Author Topic: Some questions regarding Alamy (Read 32251 times)

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 15, 2018, 21:39 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 14, 2018, 14:14

Sales on Alamy for me seem to be a pretty random event and I have no ability to predict what might or might not sell

Also the Alamy license might be closer to an EL at some places, so take that into consideration when comparing sales.

That is about my experience there as well. For example, I had two RF sales there last week, both of which were images that were rejected by SS, although they are on some of the other micros. I liked both of those images so I'm glad somebody bought them - they have probably been on there 4 or 5 years, maybe longer, with very little action. Both were used for 1/4-page layouts in magazines, so like ELs on the micros. The total sales price was around $51 and both were distributor sales so I ended up with 30% or around $15, $7.50 each. This month I've had ELS on DT for a little over $5, at 123rf for $13 and at SS for less than $15, so all in a similar range. RM sales at Alamy have been at similar prices except those for me have usually been straight through Alamy rather than a distributor so 50% commission. If you're planning to limit your "best" images to Alamy keep in mind that sales there are sporadic and slow - nice when they come but it won't be often like the micros. I don't do many backgrounds so have no idea how they will sell at Alamy, but my experience is that anything can sell there just like the micros. Good luck!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2018, 01:00 »

Quote from: steheap on February 15, 2018, 18:52

Quote
If you decide to only upload to Alamy, is it better as RM or as RF?

This question is one I have pondered. From a buyers point of view, I would have thought RF was a preferable option as it is simpler to understand and buy. Logically, it should be more expensive than RM, but traditionally it was the other way and now my experience is that on Alamy at least, they are pretty much the same. If that is the case, then you have two sorts of buyers - one that doesn't care if it is RM or RF and just wants the right image. The second is one that would prefer the flexibility of RF and so would prefer an RF license if they had a choice of two images that more or less met the requirement. In my mind, therefore, an RF license lets you serve both people, an RM license is potentially a bit more restrictive in who it appeals to.

Although this has been a no-no for some time, I know don't really understand why the same image couldn't be RF on one site and RM on another these days. I can understand how exclusive RM has value in terms of control of usage etc. but non-exclusive RM doesn't really help much unless you carefully track every site you have uploaded it to. Anyway, that is probably off the point!

Steve

Added to which they seem happy to sell RF images on RM licenses these days, I'm not sure if they are also selling RM as RF.
Of course, the advantage with RM is that you might get a second sale to the same client a year or two later, though even that is undermined by the super-long usage periods that some clients get.
.....
Yes, they are selling RM images on RF terms, here's one:
Country: Worldwide
Usage: Single company - multiple use editorial only
Industry sector: Education
Start: 05 September 2017
Duration: Unlimited

Here's another one which has terms pretty much indistinguishable from a micro editorial license:

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Single company - multiple use editorial only Editorial print + digital use.
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 23 October 2017
Duration: Unlimited

Mostly the standard duration for RM is five years.

And here are the details from an RF image, where the terms it's been sold under are clearly "RM":

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Commercial electronic, Websites, apps, social media and blogs (excludes advertising). Worldwide for 5 years.
Media: Website, app and social media
57 MB
5471 x 3648 pixels
1 MB compressed
Image Size: Any size
Start: 04 October 2017
End: 04 October 2022

ravens · « **Reply #27 on:** March 27, 2018, 05:26 »

wordplanet · « **Reply #28 on:** March 27, 2018, 12:29 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 15, 2018, 14:11

Quote from: wordplanet on February 15, 2018, 12:59
I license images from my own website

The trouble with that is the marketing. How do you get places like the Smithsonian to search for stuff on your website when the agencies have vastly larger collections at lower prices? OK, so you could negotiate to provide a feature on a topical subject - though the chances of them biting on that are poor. But for if they are looking for an illustration for a travel article, why would they go to you first instead of getting an image from an agency?

My website is hosted by Photoshelter. Even though they haven't been a stock agency since 2008, many magazines still search their entire database directly. Any photographer whose site is hosted by them can make batches of their images discoverable. Those images show up whenever someone searches the entire database. With over 80,000 mostly pro photographers on there, competition is stiff but that's how they attract top magazines as well as web designers and other buyers. A few licenses a year cover the cost of my Pro account there (over 1TB file backup, client lightboxes, site hosting, print sales, etc.) and the rest is profit.

I mostly license travel and editorial photos but I've also licensed backgrounds and other concept stuff I have on the micros to web designers and individuals. And sometimes people find my images there via google rather than by searching the database. When they dropped the agency in 2008, I was just starting out as a part-time editorial photographer, so I really intended it just to set up a web site. Being able to license stock and sell prints has been an added bonus.

You can try it for 14 days via this link: https://www.photoshelter.com/referral/MA2CA7TC7J though that's really not long enough to see if you'll be able to license images.

Painter · « **Reply #29 on:** April 08, 2018, 03:03 »

Got my first sale after three months at Alamy. $12 for an RF editorial that I also have got some sales from at other sites. But another picture taken at the same time and place, which is my very best seller among editorials, wasn´t approved at Alamy due to chromatic aberration. I have uploaded some three hundred pics there and only two have failed the QC, unfortunately that one. Would it be worth it to try to fix the aberration, is that allowed for editorials?

I also wonder if you use their Stockimo-app and if you have any success selling phone-photos there?

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** April 08, 2018, 03:14 »

You can certainly fix the CROWN.
For many years you had to indicate whether an image had been digitally altered or not, but now that option doesn't exist, at least for 'normal' uploads (haven't uploaded Live News for years, that maybe different (?).
In any case, you could remove dust spots, so why not CR.

Painter · « **Reply #31 on:** April 09, 2018, 14:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 08, 2018, 03:14

You can certainly fix the CROWN.
For many years you had to indicate whether an image had been digitally altered or not, but now that option doesn't exist, at least for 'normal' uploads (haven't uploaded Live News for years, that maybe different (?).
In any case, you could remove dust spots, so why not CR.

Thank you!