fortunate that I was able to cash in my pension and stopped worrying about the lack of commissions. Apart from the very early years of my career, I have never been happier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManWay Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Alamy isn't an agency. It's an image library. So they are not an agent and do not have an agency relationship with or fiduciary responsibility to contributors. Moaning about low prices isn't going to change this. Furthermore..... This from Alamy yesterday; "We've got a client working on a project where they specifically need images taken with either a Nikon D600 or D800. If you have images online with us taken with this camera then let us know here and we will point our client at your work. There are no guarantees of sale but your images will be looked at and considered." They are pointing out specific images to a client, this is the work of an 'agent' and 'agency' not a mere 'image libary'. Alamy also use their staff to help clients in picture/image research. Regards Richard Richard Symantics. A true agent has a fiduciary responsibility to its clients (that would be us). This means they put the clients' economic well being ahead of their own. They do not. So they really aren't an agent no matter how the agreement states it. fiduciary |fəˈdoō sh ēˌerē; - sh ərē|adjective Law involving trust, esp. with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary : the company has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. They do have a fiduciary responsibility - this is how we trust them to give us our share of the money made on a licenced image we also have to trust them to give us our share of what they say has been paid for said licence. Symantics maybe but Alamy are acting as our agents in law - we have a contract with them to that effect - see Alamy terms etc.. Regards Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.