pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: selling images through alamy  (Read 6978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 02, 2013, 23:18 »
0
hello, i want to ask everyone here, do u have any experience selling images through alamy?
i want to start selling my microstock images there, but im confused, is that alamy macrostock or microstock sites?
can i upload my microstock images there?

Thank you


« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 03:00 »
0
If you sell images on Alamy that are also on microstock, make sure to make them RF, not RM, since, briefly, Alamy prohibits selling image with one type of license there and another type elsewhere.

Also, a photo with unreleased people (and/or unreleased property that requires release when used in non-editorial way) is automatically *RM at Alamy, so you can't upload them there if you have them on microstock, where they're *RF editorial.

Though I wouldn't sell the same image on Alamy and microstock, (not a real option, anyway, with largely editorial port), there are people who do, especially, as I understand it, if they first have lots of images on micro and then become aware of/ interested in Alamy.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2013, 07:07 »
0
Also, a photo with unreleased people (and/or unreleased property that requires release when used in non-editorial way) is automatically *RM at Alamy, so you can't upload them there if you have them on microstock, where they're *RF editorial.
True, and Alamy is even stricter than the micros about people, meaning tiny out of focus blurs in the background still count as people, as do tiny body parts.

« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2013, 09:24 »
0
This is really interesting topic. I recently also uploaded part of my portfolio to Alamy (RF illustrations, so no issues with releases).
I was for several years quite hesitant about this, because the differences in prices.

During years, I came to conclusion, that the border between micro/mid/macro is very blurry,
when considering RF images. And more and more of same images are both on micro and macro sites.
Also, with few older test files, I had only several novelty sales for around 1-2 USD.

But on the other hand... When I look at actual normal RF price there, I must admit, the difference is huge.
So I am still unsure about this. It would be sure better to have different set of images for Alamy.

« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2013, 10:53 »
0
I sold two RF pictures there on Friday. The price was $56 for each.  I see iStock posting higher prices than that. Not much seems to go at the old rates, I think Alamy has been positioning itself to take on iStock for RF. And 50% is a lot better than 14-17% from iS.

aspp

« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2013, 12:03 »
0
I sold two RF pictures there on Friday. The price was $56 for each.  I see iStock posting higher prices than that.


Also consider the Alamy RF EULA when comparing prices. For longer print runs and particular uses you would normally need to buy an extended licence at Shutterstock and Istock. Alamy RF is uncomplicated and relatively unrestrictive by comparison. And yes - often much less expensive.

« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2013, 02:48 »
0
There is some problem with their system.

They may let big client download your images and without logging it.

If client used your image without note alamy, then you will not get paid.

I just discover a corporate used one of my photograph since 2007 till 2012.
I used 40+ days to chase alamy and finally just get back a editorial usage only fee. what.  >:(

« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2013, 04:33 »
0
Certain newspapers are allowed to download on an "honesty" system where they self-report sales. It is certainly a big flaw in the system there, since lots of publishers' accounts departments seem to work on a "we can get away with it" basis - or, at least, editorial forgets to notify them of the source of an image. I shudder to think how many unpaid usages slip past unnoticed.

Poncke

« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2013, 12:06 »
0
Certain newspapers are allowed to download on an "honesty" system where they self-report sales. It is certainly a big flaw in the system there, since lots of publishers' accounts departments seem to work on a "we can get away with it" basis - or, at least, editorial forgets to notify them of the source of an image. I shudder to think how many unpaid usages slip past unnoticed.
Thats shocking. That needs to be stopped. But thats the problem. No agency gives a RATS @SS about what we want. Even FAA are a bunch of greedy bastids I found out this week.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4822 Views
Last post August 31, 2010, 03:11
by RacePhoto
4 Replies
2318 Views
Last post March 13, 2013, 20:27
by dbvirago
2 Replies
2111 Views
Last post August 22, 2014, 00:48
by kel858
9 Replies
4000 Views
Last post July 23, 2015, 02:37
by Dog-maDe-sign
12 Replies
1927 Views
Last post April 08, 2019, 12:10
by pancaketom

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results