Quote from: Brasilnut on April 21, 2024, 07:32

It's tough times for commercial photographers with AI threats and then with editorial photographers we have to walk on eggshells. I remember a few years ago I had a shot of a kid playing in the snow in Milan during a freak spring snowstorm ("Beast from the East"), which I submitted as Alamy Live News and even though none of the images sold, Alamy contacted me:

Quote

We�ve heard from the parents of the child featured in the following image from your collection which they�ve seen available for licensing on Alamy.

XYZ images

They say they haven�t given permission for the image to be licensed and are asking for its removal as no consent was given. We understand Italy has strict privacy concerning images of individuals where they are published for commercial gain. We therefore just want to check whether you obtained consent when taking these images and whether this consent extended to making the images available for licensing, whether you would like us to remove the images or if you would prefer we put the parents in touch with you to discuss directly.

I mean it's getting silly, if I were earning consistently thousands from my 15,000+ collection then I could make the argument that there is benefit but I see my average at Alamy at only around $100 net a month, so I'm just shooting myself in the foot.

See, at least in Germany this would actually be a case of editorial content that is not allowed.  I see a lot of editorial content like this on all kinds of stock sites, but at least here, you are only allowed to photograph people without their consent for editorial use images if they are either not the main subject of an image (for example a city scene full of people or a historic building, but there are people in front of it), or if they take part in an event of public interest like a demonstration.  I can very well imagine that other countries in Europe have similar laws.

"This matter remains ongoing with the case currently in front of the German courts. As mentioned, legal costs are being incurred by Alamy in defending the claims which as a contributor to you provide Alamy with indemnification against such claims under the terms of our contract. In the event of any further developments in relation to your cost liability under this matter we would provide you with an update to advise of any changes."

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 07, 2024, 08:00

Hi,

I have experience with RH. I'll just let facts speak for themselves and you can make a decision for yourself.

I've been with RH since mid-2018 and currently have a port of 534 images.

https://www.robertharding.com/alexandrerotenberg/

Since that time I've earned net $1,700 (rounded there since I get paid in GBP and depends on exchange) on 234 downloads for an average return per download of net $7.26. For comparison purposes I've earned an average of 63cents download at SS and $7.88 at Alamy.

Am I happy with the above? Not sure, it's not much but then again my port there is still relatively small. One reason why it's not larger is since I send them my "best" work and they traditionally reject quite a bit.

Hope that helps!

Nice work. Judging from what you have accepted, they like travel, scenic, locations, nature and that kind of subject?

Oh I looked:

Images must be no older than 3 years.

Photos must be submitted on an image exclusive basis and not be represented by any other stock agency, this includes sister images or similar's

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 22, 2024, 11:25

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 20, 2024, 07:41

Quote from: Brasilnut on March 19, 2024, 11:10

One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.

I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.

I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.

So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).

I find it difficult to justify it that way.
With an extended license, e.g. for print, the degree of commercial use is usually higher.

You have to distinguisch between an use for some random news / blog article as a gap filler or an use for print like a book cover.
A good book cover contributes significantly to a higher revenue amount, the commercial use aspect is much higher.
The same applies to print on demand stuff like t-shirts, etc.
So 10 cents are just extremely ridicilous low because the buyer will earn for sure thousand times more.

Ideally the extendend license would guarantee that the image is not used hundred of times but only the one buyer owns all rights.
The main problem is that no one is tracking the copyrights or the use restrictions (just like a half million prints, lol!), so such agencies just sell everything for some cents.

I agree that the licensing terms are too broad and vague for micros RF. Once we upload our images to microstock it's almost impossible then to track the usages and go after infrigement. The cost outweights any potential benefit except for a few rare cases.

We don't have to upload our images to these micros, there's always the option of going Alamy RM exclusive, that way we get a nice report everytime there is a usage and a clear procedure to go through to tackle infrigements (where the contributor can also earn from claims).

I'm happy at Arcangel as I know that the minimum I'll earn from a book cover is $75 net and as high as 4 figures. Once there is a sale I receive a report with type of license, the book title and author.

Archangel were a fail for me. It was a little difficult to understand what they wanted you to send them. In one part of the process they asked for 20 images to be sent and then in another they asked for 10. I decided to leave it for that time and although book covers would be very much my wheelhouse I preferred doing what I was doing. But I could easily churn out book covers and to demand given criteria to follow. Personally I find that process quite easy. However last year I thought because personal circumstances had changed, that I would try harder to understand what Archangel wanted. And entry has changed. They just want your link to your portfolio now. Easier to understand. So I sent them the link and received a curt thanks but no thanks. Odd because a good chunk of my port look very book coverlike. But no idea who or what looks at the portfolio link. I just wasn't for them. It's a strange world ms. I have one photo that sells over and over to the same company as well as elsewhere. I assume they must use a limited license (not actually sure) but when we had the map it showed the same location each time. Its hilarious because its an item that isn't at all what they use it for on their website. Not even close and doesn't look like it at all but they keep purchasing it and they use it to sell their product.