Sales truly feeble recently, all tiny sums.

Just hope that decent sales aren't going to be replaced by contests, 'community' and other such 'fun' stuff like at 500px......

Not to mention refunds and the personal use scam buyers use (probably with the help of distributors) to get commercial uses but paying for micro sums.

I was under the impression that only a fraction of the Alamy costumers have their searches recorded for the Alamy Measures feature. I thought it's was most frequent and steady buyers. Unless they changed it.

One of the best sellers of Alamy has a huge portfolio of nature.

Honestly, that is a good commercial picture. In this day and age of Social Media that image with the right advertiser will relate to a lot of people because it has a homey feeling, it's cute with the cat in a relaxed position which conveys a message, has copy space. The crop is strange though and in micro that image is lost.

Site still messed up here.

Same.

When I say disconfigured I mean what it's seen in the attached image. Completely unusable. Am I the only one seeing this?

Considering the way the stock business is going, I think being charitable to your contributors should be a priority. It's not like we're all getting rich down here. Much by the contrary.

Around 60 refunds and the worst August since 2007 and a 33% drop from last year. iStock/Getty are just despicable. If I did not depend from stock income solely I would drop them in a heartbeat.

while the sales price average seems to have declined to within spitting distance of the micros, the sales volume has not risen accordingly. My sales volume has remained roughly static for six or seven years but my sales value has halved and the commission cut has

And that above, is the main problem. To which I may add the fact that to costumers take months to pay a $5 sale, contrary to micros where the payment is immediate. With such cheap sales there's no reason the image isn't immediately paid.

In 2013 I had roughly the same sales as in 2018. Yet the average license price dropped from $60 to $27, and my average commission form $33 to $12. And this year my average commission is even lower than last year with a big drop in the number of sales.

I cannot find the number of downloads anywhere.

Last time I saw I was Gold and not far from the next level but since then, with the changes to Adobe site, either some information has disappeared from the sites or I forgot where to look and can't find it.

Does anyone knows where to look for the total downloads? Thanks!

Where can I check my current level? I think I was about to turn Emerald but never checked it again since migrating to Adobe site. Now I don't know where to see it. Just logged to the Fotolia site but couldn't find any information.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 21, 2019, 19:07

By coming out with this on Insta, I think Nadav Kander has backed himself into a difficult corner.

It looks like the bulk of the blame is on the Big Issue, by cropping in and mitigating the window shadow. (I don't have enough English Law expertise to know whether the author has any legal responsibility - he certainly wan't trying to pass off the work as his own.)

However, as the Big Issue is a charity enterprise, and one close to David Lynch's heart, he can hardly go suing them (Obviously, he could legally, but it wouldn't do his personal reputation any good). But he wouldn't want to be seen to back down, and now he has discovered Rolling Stone did nearly the same but without removing the shadow, and that's a commercial publication.

Good summary, let me add, the person who licenses the image is responsible for the use. Someone can license an Editorial Only image and use it commercially, the liability is on them, not the artist, not the agency. The limitations have been stated, the "buyer" has decided the use.

I'm almost certain that it won't happen, but I wonder if the photographer that had the image on alamy doesn't have a case against Nadav Kander for defamation, moral abuse, threats and extortion since Nadav demanded that he made a donation to an organization.

Plus, I wonder if the alamy contributor didn't suffer abuse from Kander groupies, which in this day and age of Social Media (the sewer of the world) is very likely.

If this happened in the US, which is an extremely litigant country, Nadav Kander could eventually be facing an indemnification to the alamy photographer.

It seems people here are talking about this issue without seeing the images in questions. So bellow you have the original picture on alamy, the Big Issue cover and the post by Nadav Kander.

There are some "if's" in this story but all things considered and not knowing those details the only part in error may be the magazine. Even if the photographer has some responsibility, the magazine will never be completely innocent unless the alamy photographer claimed to be Nadav Kander, which apparently he has not done.

The "if's" are:

- was it allowed to photograph inside the exhibition? If not, the photographer is in fault.

- was it allowed to photograph but it was mentioned anywhere (ticket, entrance...) that the photos taken could not be use in any profitable way? If yes, the photographer is in fault.

- was the image marked as Editorial or was being licensed as Commercial? If it was Editorial I don't see a problem for the photographer unless any of the previous conditions existed. If it was licensing as Commercial then the photographer may have a problem, even if he forgot to mark he Editorial box.

- what was the caption on alamy? Did it provide context to the photo also and attributed credit to Nadav Kander?

Nevertheless it's clear that the image was on display on a wall, not even showing the original photo completely. And that the magazine made an effort to crop out not only the frame, the empty wall and the caption stuck on it, but also to minimize the shadows of a window seen over the picture.

As a personal note I would never have taken a photo like the one seen on alamy. But if I was photographing something like this I would have photographed the whole picture and frame, the wall and caption, plus the floor and if possible someone looking at it, creating a bigger context for the photo in the wall. 

It�s hard to believe SS can implement this incredibly intelligent cap system when most of the IT �enhancements� they have released over the last five years have been woefully poor. Equally, confronting conspiracy theorists with logic is the same as trying this approach with religious fundamentalists. However �

If you believe your sales are capped based on looking at your sales figures you are looking in the wrong place. It might give you an idea about a cap but the proof, if any, is on the supply side. �My portfolio is turned off� is a testable assertion. Remove the possibility the evil demons at SS are tricking you by showing you one thing and buyers another by using a VPN (Nord or HMA) and browsing anonymously/use the browser incognito window. Choose four or five places in the world for the VPN and search from these every couple of days and check the position of your top sellers in the search results. If they are not found at any given point then perhaps the claim �my portfolio is turned off� is not complete nonsense. If they drop down a couple of pages halfway through a month then come back to a higher place the following month, and repeat this pattern over a period of time, you could make a case for capping (the cyclical part removes the explanation that they have just been displaced by newer/cheaper/better contributions).

Unless you can explain how a portfolio with many thousands of images which has from isolated on white objects/seasonal images/travel and commercial and editorial content, plus video and illustrations has a sale pattern like the one I've posted I cannot accept that you call me a conspiracy theorist.

How is this mathematically possible if not by a controlled sales system? Isn't this beyond a coincidence?

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri
Week 1:		75			70
Week 2:	70	75	80	61	50
Week 3:	70	75	80	60	50
Week 4:	70				70
Week 5:					70

You claim that the IT enhancements at SS have been poor. That means nothing. I can argue that they may have diverted efforts to this project. Or outsourced the search results and earnings programing. Who knows.