MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy comes through  (Read 2208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KB

« on: March 18, 2013, 18:32 »
0
I had a first-time sale at Alamy last month, and searched to see if I could find the in-use. To my surprise I did find one -- but it was in an article dated May 18, 2011. It was in a different country than the sale I just got, so I knew that this one was not it.

A few days earlier I had written to Alamy about an in-use I found that was stolen from a legitimate buyer's website, and was disappointed to learn they do not pursue such "third-party" thefts. So I wasn't sure what to expect with this one, which could have only been gotten from Alamy's site.

But the response was a positive one, saying it was an unreported distributor sale. It has now appeared in my sales list, though it's dated this month instead of almost 2 years ago, so I get less commission than I really should. However, since it's a $6 gross sale, it doesn't really matter either way. I'm just glad they had to pay something, so it wasn't another stolen in-use.

Though come to think of it, the start & end period is one month long (already expired, but the photo's still there), when it should really be years long. Doesn't that affect the actual price of the sale (this is RM, obviously)? Eh, I give up. Time to move on ....


« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2013, 20:27 »
0
I had a first-time sale at Alamy last month, and searched to see if I could find the in-use. To my surprise I did find one -- but it was in an article dated May 18, 2011. It was in a different country than the sale I just got, so I knew that this one was not it.

A few days earlier I had written to Alamy about an in-use I found that was stolen from a legitimate buyer's website, and was disappointed to learn they do not pursue such "third-party" thefts. So I wasn't sure what to expect with this one, which could have only been gotten from Alamy's site.

But the response was a positive one, saying it was an unreported distributor sale. It has now appeared in my sales list, though it's dated this month instead of almost 2 years ago, so I get less commission than I really should. However, since it's a $6 gross sale, it doesn't really matter either way. I'm just glad they had to pay something, so it wasn't another stolen in-use.

Though come to think of it, the start & end period is one month long (already expired, but the photo's still there), when it should really be years long. Doesn't that affect the actual price of the sale (this is RM, obviously)? Eh, I give up. Time to move on ....

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I wonder how many UNREPORTED sales they enjoy?

KB

« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2013, 22:29 »
0
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I wonder how many UNREPORTED sales they enjoy?
Based on everything I've experienced and read concerning Alamy, I prefer to believe that the sale was indeed unreported to them (in which case, they wouldn't enjoy any of them).  Though I don't understand what kind of system they have in which a distributor can make a sale and deliver the file without Alamy being notified.  ???

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2013, 04:09 »
0
They have a 'try before you buy' scheme for their 'best' customers, but with one UK newspaper in particular being notorious for late paying and images being 'found' unreported after over a year, they must have them over a 'volume' barrel.
It doesn't seem to matter if the discovered 'in use' was six months, nine months or over a year, the answer you get when querying it is that the customer concerned has an arrangement with us, and they were due to be invoiced 'next month'.

« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2013, 07:44 »
0
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I wonder how many UNREPORTED sales they enjoy?
Based on everything I've experienced and read concerning Alamy, I prefer to believe that the sale was indeed unreported to them (in which case, they wouldn't enjoy any of them).  Though I don't understand what kind of system they have in which a distributor can make a sale and deliver the file without Alamy being notified.  ???

Yea.  My point was that you had to discover your image in use to make the claim.  How many contributors actually ever stumble upon their image as you did? I'd say very few.  As for Alamy not enjoying the benefit, good point. But in the end the contributor doesn't enjoy squat regardless of whether it's Alamy or the distributor who didn't report.  And just think if it were an unreported $300 sale? 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4046 Views
Last post November 27, 2007, 09:50
by RT
10 Replies
9349 Views
Last post February 16, 2010, 08:30
by Stu49
1 Replies
2744 Views
Last post April 23, 2010, 16:54
by Albert Martin
54 Replies
28177 Views
Last post July 10, 2012, 15:16
by Freedom
1 Replies
654 Views
Last post February 27, 2019, 13:32
by serhii435

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results