Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers

Alamy have now given contributors a two week window in which to opt out if they'd previously opted in.

I've emailed them to find out if there are any plans to allow just psuedonym opting in, for me I have a number RF images on other macro sites that I'd like to opt out, but I have a few thousand I'd like opting in, because of the arrangement with other macros I'm going to have to opt out the lot.

I'll let you know if I get a reply.

I think you have it wrong. (sorry to disagree) I can't send you a contract and say, if you don't sign, it's enforced. I can't mail you a product and say, if you don't return it, you bought it. I can't say you have take a new service on your account, say a credit card, if you Do Not answer. Alamy can't say, here's a new option, if you don't answer, you are IN. 

Maaybe in the UK the laws are different, but it doesn't make sense that someone could change and agreement and if you do not respond, they have just picked your pocket.

You and I have to accept or reject the offer. They could have the option, if you don't respond, you are not included, they can not Opt us in, without permission.

Does that explain it better?

I'm still deciding and the only reason I didn't snap the NO button, is I want to give it time for the dust to settle and see how it looks.

You have to read into it a few pages to see that some types of images are not included in the program.


I agree, but I guess they already made their decision.

How about when you sign a master agreement (like a contributor agreement) that says somewhere in the dozens of pages of legal vomit that nobody bothers to read "you have X days to make a decision otherwise you are agreeing yo be automatically opted in"?

Sorry, am I missing something?  The title of this thread is "Alamy now offer a micro license".  Sounds like it is Alamy that is planning to sell the same images Macro and Micro. 

So yeah, I would like to sell micro on Alamy. 

No not really the use of these microstockpriced-licenses are extremely limited (i consider it a as non-commercial educational) normal sales are still about 50-100 times higher than microstock.
I like this move of Alamy but its not in any way comparable to the pricing scheme IS,SS,FT etc has. In my opinion it is still very wrong to have the same pictures at micro and as Alamy.

I don't have the same photos with alamy and the micros but they have done nothing to stop people doing this.  It is a way to make extra money from the same photos and I can see why people do it. 

The photoshelter collection has stopped it and I would like to see alamy do the same.  I just can't see how it is good for the sites credibility to have people selling the same images at a fraction of the price on the micros.

You signed up at the start to receive for review, the CD or book of the month and most also have a minimum number of purchases per year, before you can cancel, which people also signed when they got the 20 CDs for free... 

It's still not the same thing.


Only if the fine print says we reserve the right to change the rules, in the middle of the game and you have no rights. (in their boilerplate legalese of course)


You may be right, but I think that they are wrong and would lose if someone took the time to fight it. Could be that in the UK you can change the rules, mid-contract, but in the US, a person can't just be notified and be enrolled into something they never signed up for by default.

The way it should work is, if you do not respond you are opted out, until you respond. Think about that.

If Alamy sells one of my editorial photos as micro, for special use, I'm pulling every photo and closing my account. I think there are enough people who trusted them to uphold a contract and not suddenly devalue everything.

Keep in mind I'm only concerned with RM images and licensed editorial. With RF the whole debate is different.

Last of all, I completely agree and have continued to point out that offering the same photos for $50 and up (as an example) on one site and having the same photos across multiple Micro sites for a few dollars, lacks integrity and ethics.

Is making another 50c so darn important that people will sell their soul to the Devil?

This also leads me to ask, why is it so important that people be able to buy expensive images for low prices? Can't they find cheap images on one of the other "real" microstock sites. Alamy is devaluing every image they have by making it accessible for "special use" The whole concept stinks.

I just went and made sure I was opted out. That solves the problem for me. 
 

I would imagine this would be possible if Alamy had a Novel Use Only category however I don't think they do. I'm not a micro hater but you really are poisoning the well by cross placing the same or near similar image on micro and macro sites.

Those who want to contribute to both micro and macro should evaluate where each shoot should be placed after the shoot is complete. With some experimenting it doesn't take too long to get a feel for where a shoot is best placed.  Those wanting to place in macro need to learn patience. It is a much slower side of the market, however, as you all know, even small sales in macro easily beats the much coveted EL. 

Probably the most important thing Alamy is trying to keep is its customer base. Perhaps it will expand it as well but I doubt it.

I signed on and opted out of the program.

As for upsizing large batches of images, I would think a simple Droplet in PS would do it.

I agree on both counts.  I have seen a number of high level microstock contributors with virtually identical pictures on Alamy.   I agree that while this appears to be allowed it is not very ethical.   

Since I don't currently contribute to Alamy I took this thread at face value.  Now that Sharpshot, Sjlocke, and Zeus, have all been nice enough to explain the limitations of the "micro" license on Alamy, it doesn't sound like they are actually selling microstock at all.  Just some special low-priced educational license.

One has to wonder if this is just their way of dipping their toes in the microstock pool.  If they do decide down the road to open a microstock division, then I don't see how it would be unethical to contribute microstock pictures to it, but despite the title of this thread, it appears that is not happening at the moment. 

If you feel you are protected by this, that nobody will buy it in fact for a non-allowed commercial purpose, you are right.  

I, however, don't want to risk this.

Regards,
Adelaide

In this case, very little. First, any image with restrictions won't be available in the scheme. Second, it sounds like most contributors will not opt-in to the scheme. Third, the licenses offered are so restrictive that very few microstock buyers will find them suitable.

Alamy would need to launch a very different scheme to this to be a threat. I don't think any microstock agency is at all concerned by Alamy's announcement.