Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 out of 348

 

All three look legit to me. One is two ladies from an obscure documentary on the red carpet at a Film Festival, little girls dressed in red white and blue in a 4th of July parade, and a teen girl dressed in Cosplay. All sound like proud moms would buy those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan, if it's any consolation, IME images that license for PU are not usually ones that you would think of offering as prints on say a POD site. They tend to be of fairly mundane subjects. My latest PU sale was an image of a gas (a.k.a. petrol) station sign, not exactly hang-over-the-fireplace stuff. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 of my 5 sales this month have been Personal Use licences. They are an increasing trend.

 

Lowest ever PU was for $5.63...gross.

 

Sometimes the PU sales can be traced back to specific search terms as seen in Alamy Measures. The sale can be tracked to the search term used. Which to me seems to imply that regular customers can also get PU too ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm splitting hair but I thought results were skewed as the PU scheme is relatively recent and I've been submitting to Alamy since 2002.

So if I redo my calculations based on sales since PU started,  my volume percentage is 9.17%. Much higher than I would like.

 

Gen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gvallee said:

Maybe I'm splitting hair but I thought results were skewed as the PU scheme is relatively recent and I've been submitting to Alamy since 2002.

So if I redo my calculations based on sales since PU started,  my volume percentage is 9.17%. Much higher than I would like.

 

Gen

 

I hoped that with the PU scheme being relatively new, especially with long term contributors, the sales percentage would be taken from the first PU sale not from total sales going way back before the scheme was introduced.

 

Or over the last year at least. like Reimar has just done. 

 

Most accurate would be from first PU sale to present.

 

Allan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I hoped that with the PU scheme being relatively new, especially with long term contributors, the sales percentage would be taken from the first PU sale not from total sales going way back before the scheme was introduced.

 

Or over the last year at least. like Reimar has just done. 

 

Most accurate would be from first PU sale to present.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Exactly. My new 9.17% is calculated from the month of my first PU sale, which was May 2016. That was me being dim.

 

Gen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only ever made 1 PU sale, so less than 1% and that was certainly not a PU use, however as it was used by a 1 man band business website I did not pursue the matter.  I must say if PU was approaching 10% of my sales I would definitely opt out of the scheme.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobD said:

I have only ever made 1 PU sale, so less than 1% and that was certainly not a PU use, however as it was used by a 1 man band business website I did not pursue the matter.  I must say if PU was approaching 10% of my sales I would definitely opt out of the scheme.  

You'd then be forgoing 10% of your business. Unless you're convinced of misuse, and I'm not (as I said I haven't found any myself) I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

You'd then be forgoing 10% of your business. Unless you're convinced of misuse, and I'm not (as I said I haven't found any myself) I don't get it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of very limited use PU sales. I think this does encourage sales whereas they would otherwise be stolen. In my case an image of a plate of sandwiches is a very suspicious PU sale and I was proved correct a month or so later when I found it on a small caterers website to promote their services. 

A lot depends on the type of images you have, some are obviously more suited to PU use than others, but I believe after a certain % level, it is more likely to be an indication of abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobD said:

 

 In my case an image of a plate of sandwiches is a very suspicious PU sale and I was proved correct a month or so later when I found it on a small caterers website to promote their services. 

 

 

If that happened to me I wouldn't hesitate to follow it up. Purchasing a licence for personal use and then blatantly using it for non-personal purposes is fraudulent. I can't see how anyone could wriggle out of that.

 

People can get away with it because they take a calculated risk that you won't think it worth pursuing.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobD said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of very limited use PU sales. I think this does encourage sales whereas they would otherwise be stolen. In my case an image of a plate of sandwiches is a very suspicious PU sale and I was proved correct a month or so later when I found it on a small caterers website to promote their services. 

A lot depends on the type of images you have, some are obviously more suited to PU use than others, but I believe after a certain % level, it is more likely to be an indication of abuse.

+1 on what Inch has said.

If it's a UK business you can threaten an infringer with small claims court through IPEC- google it, it's a simple process but I find most infringers pay up when they realise they've no defence. I certainly wouldn't be letting off a commercial infringement in the UK. Unless you've already contacted him and agreed not to proceed, let him have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

If that happened to me I wouldn't hesitate to follow it up. Purchasing a licence for personal use and then blatantly using it for non-personal purposes is fraudulent. I can't see how anyone could wriggle out of that.

 

People can get away with it because they take a calculated risk that you won't think it worth pursuing.

 

Alan

 

In principal I agree with you, however having built a business from scratch myself I know how difficult it can be and I could not make life harder for a small business, but that's my personal decision. I agree with Ian there should be an intermediate licence for a sloe trader / small partnership and certainly much stricter rules for PU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

These are the very people we want to encourage because their entrepreneurial spirit can help us all at Alamy. Let's not drive them off to get their images elsewhere.

 

 

I don't want to encourage entrepreneurs who will rip me off.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

 

I don't want to encourage entrepreneurs who will rip me off.

 

Alan

 

Right. I think that Alamy's regular licensing fees are already flexible enough for small businesses on tight budgets. PU should be strictly PU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, John Richmond said:

Less than 1% PU with me.  Presentation/Newsletter are about 2% of sales.  

 

Given my main interests I don't know whether to be pleased or disappointed :)

 

Exactly! I would have thought that given the bulk of your content, you would have been flooded with PU requests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

Most accurate would be from first PU sale to present.

 

Since first PU sale: 33% of sales, 3.5% of gross income.
Minor changes in the way "Need a print? Print your Alamy purchases with Art.com" is handled would probably make a significant difference in the gross income.
For instance, Alamy and the contributor could be commissioned on the entire Art.com purchase, regardless of print size, instead of telling the customers to buy a PU license and get whatever size print they want directly from Art.com. Since it would be a print that is purchased, the digital file would be sent to Art.com, not the customer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

It suggests to me that there is a need for some sort of 'small business user' licence. Perhaps the PU one seemed like the best fit for this small caterer?

 

'Non commercial use only, not for resale'  - perhaps they thought that this covered their website use offering their services. The small business use would be a better fit. But then the small business marketing package does not allow advertising:( So, I think that there is genuine room for confusion for newbie buyers.

 

Maybe there could be a suite of small business/entrepreneur licences including ones encouraging people, for example, to sell postcards/giftcards/calendars through printing ordered and delivered through Alamy ( and image not actually released). 

There is- "Marketing package, small business". Bobd's description sounds like that, rather than advertising per se. Advertising isn't the same thing as marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Because I have been down the Small Claims route twice and I do not think it appropriate over a 30 quid 'dispute'.

 

Far better to ask Alamy to have a friendly chat.

A wilful infringement is worth far more than that. The threat of it earned me more than Alamy one year. I haven't actually had to go to court yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Not sure how you can prove that to the satisfaction of a judge.

 

Very few cases end up in court. They are super keen on mediation and trying to reach amicable agreement. Of course only in my opinion that is why it is best to refer such issues to Alamy rather than make a mountain out of a molehill.  But I can tell you that actually going to court is no fun at all.

Well we'll have to agree to differ on that. I don't think protecting my livelihood is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 I agree with not going to court but there's usually no defence to infringement so who goes to court to quibble over the amount?

Anyway you're right about this sort of case- Alamy reserve the right to deal with it in the contract. I'm really speaking more generally. I've even had settlements on CC images where the only breach was the lack of a credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.