pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Alamy contributor: Do you submit your micro images to the RF collection at Alamy?

Yes
61 (74.4%)
No
21 (25.6%)

Total Members Voted: 73

Author Topic: Alamy contributors: Are you submitting micro images to Alamy?  (Read 29520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 01, 2011, 07:49 »
0
I really need some opinions - is it okay to submit micro images to Alamy ? Can it be justified by the different (and possibly wider) licensing terms ?

I've always restrained myself from joining because I wouldn't want to be that buyer who found the image on a micro site the next day. On the other hand, maybe some buyers are staying with Alamy because they like their service and licensing terms - well aware of all the micro alternatives out there. Maybe they're seeing some professionalism / extra security there that they won't find on the micros - I have no idea.
What do you think, do you have any qualms submitting micro images to Alamy as RF?

It's probably not going to change my opinion on this, but I guess if everyone else is doing it and it's not against the Alamy contributor agreement, I might consider jumping on the bandwagon.

I wanted to make a poll for better "measurement" of opinions, but don't know how to.

ETA: There it was.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:52 by ThomasAmby »


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2011, 08:07 »
0
I do not put the same images on both Alamy and micro.  I have tried some of the very same style and find that the market seems to be different.  What sells on micro is not so hot at Alamy.  I also have images on Alamy that certainly don't make sense at micro (unreleased travel and special events).

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2011, 08:35 »
0
I really need some opinions - is it okay to submit micro images to Alamy ? Can it be justified by the different (and possibly wider) licensing terms ?

Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.
AFAIK, it's 'legal' so send the same images to micro and Alamy, so long as you're not exclusive for your micro images (person or image).
As to whether it's moral, it's for you to decide: the same products are sold in different physical shops at vastly different price points; most shoppers know this and may choose accordingly or may choose for other factors than price. For example, Alamy allows some big buyers quite a long time (3+ months in some cases) to pay, so that might suit some accounting systems more than paying in advance. Some accounting systems, e.g. in my old job, wouldn't allow payment to be made before you had the physical product in your hands. Their argument would be, 'if the agency goes bust, what use is ten months unused subscription or 5000 unused credits?'
Though as I branch out, I must admit I'm looking to maximise my efforts by looking at different angles of the same subject (literally or figuratively) for iStock and for Alamy. At the moment, I haven't got a handle on what sells at Alamy. The sales I've had so far have been pretty 'random'.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 09:07 by ShadySue »

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2011, 08:52 »
0
I know this particular topic has been a never ending debate about the ethics of offering the same product at different prices on different sites. I've always taken the view that my images are sold at widely different prices on the various microstock sites, and there is nothing intrinsically "micro" about my images. I try to get the best quality and most original view that I can. As a result, I just upload all my images to Alamy. If I have model releases (or they don't need one), I mark them as "Royalty Free" in Alamy. If they don't have a release, but they need one, I mark it as "Rights Managed." I've sold images on Alamy that have ended up in a UK Photography magazine, and the same image is on Shutterstock, but I think I have given the buyer what they want - the image they were seeking on the stock site they chose to use.

Steve

« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2011, 09:04 »
0
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.

Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear
I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.

ShadySue

« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2011, 09:09 »
0
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.

Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear
I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.
But that's not what you'll get from your question. I voted no, as I'm currently iStock exclusive, but if I were independent, I might, IYSWIM.

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2011, 09:27 »
0
I agree with Steve. I submit everything to alamy RF. I know there is a moral debate about pricing, but I'm of the mind that people who are buying at alamy, aren't necessarily looking at the rest of micro and price shopping. I know if I buy something at one store and find it cheaper at another, I don't get mad at the store or vendor, I'm more annoyed at myself for not shopping better. Weak comparison, but it's early for me.

lagereek

« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2011, 09:34 »
0
Yeah well any morals in this game and you end up last in the dole que, piss poor.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2011, 09:38 »
0
I'm not sure it is about ethics or morals at all, as I think about this. Here is a photo that I sold on Alamy, and it is on all the other stock sites:


Pretty reasonable image of Washington Cathedral that can be used to illustrate an article about Washington DC. It sold for $32 on Alamy for low res web use for a 12 month period. The buyer obviously had something specific in mind and this image met his/her requirements. Perhaps they don't use many images and have always used Alamy. What is the ethical problem with me putting this image in the buyers hands through Alamy even though they could have bought it from Shutterstock for $5, say? I see no problem, at all, in uploading the same images to both sites.

Steve

« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2011, 09:44 »
0
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.

Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear
I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.
But that's not what you'll get from your question. I voted no, as I'm currently iStock exclusive, but if I were independent, I might, IYSWIM.

I'm sorry, but it should be pretty clear that the poll is meant only for people submitting to Alamy - hence "Alamy contributors:" in the poll & thread title. Exclusives like yourself are welcome to join the discussion, about whether or not you should or would, but voting as an IS exclusive will ruin the poll results.
But this is not the direction I want the thread to take. So far I've got some valuable and interesting views :)
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 09:48 by ThomasAmby »

« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2011, 10:16 »
0
I'm not sure it is about ethics or morals at all, as I think about this. Here is a photo that I sold on Alamy, and it is on all the other stock sites:


Pretty reasonable image of Washington Cathedral that can be used to illustrate an article about Washington DC. It sold for $32 on Alamy for low res web use for a 12 month period.
....
Steve


Great example. So did you offer it for sale at Alamy as RM but you offer it as RF on the Micros?

Sean mentioned before that it's possible to offer the same image as RF at one agency and as RM at another.

Maybe someone can elaborate if this example here qualifies.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2011, 10:31 »
0
At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2011, 10:32 »
0
I get some of my lowest payments from the novel use scheme at Alamy, so can't really see what the problem is, they aren't much more expensive than some of the micros for RF

« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2011, 10:51 »
0
At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

It states that your image was taken on 3rd October 2009. I don't know if you tampered with the EXIF or intentionally entered that date but ever since I started uploading at Alamy in 2005 I was able to select between RF and L and L exclusive. They didn't call it RM back then.

helix7

« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2011, 10:52 »
0
My images sell at the various microstock sites ranging in price from a few bucks to over $20. The difference from the low end to the high end can sometimes be a multiple of 3 or 4. In some cases the price difference from the high end of the microstock price range to the Alamy price range isn't much different in terms of the percentage increase.

I don't worry about Alamy buyers seeing images they bought there available for less elsewhere. The same thing could happen within the microstock sites, where someone buys a photo for $30 and then sees it for $5 somewhere else.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2011, 11:23 »
0
Quote
Quote from: steheap on Today at 10:31
At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

It states that your image was taken on 3rd October 2009. I don't know if you tampered with the EXIF or intentionally entered that date but ever since I started uploading at Alamy in 2005 I was able to select between RF and L and L exclusive. They didn't call it RM back then.

You are right - it was taken in 2009, and I did enter it as Licensed at that stage. My brain must be going, because I don't recall the RF option then, although I do remember lots of debates about the ethics of choosing Licensed on Alamy when it was RF elsewhere. My mistake.. sorry.

Steve

« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2011, 12:04 »
0
You are right - it was taken in 2009, and I did enter it as Licensed at that stage. My brain must be going, because I don't recall the RF option then, although I do remember lots of debates about the ethics of choosing Licensed on Alamy when it was RF elsewhere. My mistake.. sorry.

Steve

No biggie. I'm still curious though if this is "ok" to do, according to what Sean was saying in the past in another thread.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2011, 12:43 »
0
Yes, that was the big debate a year or two back. I recall that we reviewed the terms and conditions for Alamy, and the conclusion was that although the files were "Licensed" as opposed to being Royalty Free, there were no other implications with that term. So it wasn't a rights managed file where the history of the image could be tracked. It was also claimed at the time that Alamy were perfectly OK with this, although I don't recall how we knew that! Thinking back, I believe there was an expectation that you would get more money from a Licensed image on Alamy compared to an RF one, although I am not sure that this was shown to be correct.

Does anyone have any evidence of lower prices if the image is RF on Alamy compared to the old "L" category?

Steve

« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2011, 13:03 »
0
i don't, because what sells on Alamy is unpredictable to say the least.
never sold any pattern or still life or typical micro stuff there.
on the other side all my sales are about obscure and hard to find subjects and all RM.

« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2011, 13:13 »
0
Yes, that was the big debate a year or two back. I recall that we reviewed the terms and conditions for Alamy, and the conclusion was that although the files were "Licensed" as opposed to being Royalty Free, there were no other implications with that term. So it wasn't a rights managed file where the history of the image could be tracked. It was also claimed at the time that Alamy were perfectly OK with this, although I don't recall how we knew that! Thinking back, I believe there was an expectation that you would get more money from a Licensed image on Alamy compared to an RF one, although I am not sure that this was shown to be correct.

Does anyone have any evidence of lower prices if the image is RF on Alamy compared to the old "L" category?

Steve

My memory might be going but this is what I see in my sales overview at Alamy:

I started selling L (or RM) in 2007 and although it was sold as L (Licensed - non-exclusive) I always received the info that we still receive today for RM sales:

Country: Italy
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - Print only
Industry sector: Media Industry
Sub-Industry: Publishing
Print run: up to 50,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/8 page
Start: 28 March 2007
End: 04 April 2007

Also you cannot compare L with RF prices. As you could see in your sold  image it states all those facts which determine the final price. RF price is fixed but L depends on many factors. L could be cheaper than RF but L (or RM for that matter) could also earn you a lot more money (thousands of $ for one license).

The "old" L is now just called RM to match the industry standard. AFAIK there is no difference in licensing terms but I may be wrong on that one.

« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2011, 13:20 »
0
Yes, that was the big debate a year or two back. I recall that we reviewed the terms and conditions for Alamy, and the conclusion was that although the files were "Licensed" as opposed to being Royalty Free, there were no other implications with that term. So it wasn't a rights managed file where the history of the image could be tracked. It was also claimed at the time that Alamy were perfectly OK with this, although I don't recall how we knew that! Thinking back, I believe there was an expectation that you would get more money from a Licensed image on Alamy compared to an RF one, although I am not sure that this was shown to be correct.

Does anyone have any evidence of lower prices if the image is RF on Alamy compared to the old "L" category?

Steve

You aren't supposed to sell the same photo as RF and RM on alamy and I think that makes it a problem doing it on other sites.  I don't mix licenses, if it's sold RF elsewhere, I would only sell it as RF on alamy.

Actually, reading the terms and conditions, it really looks like selling using the RM license isn't allowed if you sell the same or very similar photo as RF elsewhere.
Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2011, 13:27 »
0
Quote
Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

I wonder if the second sentence is relatively new. I certainly recall the first one, but the second one is definitely a surprise. Good job I am now using the RF option when I upload images! ;D

Steve

« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2011, 13:28 »
0
All I have right now are micro images so that's all that Alamy got from me aside from one that I changed and am selling RM exclusive.  I would like to do more RM illustrations but I need to figure out what that would be.  And I've been so busy with other stuff lately I haven't had the chance to dive into that just yet.

I also, from my understanding, is that once it's RF somewhere else it has to be RF there.  There's no harm in putting your RF stuff on there it's just somewhat of a pain to upload there sometimes.

« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2011, 13:55 »
0
Quote
Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

I wonder if the second sentence is relatively new. I certainly recall the first one, but the second one is definitely a surprise. Good job I am now using the RF option when I upload images! ;D

Steve
It does look a bit different to when I last looked, probably over a year ago.  It was obvious to me then that they didn't want RF from other sites sold as RM but I know some people were doing it and perhaps they had complaints?  I think I might of quoted the old sentence somewhere way back but I'm not going to hunt for it now.

« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2011, 14:38 »
0
So, 18 says "yes", and 5 says "no". Very surprised by the poll results so far. I thought most people were against it as I've read many posts over time encouraging not to submit micro images to Alamy. Maybe these people have been more sound than others and I've just misunderstood the situation.
Think I'm going to start reading their agreement and consider selling my images there


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5410 Views
Last post May 01, 2008, 15:58
by ktkane
5 Replies
4624 Views
Last post May 24, 2008, 13:12
by PeterChigmaroff
37 Replies
16993 Views
Last post December 06, 2008, 20:48
by tubed
32 Replies
15253 Views
Last post April 03, 2011, 10:21
by stockastic
11 Replies
7494 Views
Last post July 29, 2011, 01:27
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results