MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: pixel8 on March 14, 2016, 14:46
-
Every now and then Alamy refunds the money made on a sale from my portfolio back to the purchaser. Typically it will be for a high price sale. So that means they are purchasing the larger file size getting the down load and then asking for a refund. Whats to prevent them from then using the photo and having paid nothing?
-
I've had a couple of these in the last few months. I assume they found my work cheaper on one of the micro sites and bought a license.
-
I had a 250$ sale refunded this month the same day it was sold. Shame as those price sales are rare for me.
-
Search for refunds on the Alamy forum here (I can't seem to make a link to that search, sorry).
There can be lots of reasons for refunds, there can be resales for lower prices (possibly the buyer licenses a lot of files then negotiates a discount) or even occasionally resales for higher prices (I think I had one once).
-
I had one where Alamy simply couldn't get paid after, I think it was 18 months, but it shows on my account as a refund.
-
I had one last year - after a month or 2 they got a refund on a $250 sale and the same image was bought that day for $195 - I presume it was the same buyer and they got some sort of discount and made it retro-active. It still beats .38 by a wide margin but is pretty frustrating. I also have some long standing unpaid sales that Alamy said they will probably never recover.
-
I had one last year - after a month or 2 they got a refund on a $250 sale and the same image was bought that day for $195 - I presume it was the same buyer and they got some sort of discount and made it retro-active. It still beats .38 by a wide margin but is pretty frustrating. I also have some long standing unpaid sales that Alamy said they will probably never recover.
So if the buyer never pays for the downloaded image doesn't Alamy compensate it to the contributor at some point?
-
I had one last year - after a month or 2 they got a refund on a $250 sale and the same image was bought that day for $195 - I presume it was the same buyer and they got some sort of discount and made it retro-active. It still beats .38 by a wide margin but is pretty frustrating. I also have some long standing unpaid sales that Alamy said they will probably never recover.
So if the buyer never pays for the downloaded image doesn't Alamy compensate it to the contributor at some point?
No.
-
I had one last year - after a month or 2 they got a refund on a $250 sale and the same image was bought that day for $195 - I presume it was the same buyer and they got some sort of discount and made it retro-active. It still beats .38 by a wide margin but is pretty frustrating. I also have some long standing unpaid sales that Alamy said they will probably never recover.
So if the buyer never pays for the downloaded image doesn't Alamy compensate it to the contributor at some point?
Question is why this refund/non pay buyer behavior is possible at Alamy.
I dont have this problem in this volume on other agencies.
-
The possibility of getting a sale refunded at Alamy in favour of a low priced sale of the same image at a micro site suggests it is probably wise not to have the same images on both Alamy and micros....
Sometimes refunds work the other way - I have had sales refunded and soon afterwards resold for a higher price, clearly after the customer has had a discussion with Alamy sales departement and adjusted the RM liicence to reflect a slightly different usage than the original sale.
One other reason why Alamy sales may be refunded after many months is simply that the image was not used in the final version of the publication. Publications like textbooks may have a long gestation period and may be subject to many changes in that time before final approval is given by the client. Pictures which have appeared in draft versions, but not in the final publication will often be refunded. Alamy, at it heart, is a traditional picture agency, and understands that in the long term they will do better business if they bend their sales practice to the practical needs of the clients and will offer refunds for an image which was never actually used.
To answer the OP's original point, there is nothing to physically stop a customer getting a refund and then using the image anyway, no more or less at Alamy than any micro agency, except of course that such a usage would be unethical and illegal. However, I would suggest that with Alamy, because the community is well-populated with hardened professional togs with many decades of experience, such illegal use is more likely to be spotted, highlighted and pursued with legal vigour. I'm sure illegal use is sometimes made of images sold through Alamy, but in my opinion such miscreants are chancing their arm in doing so.
-
I had a 250$ sale refunded this month the same day it was sold. Shame as those price sales are rare for me.
Same here
-
New wave of refunds! Never ever i can believe that refunded image will not be used by a client. Downloads should be in the list of "no return" products.
-
New wave of refunds! Never ever i can believe that refunded image will not be used by a client. Downloads should be in the list of "no return" products.
There can be genuine returns if a client rejects an image or the quality is not as expected. I've also seen accidental double downloads where one gets refunded, or a photo sold on one set of license conditions, then relicensed on slightly different terms and the first sale cancelled.
-
New wave of refunds! Never ever i can believe that refunded image will not be used by a client. Downloads should be in the list of "no return" products.
There can be genuine returns if a client rejects an image or the quality is not as expected. I've also seen accidental double downloads where one gets refunded, or a photo sold on one set of license conditions, then relicensed on slightly different terms and the first sale cancelled.
My last sale of April was also refunded only to be bought at a cheaper price moments after.
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Wouldn't that be blatantly illegal - which would be very stupid of them because somewhere along the way a "renter" would also be a contributor. And remember, Alamy's profits fund cancer research, it's not run by some Wall Street shyster who's trying to rip everyone off for personal gain.
-
I get refunds often from Depositphotos which is rubbish considering how cheap the sales are.
Also get them from 123rf
Haven't had any recently from Alamy
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Wouldn't that be blatantly illegal - which would be very stupid of them because somewhere along the way a "renter" would also be a contributor. And remember, Alamy's profits fund cancer research, it's not run by some Wall Street shyster who's trying to rip everyone off for personal gain.
No doubt the TOS would allow this, because it's not a 'sale'. I don't necessarily think Alamy set out to cheat us by turning 'sales' into 'rentals' - maybe it's something they just sort of slid into by going overboard to please customers. And over time, they found out it was a source of revenue, so they loosened things up even more.
I don't know the details, I'm just guessing that the customer pays Alamy something for these 'returned' images, and if so, we obviously don't get a cut.
-
How many refunds have you had which aren't repurchased, even after some time or for a different value, clearly by the same buyer? Compared to sales?
-
How many refunds have you had which aren't repurchased, even after some time or for a different value, clearly by the same buyer? Compared to sales?
Not sure if I understand the specific question, but my only Alamy refunds have been purchased at Alamy, same terms, immediately after the refund. (at a lower price) I've never had one refunded and not re-purchased. I don't know if they renegotiated the use or what.
-
How many refunds have you had which aren't repurchased, even after some time or for a different value, clearly by the same buyer? Compared to sales?
Not sure if I understand the specific question, but my only Alamy refunds have been purchased at Alamy, same terms, immediately after the refund. (at a lower price) I've never had one refunded and not re-purchased. I don't know if they renegotiated the use or what.
I was specifically asking stockastic, as s/he seems to have had enough bad experiences with refunds to warrant positing an alternative theory to the explanation regularly given by Alamy on their forum.
Like I said in the other thread, I've had one refund which wasn't rebought, several rebought at higher (?!) or lower (price negotiation due to bulk purchases, applied in retrospect?) and one instance where I had two sales of the same file on the same day to the same buyer, one for a cover one for a small inside use refunded, then rebought as a larger image inside only, for an intermediate price. Two uses of the same file often garner a discount, and presumably this was an editorial change of direction.
The really curious ones are where they are refunded and rebought for the same, or near same (currency fluctuation) price, sometimes on the same day. Sometimes, these have a subtly different usage appended, but sometimes the use is the same. (RM)
Sometimes the resales are the same day or nearly as the refund, sometimes quite a while later, but the use is the same or so similar as to make it 'extremely likely' that it was the same buyer.
-
No doubt the TOS would allow this, because it's not a 'sale'. I don't necessarily think Alamy set out to cheat us by turning 'sales' into 'rentals' - maybe it's something they just sort of slid into by going overboard to please customers. And over time, they found out it was a source of revenue, so they loosened things up even more.
I don't know the details, I'm just guessing that the customer pays Alamy something for these 'returned' images, and if so, we obviously don't get a cut.
So you don't actually have a single shred of evidence that any such thing is happening, outside of what goes on in your vivid imagination?
I notice that you ignored my point about the risk that news of such a scheme would be bound to leak out eventually.
-
No doubt the TOS would allow this, because it's not a 'sale'. I don't necessarily think Alamy set out to cheat us by turning 'sales' into 'rentals' - maybe it's something they just sort of slid into by going overboard to please customers. And over time, they found out it was a source of revenue, so they loosened things up even more.
I don't know the details, I'm just guessing that the customer pays Alamy something for these 'returned' images, and if so, we obviously don't get a cut.
So you don't actually have a single shred of evidence that any such thing is happening, outside of what goes on in your vivid imagination?
I notice that you ignored my point about the risk that news of such a scheme would be bound to leak out eventually.
Which part of "I'm just guessing" wasn't sufficiently clear?
-
No doubt the TOS would allow this, because it's not a 'sale'. I don't necessarily think Alamy set out to cheat us by turning 'sales' into 'rentals' - maybe it's something they just sort of slid into by going overboard to please customers. And over time, they found out it was a source of revenue, so they loosened things up even more.
I don't know the details, I'm just guessing that the customer pays Alamy something for these 'returned' images, and if so, we obviously don't get a cut.
So you don't actually have a single shred of evidence that any such thing is happening, outside of what goes on in your vivid imagination?
I notice that you ignored my point about the risk that news of such a scheme would be bound to leak out eventually.
Which part of "I'm just guessing" wasn't sufficiently clear?
I was just rephrasing it, wasn't I?
I'm sorry, but I'm just getting a bit tired of all the ridiculous conspiracy theories people keep manufacturing out of thin air. There are plenty of real examples of the micros abusing us without people confusing matters with imaginary ones.
A more credible theory about why you seem to be troubled more than others with numerous returns might be that your work has technical faults that clients won't put up with as they paid out a reasonable sum for an image. If someone pays $50 or $100 to Alamy they're likely to be less willing to swallow the loss than someone paying a micro $4 for a download or even getting an image for pennies on subscription.
-
A more credible theory about why you seem to be troubled more than others with numerous returns might be that your work has technical faults
A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns". I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.
I don't seem to be doing a good job of writing the posts you actually want to reply to. But I'm sure you're right about my lousy photography.
-
A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns". I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.
Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.
-
A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns". I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.
Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.
While refunds are annoying, sometimes they pop back a couple of days later at the same price, sometimes for a little more/less. It can be down to the wording of the agreement. If the licence grants a years use from X date but the date changes, they they will cancel, refund and then re-licence again for the same T&C's with the new date.
-
A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns". I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.
Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.
While refunds are annoying, sometimes they pop back a couple of days later at the same price, sometimes for a little more/less. It can be down to the wording of the agreement. If the licence grants a years use from X date but the date changes, they they will cancel, refund and then re-licence again for the same T&C's with the new date.
I've never had a Alamy refund that wasn't resold with a different license, the day after the refund.
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.
But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
-
A good theory, except I didn't say anything about "numerous returns". I think I've had maybe 2 over the years.
Good lord, has my reading comprehension gone to pot? I've had considerably more than that. I don't understand what leads you to your theory about them "renting" out images via refunds if you're not suffering from returns yourself.
While refunds are annoying, sometimes they pop back a couple of days later at the same price, sometimes for a little more/less. It can be down to the wording of the agreement. If the licence grants a years use from X date but the date changes, they they will cancel, refund and then re-licence again for the same T&C's with the new date.
I've never had a Alamy refund that wasn't resold with a different license, the day after the refund.
I've had a couple but nothing enough to lose sleep over.... mostly, they return with different license conditions.
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.
But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.
But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.
But isn't it better to have a way to make money from customers who want to use a picture for a short time, rather than the process of download-and-refund?
It's extra income for photographers, even if it is a small amount.
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.
But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.
But isn't it better to have a way to make money from customers who want to use a picture for a short time, rather than the process of download-and-refund?
Where is the evidence that download-use for a short time-refund is what's happening?
(That would be theft)
That was just a hypothesis pulled out of the air by someone who admits they've only had 2 refunds.
It's extra income for photographers, even if it is a small amount.
That's true, but I for one wouldn't be interested.
There are already small use/short term sales there to bulk buyers netting around $1, which is pathetic, but 50x what you're happy to accept.
There's more than one reason why prices are as low as they currently are.
-
I think what they're doing is basically "renting" images without paying royalties. The client uses the photo for internal purposes - design mockups, presentations, sales pitches for ad campaigns, or just to develop ideas - in exchange for a sort of "restocking fee" from which we get nothing.
Perhaps Alamy could learn a thing or two from iStock about micro-RM and paying contributors for when customers use pix for a short time.
But then, I suppose, people would whine about two cent downloads.
Obviously, because some of us don't agree with your view that 2c is better than 0c.
But isn't it better to have a way to make money from customers who want to use a picture for a short time, rather than the process of download-and-refund?
Where is the evidence that download-use for a short time-refund is what's happening?
(That would be theft)
That was just a hypothesis pulled out of the air by someone who admits they've only had 2 refunds.
It's extra income for photographers, even if it is a small amount.
That's true, but I for one wouldn't be interested.
There are already small use/short term sales there to bulk buyers netting around $1, which is pathetic, but 50x what you're happy to accept.
There's more than one reason why prices are as low as they currently are.
It was a hypothesis. But I was suggesting how it might be developed into a product.
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
-
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.
2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV
-
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.
2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV
You misunderstand.
Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.
It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.
See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp)
-
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.
2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV
You misunderstand.
Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.
It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.
See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp)
I don't misunderstand.
If you insist on imagining that applies to stock photos, that's up to you.
-
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.
2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV
You misunderstand.
Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.
It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.
See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp)
I don't misunderstand.
If you insist on imagining that applies to stock photos, that's up to you.
I think you do misunderstand.
Otherwise you wouldn't have written "If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional."
Secondly, why shouldn't price discrimination apply stock photos?
-
Of course you're not interested, because you are far too emotional and irrational and not thinking about maximising income.
1. If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional.
2. Income is vanity, profit is sanity; that much lube here costs more than 2c, and isn't tax-deductible.
YMMV
You misunderstand.
Renting pictures cheaply for a short time is an additional stream of income, not a price reduction.
It's a way of getting people to spend money who wouldn't have done so before.
See this explanation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp)
I don't misunderstand.
If you insist on imagining that applies to stock photos, that's up to you.
I think you do misunderstand.
Otherwise you wouldn't have written "If you imagine that reducing prices to 2c will increase your sales even by 50x, you're delusional."
Secondly, why shouldn't price discrimination apply stock photos?
1. It hasn't happened in the past. Just because iS / Alamy (the only two I have experience of) reduce prices doesn't mean individual suppliers are earning more. Perhaps the agencies make more in the short term. But (on iStock) I and many others are finding that rpd is well down, but also sales are well down, so a double whammy. No-one who reported said that opting in to 'novel use' at Alamy, which was exactly the sort of 'new buyer' you're talking about said they were getting more sales, and in fact, more and more people opted out of it.
2. Because the sort of buyer who might only want 'the odd image' for 2c would make a loss for an agency.
2b And would certainly render monitoring adherence to licence conditions uneconomic, so they would soon be misused.
2c Even if it were true that you'd sell so many more (it would need to be more than 50x, more like 1250x, since the average sale price on Alamy is said to be c$25 net (incuding Live News, the higher priced newspaper sales offering), there would be so many more instances of images in the wild to be stolen (I'd far rather sell one image for $10 than 10 images at $1 for that reason and others), and what sort of joke would it be claiming your images have value and couldn't be stolen, when you'd be happy to accept 2c for them.
3. Once a low price is introduced, all buyers want, and seem to get, onto it. When Thinkstock started, iStock claimed the low price was 'for new buyers' - but very soon a lot of their big buyers migrated over there. Alamy has a newish 'personal use' option, but many reports, including my own, show files are being bought which are extremely unlikely to be used for any of the 'personal use' licence points.
However, go ahead - open up your own agency selling for 2c and you can laugh at me next year.
I'm out of this conversation, it's just going round in circles.
-
I'm out of this conversation, it's just going round in circles.
Blimey. You gave up. Gave in. Caved. Folded. Threw in the towel.
I suppose that capitulation means I won the argument.
Victory is mine!
Wooohahahahhhaahahh!
-
I'm out of this conversation, it's just going round in circles.
Blimey. You gave up. Gave in. Caved. Folded. Threw in the towel.
I suppose that capitulation means I won the argument.
Victory is mine!
Wooohahahahhhaahahh!
No it just means you are childish