MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Found my pic in a major publication but I wasn't paid, maybe after 3 months  (Read 5266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« on: April 27, 2017, 15:58 »
0
I had an interesting occurrence recently. I found one of my pics on the Guardian newspaper, which is a major publication in the UK. It's always nice to see but the joy washed over quickly when I saw that  I wasn't paid for it. Naturally, I got in contact with Alamy and soon after received this response:

"Thanks for sending this over, we have looked and do have a relevant download for this usage. Some of our editorial customers report usages to us over a period of time. If you dont see the sale appear in your account within 3 months of the usage date (by 24/07/2017) then please let us know so we can chase this up for you."

Has this happened to anybody else and in the end did you get paid or will I need to keep chasing? I'm starting to google reverse image many of my RM to see where they've been licensed and how both out of curiosity and to get paid but it's really time consuming.


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2017, 16:04 »
+3
I get payments eventually from the Grauniad (low value, presumably they're in the UK Newspapers Scheme).
If Alamy say three months and you haven't heard by the end of the calendar month three months after you got the email, contact them again. For example, if you heard from them this month, put a note in your diary for 1st August, but be sure to score it out if/when you get a payment.

The paper which was notorious for not paying was the Daily Mail (with ThisIsMoney and The Metro). Don't get me started. Waiting now for 16 months and counting since I first contacted Alamy. They had distinctly said on the email which confirmed that I had a number of unpaid-for uses (all unreported re-uses of RM images) not to contact them again, as they were in the system.

After a year, I contacted them again - enough is enough. They said there had been some sort of technical screwup their end and my case was back in the system, and that was four months ago.

Since then, the Muddle has moved to buying from SS, so even less money for suppliers and free re-uses. I suspect Alamy is not going to proceed with this. I could take it to the Small Claims Court, but for that I'd need the co-operation of Alamy to point out which specific uses were paid for and which weren't reported/paid for.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 18:33 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2017, 18:03 »
+2
Yes, I have had this and long time between use and payment is part of the deal with Alamy. I currently have something that's outstanding (not with the Guardian as far as I know) since April 6 2016. I have contacted Alamy and they say it's a large customer who has made only partial payment on their invoice (which includes multiple images). They don't pay me until they've been paid in full.

I think the system really s*cks, but I'm not mad enough to leave Alamy over it. Whenever anyone wants to know why Alamy can charge higher prices than the micros, I think of this situation...

« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2017, 22:56 »
0
Yep had this as well, also in the Guardian and some other big publications. Alamy sells like more traditional stock agencies, this means often payment terms (for the customer) of up to 90 days. Got used to it and as far as i know they always paid out.

« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2017, 23:38 »
+1
This "Some of our editorial customers report usages to us over a period of time" sounds like the company has already got your image and they only pay for it if they use it or am I reading this wrong.

« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2017, 00:48 »
0
I had an interesting occurrence recently. I found one of my pics on the Guardian newspaper, which is a major publication in the UK. It's always nice to see but the joy washed over quickly when I saw that  I wasn't paid for it. Naturally, I got in contact with Alamy and soon after received this response:

"Thanks for sending this over, we have looked and do have a relevant download for this usage. Some of our editorial customers report usages to us over a period of time. If you dont see the sale appear in your account within 3 months of the usage date (by 24/07/2017) then please let us know so we can chase this up for you."

Has this happened to anybody else and in the end did you get paid or will I need to keep chasing? I'm starting to google reverse image many of my RM to see where they've been licensed and how both out of curiosity and to get paid but it's really time consuming.
Its not uncommon for alamy sales/payments to take a long time to come through

« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2017, 07:50 »
+2
This "Some of our editorial customers report usages to us over a period of time" sounds like the company has already got your image and they only pay for it if they use it or am I reading this wrong.

That's correct; and they don't always pay right away after they report the use (if they're a large enough customer they're given a lot of leeway)

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2017, 09:57 »
0
Ok, cool. I'm not too worried just not used to this business practice as i started out in Micro and only now transitioning more into Midstock.

I hope it will be a nice fat payout and they publish it on their print side. Makes me wonder how many other pics have been licensed and I haven't been paid, considering I'm getting a lot of "zooms" lately...

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2017, 10:20 »
+2
Ok, cool. I'm not too worried just not used to this business practice as i started out in Micro and only now transitioning more into Midstock.

I hope it will be a nice fat payout and they publish it on their print side. Makes me wonder how many other pics have been licensed and I haven't been paid, considering I'm getting a lot of "zooms" lately...

Did you read what I wrote above? It is almost certain to be a low payment (under $10 gross) as they are in the UKNS.
Don't put too much faith in zooms. Many of us see only limited connection between zooms and sales.

« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2017, 01:08 »
+1
Ok, cool. I'm not too worried just not used to this business practice as i started out in Micro and only now transitioning more into Midstock.

I hope it will be a nice fat payout and they publish it on their print side. Makes me wonder how many other pics have been licensed and I haven't been paid, considering I'm getting a lot of "zooms" lately...

Did you read what I wrote above? It is almost certain to be a low payment (under $10 gross) as they are in the UKNS.
Don't put too much faith in zooms. Many of us see only limited connection between zooms and sales.
I reckon I've had nearly as many sales that apparently never zoomed as those that have been.

« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2017, 13:31 »
0
Ok, cool. I'm not too worried just not used to this business practice as i started out in Micro and only now transitioning more into Midstock.

I hope it will be a nice fat payout and they publish it on their print side. Makes me wonder how many other pics have been licensed and I haven't been paid, considering I'm getting a lot of "zooms" lately...

I got 7,67$ (gross) for image on the top of the article.

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/apr/02/ljubljana-slovenia-guide-hotels-bars-restaurants-city-break



« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 13:37 by Dumc »

« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2017, 13:36 »
0
.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 13:38 by Dumc »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2017, 03:30 »
0
Quote
I got 7,67$ (gross) for image on the top of the article.

Ugh so little. I shouldn't expect much more...here's mine at the top:

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/apr/24/10-top-tips-from-our-rio-de-janeiro-correspondent

« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2017, 04:52 »
+1
Yep, so little. Btw, very nice photo.

« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2017, 05:09 »
+1
Yep, so little. Btw, very nice photo.
Yep very good image

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2017, 01:55 »
0
Quote
Yep, so little. Btw, very nice photo.
Yep very good image

Thanks :) Rio is a beautiful place!

« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2017, 13:55 »
0
This "Some of our editorial customers report usages to us over a period of time" sounds like the company has already got your image and they only pay for it if they use it or am I reading this wrong.

That's correct; and they don't always pay right away after they report the use (if they're a large enough customer they're given a lot of leeway)

I'd imagine for a very large customer it's a complicated invoicing system, when they finish paying that month's invoice or whatever they send payment to the artist ... That would be my guess anyway. Red numbers don't look good on quarterly statements.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2017, 12:56 »
+2
Finally got paid for it and were two RM licenses for $20 and $7 respectively.

« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2017, 15:49 »
+3
well the most sad thing is that the copy is just !"alamy" not even your name...considering is rm and alamy i expected at least this.

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2017, 16:18 »
0
well the most sad thing is that the copy is just !"alamy" not even your name...considering is rm and alamy i expected at least this.
Alamy don't require it, but even when images are sold by agencies which do require it, it doesn't always happen.
In fact, I had two of my pics from Alamy in a magazine article, together with another which they licensed directly from Flickr (not on any agency). The Flickr one had my name on it, the others just said Alamy. That's pretty usual.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 12:19 by ShadySue »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2017, 15:00 »
0
Quote
well the most sad thing is that the copy is just !"alamy" not even your name...considering is rm and alamy i expected at least this.

Not bothered to be honest. Just happy it was more than $5 but still it's low...hopefully there will be repeat licenses after this one expires.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2017, 08:15 »
0
I found another pic of mine today used by the Times (of London) by coincidence on a tweet.

I emailed Alamy and they confirmed the image was mine. They've further clarified how payment for usage works and their procedure with clients. Instead of summarising I've pasted straight up quotes from their customer relations team (they've given me their consent to publish):

Quote
1. Some customers have the ability to download images before committing to a license but a download doesn't necessarily mean the image has been used so we wouldn't be able to give you a breakdown of pending sales.

2. We keep a log of all images downloaded and send reports to all of these customers, the customers will then confirm whether they have used the image or not.

3. All customers will have different reporting terms, from customers who will simply purchase a license online and pay for it then and there to customers who will download a few images to try them in a layout for example and then only license the one they end up using.

I have a few issues with the above. Firstly, a client may download an image to "try them in a layout" and then keep it for internal usage, thus being sneaky not to pay for its usage.

Secondly, I have nothing against a client using an image and paying only after 3 months, I just hope and trust that Alamy will crack down on clients who misreport their usages. This may be easier for RM licenses. I have a bunch of pending payments from Alamy and I think it's a good idea to stay on top of it.

Thirdly, I would like to see a better reporting system from Alamy of images which have been licensed (not just tried out for formatting) and are pending payment. I'm not a coder but I think it's something that can be done instead of relying on the good faith of clients.

Any thoughts?   

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2017, 08:33 »
+1
Secondly, I have nothing against a client using an image and paying only after 3 months, I just hope and trust that Alamy will crack down on clients who misreport their usages. This may be easier for RM licenses.

That's what I hoped, but sadly, not so.
You have to do all the work yourself, finding and recording (screenshots etc) all instances on their form, which can take ages.
You then get a confirmation email to say that these were, indeed, unreported usages and they will be chased up. They also say clearly that you have not to contact them again as they are in the system.
I had several unreported repeat uses (as well as several reported repeat uses, yaaaay for RM!) from one user, formerly a heavy Alamy user, now a SS buyer   :(. Still, a large UK publishing/media company and Alamy obviously know the address of their billing department. Notified in early Jan 2016 (sic). They confirmed the number of unreported uses I had sent.
After a year, I contacted them again. Got a pleasant apology saying my file had been 'dropped from the system in a reshuffle' and they would check it 'soon'. Seven months later, and with a few unrelated unreported uses in their system since then, and nothing. They must ge usiong the iS/Getty definition of 'soon'.
Since they have lost the client, I don't see why they couldn't charge them the actual rate on the file page for the unreported uses, as they defaulted on their heavily discounted prices.

Quote
I would like to see a better reporting system from Alamy of images which have been licensed (not just tried out for formatting) and are pending payment. I'm not a coder but I think it's something that can be done instead of relying on the good faith of clients.
It's possibly not a coding issue. The 'good faith of clients' thing was introduced at some point after I started there.

I'm also very suspicious of several 'personal use' sales - not the sort of pics (most) people would put up on their walls (secondary editorial) - and most of them haven't been paid for.

dpimborough

« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2017, 10:49 »
0
Found one from 2016 that was never reported until I found it and threw it back at Alamy.

Still waiting to see that sale.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2017, 07:08 »
0
Since many pics licensed via Alamy don't show the photographer in the caption, there's a forum thread that displays recent licenses along with the contributor's name:

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/7824-have-you-found-any-alamy-images-july-2017/&page=8

This may help those contributors who are waiting for payouts (like myself)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3957 Views
Last post October 25, 2006, 14:17
by asian
14 Replies
3838 Views
Last post July 24, 2008, 10:16
by Roadrunner
Major sites going down

Started by velocicarpo « 1 2  All » General Stock Discussion

32 Replies
5254 Views
Last post September 14, 2012, 13:01
by rubyroo
4 Replies
2464 Views
Last post May 19, 2014, 16:50
by Batman
21 Replies
3863 Views
Last post May 14, 2015, 12:12
by ArenaCreative

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results