Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Novel Use Scheme – money from unusual places...

Permalink Comments (139)19 September 2007 at 13:42 by James West - CEO
Posted under News, Rambling CEO

shadow of a man with briefcase and coat standing in front of a crossroads road sign - Image A05R8X © Bill Frymire
© Bill FrymireAlamy is often approached by organisations requesting licences that fall outside of our standard price model. Sometimes these may be deals involving a high volume of sales at a low price, other times we have ideas for selling images in new and unusual ways that we don’t feel we can pursue without your consent. Previously Alamy has turned these deals down and filed these ideas away.

To take advantage of these opportunities and to enable us to follow some of our ideas in this area, we are introducing the Novel Use Scheme.

The scheme is optional and shouldn’t be confused with Micropayment. It doesn’t interfere with your existing sales and pricing on Alamy and it can include both RM and RF material. If you opt-in to this scheme your images still remain for sale through the main Alamy site.

If you do sign up however, all of your images (except those with licence restrictions) are locked into the scheme. You can opt-out in April of each year if you wish to.

Sales made through the Novel Use Scheme will be charged at 50%, which is higher than our normal commission charge of 35%. The extra commission is to cover our increased operating costs for these schemes, which are often customised to particular customer’s needs for a project (i.e. we devote technical effort to it), or they have additional hardware and bandwidth requirements associated with them, or both. Pricing will vary from project to project.

We are very excited by these new opportunities. You will shortly be receiving an email letting you know when and how you can sign up, which will be through a link in My Alamy.

Top

Add your own commentComments (139)

  1. 19 September 2007 at 14:13 Rolf georg

    Good idea to make it optional so nobody can complain about it.
    I will option in for sure i prefer to have these kind of sales via alamy as through any other agency.
    50% is fine with me.
    Hope i will receive the email asap.

  2. 19 September 2007 at 14:48 Pat Lam

    I need to know more about this Novel Use Scheme. Still do not know what it is all about. Just reduce our royalty fee or really go to new business area? Our income has reduced to 1/3 to 1/2 only.

  3. 19 September 2007 at 14:50 Martin wilson

    Interesting idea and entirely appropriate to seek to take advantage of it. But if it is occasional and already has extra administrative burden why not approach the photographer on a case by case basis.

    As the use is novel how do we know what we are agreeing to?

    I have been approached in the past to ask if I had other versions of a picture that a client was interested in. So why not on these occasions?

  4. 19 September 2007 at 14:55 Alan Spencer

    Before I sign up I think a little more information would be nice. Can you give examples of "Novel Use" and what you regard as "new and unusual ways". Also can you confirm that sales made in the normal way will still attract the 65% commission (it's not very clear in the blog).
    Thanks.

    Alan Spencer

  5. 19 September 2007 at 14:57 Michael howard

    qoute: You will shortly be receiving an email letting you know when and how you can sign up, which will be through a link in My Alamy.

    I presume this email will let us know what Alamy are talking about - Martin Wilson is right. If the email is as vague as the announcement it would be worse than a blank cheque. It would be a signed blank bit of paper.

    Perhaps Alamy would cite a few examples of what they are getting excited about.


  6. 19 September 2007 at 15:45 Herman M

    I agree and disagree on many comments here, but I have to say that everyone has valid points.

    The first thing is that we don't have a clue what Alamy is talking about. Then they post another entry on their blog confusing it more.

    I agree that there should be a mid leve licensing scheme for certain limited uses. It is a reality that if it is not done business will go elsewhere. The problem lies in the fact that most mid level stock agencies have had minor (if any) success. It will be interesting to see if Alamy, being an established entity, can capitalize in that potential market.

    I agree also that microstock has affected the stock business. But more than that is the fact that digital pro quality SLR's and other cameras have gone mainstream, making and empowering the non pro with an interest in learning and making them capable of producing high quality images. I still remember my first Canon, I gave up since I couldn´t afford classes, film or development. Then came the Rebel, the internet, the rest is history. In five years I have learned more than in the 30 before. So the problem lies, at least in big part, on an excess supply and a not growing so fast demand.

    What we all seem agree on is that Alamy has to take steps into controlling what gets into the collection. I understand that AlamyRank will do it thru time with the already in 10 million images. But I see no point in delaying a more tighter editing of what is approved and what is rejected. I am not the best photographer in the world, but I know that a lot of images in the collection are very bad and just make up bulk.

    It is also a reality that we have to pick up an area of specialty and work on it. Being all for everyone just dilutes our efforts and in the long run I think it will not work out.

    So, we will keep on waiting to see what happens with this and the other vague announcements made in the blog.

  7. 19 September 2007 at 16:31 IanMurray

    "Sometimes these may be deals involving a high volume of sales at a low price..... Previously Alamy has turned these deals down and filed these ideas away."

    I haven't noticed Alamy turning away these bulk account discounts.... prices on these surely can't go any lower if photographers are going to be able to keep going.

    Ian Murray

  8. 19 September 2007 at 17:06 Steve

    Maybe they wanna shake some deadwood out of the trees - first ZT QC now these blog messages about changes and more changes - what does it all mean man.


    It's a conspiracy ( j o k i n g ).

    Time will tell

    Chin up


    Steven May
    UK

  9. 19 September 2007 at 17:11 José elias

    I personally welcome these bold moves from alamy in an attempt, not only to respond to the market trends, but also to create new unexplored opportunities.

    The information is still very vague so it’s hard to have an opinion and define my personal strategy, but what I would like to ask Alamy is to keep things clear to contributors and letting us know clearly what type of requests and/or agreements you are considering with clients and what deals can a contributor expect.

    Recently Alamy sold an image from my collection with a discount of 84%, which I only noticed because I’ve simulated the sale on the online calculator. Now, this lack of information was something that really displeased me, and not the discount in itself (I have no problem in selling cheaper if it’s compensated by volume). Even if Alamy didn’t need my approval to offer discounts (I read the contributor agreement) I would have thanked to have the discount info and characteristics in the sale report.

    After all, this info is very important for the photographers themselves to draw their strategies and get knowledge of the market tendencies. And I always believe that clear information is the base for success.

    So, I would appreciate a lot receiving clear information about all these changes (type of contracts available, margins of discounts over the online calculator, etc.) as I’m prepared to try supplying the affordable, the traditional and eventually a premium collection (if I have the quality to it), as well these new markets.

    I think these last posts in the blog are an excellent step into a clear, honest and sincere partnership between Alamy and the contributors. Hope it evolves even more.

    Best regards,
    José Elias
    www.fotoelias.com

  10. 19 September 2007 at 17:30 Randolf

    Just hope the upcoming email to contributors will be a little less cryptic than this announcement.

    For now it looks merely like a carte blanche for doing any kind of poor deals.

  11. 19 September 2007 at 17:52 José elias

    I'd like to add one more thing. When big discounts are involved, or if an affordable collection is to be created, I think it's important for the costumers to pay for the images in the purchase moment.

    It makes no sense for a contributor (and alamy) to wait for months to receive payment for a $50 sale.

    Regards,
    José Elias
    www.fotoelias.com

  12. 19 September 2007 at 18:00 Ladi Kirn

    This last 2 topic are "Soft and lacking definition" :-). Com on Alamy, you can better. Give us a "sharper" pic .
    I compared my sales with Alamy's calculator and realise that almost all have been sold with discount, more then 70% for some. What more is to happen??? And then, after all, we should pay 50% commission?? I se, we go micro.
    "…You can opt-out in April of each year if you wish to…"
    If I ever opt in it will be in Mart, so I can opt out in very April if I dislike it. Is this possible? Or images will be locked for a calendar year?
    I'm afraid that images in this scheme will be prioritised (ranking?) over the others. With other words: opt in if you want to sell.
    Income from stock already hardly covers the price of image production. As some "big boys" already announced they, possible, deletion of their collection, I'm afraid I might join them. I do not wish to stay behind with "small boys".
    Well, what to do? There is an army of micro termites that are about to march over us all. Alamy is to make money on them. As I browsed trough forums I got impression that they are willing to PAY to get a BY LINE.
    Good luck to all
    Ladi Kirn

  13. 19 September 2007 at 18:31 Jeff greenberg

    If large volumes of mixed RM & RF are released to "novel use" buyers, can they be expected to manage RM & RF distinctions going forward for years & years?

    I would guess an example of volume "novel use" might be a lengthy "slide" show...?

  14. 19 September 2007 at 18:33 Dennis

    Happy to wait and see.

    How about opt-in by individual image, or by pseudonyms?

    It should not be about how images are marketed or much individual images are sold. It is only important whether photographers will get increased net annual sales.

  15. 19 September 2007 at 18:53 Ladi Kirn

    José elias Wrote

    When big discounts are involved... ... I think it's important for the costumers to pay for the images in the purchase moment.

    Well written José. I'm still waiting for such pinot-shells to be paid out since Mart. Client seams thinks that this is to small amount to trouble about.

  16. 19 September 2007 at 19:03 Fabian gonzales

    I'm very puzzled by this post. It's very cryptic. First off, Alamy already does plenty of high-volume deals at low prices. If you are now giving me the opportunity to opt out of those (especially the lousy EMAP deal), I will surely take advantage of it, but that would generate less revenue for Alamy, not more.... and if we are talking about even higher-volume deals at even lower price... I am grateful that I at least have the opportunity to opt out of those.

    As for novel uses, I am not able to figure out what that would mean. As far as I can tell, the traditional license already covers pretty much everything, including point-of-sale products.

    In any case, I don't see why I would opt-in to this new "novel use" license, given that a) I get a lesser share, b) I have no idea how my images will be used and c) any "novel use" is likely to reduce the future value my work by reproducing it in massive quantities.

  17. 19 September 2007 at 19:37 Randolf

    Dennis has a very good point. Opting in by pseudonym or by individual image is mandatory for this kind of scheme.

    I definitely don't want to dilute my core portfolio with a micro like sales approach.

  18. 19 September 2007 at 20:01 brb

    many words but few facts.

    so how is it different from micropayment?

  19. 19 September 2007 at 22:54 Arni katz

    Nice pickup line!

    Pretty dress!

    Um honey... your five-o-clock shadow is showing....

  20. 20 September 2007 at 08:32 Andrew

    Works for me, any sale is better then no sale within reason. Look forward to signing up.

  21. 20 September 2007 at 09:24 Nic

    ...but we have already seen our license fees slashed to 50% of what they were just a few short years ago. this scheme will now mean that we are selling our images (without cause for complaint any more to MS,) at 75% or worse, than two years ago.

    Alamy may not call it Microstock, but the level of the fees is certainly heading that way.

    the one thing everyone seems to have forgotten is that it suddenly hasn't cost professional photographers 75% less to produce their work, yet it seems fine to expect us to now start selling at 75% less than we were two years ago?

    Once again, how are we to expect companies looking to buy licensed images in the 'traditional' way from Alamy, not to want to 'opt-in' to this special (low-coast)image buying scheme?

    The other problem of course is similar to the current one raised by the option of opting in or out of the distributor scheme. Do we as professionals opt-in, in order to maximise the overall sales potential of our images, or do we stay out trying to protect what little professional integrity we have left with our work, at the risk of seeing a massive downslide in overall sales figures as buyers simply opt to purchase those images from the other 10 million available, which are 50% or more, cheaper?

    Again, I'm not being critical of Alamy for trying to keep new ideas for selling our work coming out, but I am deeply concerned about the hole industry as a whole, and no matter what we do, or how it's done, see no end to lowering of revenue in the professional stock industry.

    My only hope is that as was mentioned in another post on the board, that at some point in the future, there is such a glut of bad work out there that stock buyers eventually realise that there is a reason to pay a sustainable fee for high quality work, in order to be able to produce high quaity products themselves, and not have to wade through all of the trash (by this point probably free,) stock work which are currently seeing driving down prices.

    Regards,

    Nic

  22. 20 September 2007 at 10:30 Dennis

    If Alamy design it right, image should be able to be opt-into several collections each with minimal over-lapping market segments.

    A good analogy is book sales. There is signed hardback, hardback, paperback, then alternative paperback from secondary publishers ...

  23. 20 September 2007 at 10:38 Dennis

    Perhaps a discount scheme on images which have had no sales for 5 years?

  24. 20 September 2007 at 12:28 Pat Lam

    I do not want to suspicious about the intention of Alamy, but the facts tell me that the discounts are already practising all the time and need not to make another name, (Novel Use Scheme) for it.

    With the 50% instead of our normal BLUE contract 35%, make it quite clear that the contract has changed secretly. When not, why change percentage?

    Alamy should really consider Alamy Premium instead of this, there are too many pictures in Alamy already. Need to have a higher standard PRO dept for higher pay customer??

    Should Alamy consider sell Video Clips, start it quick to have a better position in the market. This is a new business area to explore and I am ready for it. Are you??

  25. 20 September 2007 at 20:27 nina buesing

    I agree with
    Jose Elias when he said:

    "It makes no sense for a contributor (and alamy) to wait for months to receive payment for a $50 sale. "

  26. 21 September 2007 at 10:15 Peter dean

    There is a lot of speculation here but i see no real understanding of the market place unless i am misreading the comments. New printing technology has allowed the use of images in many and varied ways. You see it everywhere. It's possible to have an image printed on a Deck chair or even a plastic radio. Small print runs of these items are most suitable for corporate promotions.

    We have licensed a few "novel" uses in recent years. For example an image for the front of an internal company vending machine together with the same image on a credit card to "buy" drinks etc from the machine. The same office used images printed on glass partitions so that people would not walk into the glass ( when clean ! ) We see a lot of opportunities but cannot sign up to a blanket novel use scheme without more complete and prompt information about sales so that we can manage rights better with our own clients. So in principle no problem but we need to have more details about the practicalities.

    FWIW We also see no problem with micropayment for RM-micro-use but i assume that's not part of this scheme? Not to be confused with micro payment for any use in perpetuity which of course we want no part of and try to distance our brand from any such model.

    Pete

  27. 21 September 2007 at 10:48 photomamp

    Well, dear friends of Alamy and fellow contributors,

    As a professional, my priority is the profitability of my stock production. I don't think only in money, don't misunderstand me please. I love very much the world of photography, but can work to receive as income only spiritual satisfaction. I'm a full time stock photographer and the job is the job (it's obvious). Hence, from this perspective I'll talk:
    I think that I must be as updated as I can, living and working in this so changeful business. The ways to sell change and I want to progress with them, so, I prefer to sell more times by lower prices (only if its necessary, of course) than remain in a position far away from the today's market and (maybe) loosing sellings. Again, please, don't misunderstand me: I'm not refering to Micros: excepte respectable exceptions, I din't have arrived yet tounderstand how can it allow and compensate the exercise of a photographic profession...
    Well, as I said, I prefer to keep sellings even if the relation between amount sellings/price of every one, changes (hoping to find a balance between them, naturally). With today's market I can start to loosing sells if a don't accept the new prices (unluckily, naturally). Actually, the RM licence allows that from far away.
    The new Novel Use, maybe a good alternative only for concrete cases, and may allow us keep incomes (perhaps lower prices and more sellings) but once this alternative starts, how many people will be able to use this kind of pricing? it should be a temptation for some potential buyers that have the opportunity to buy more for less.
    I guess that this Novel use scheme, also, will have several categories, due that high volume of sales, is not the same than concrete lower prices sells (whatever be the reason), etc. All of them may be reasonable, I'm sure. But different.
    How will be defined the line between the usual cases (usual price) and the new ones (Novel Uses, with lower prices, I meant)?
    How will be defined the access to search the images, estimate the prices, etc.? if it's open, the temptation will be near...
    In any case, as it has been said, by the moment we are lucubrating only with a few clues.
    C'mon Alamy, please, tell us more. Send as the third part of the story.
    I'm sure that you are searching the most beneficial way for both; therefore I want profit, also, to thank you for keeping a competitive position in the market for our mutual benefit (even when the times don't offer as good alternatives as we wish).

    Miguel Angel Muñoz Pellicer

  28. 21 September 2007 at 11:20 Jim batty

    >customised to particular customer’s needs for a project ... or they have additional hardware and bandwidth requirements associated with them ...

    I don't really understand what this means. Usually when customised work is carried out for a client you charge the CLIENT, not the person supplying the photograph, widget, lawn mower, etc.

    Is Alamy discussing some novel way of DELIVERING or STREAMING photos to clients?

    If it is a really great idea (i.e. will increase sales), and can't be offered (sold) as a special service to clients, why isn't it implemented through hiring Novel-Use-dedicated staff, rather than off the backs of image suppliers?

    Jim

  29. 21 September 2007 at 13:33 Craig Joiner

    Just had the e-mail inviting me to sign up. Still no more detail than we see here. How can you expect us to make a proper decision without all the facts?

    Some examples would be very useful.

    All I see at the moment is Alamy taking a higher rate of commission and selling our work for less.

    To quote the sign up page "it is different from micropayment because it covers both RF and RM images". Well if the only difference between micro and this scheme is the fact that RM images are included then it still sounds suspiciously like micro to me. Even our RM images are not safe now.

    I hope I am wrong, but communication on this issue is very sparse and I find it difficult to make any real sense out of it.

    Craig.

  30. 21 September 2007 at 13:35 john fowler

    I need to know more. What are these uses? What sort of fees do they command? What other charges will reduce my 50%? Cheque fees? Exchange fees? Admin fees?

  31. 21 September 2007 at 13:45 David Kilpatrick

    As an editor, I have seen the last 30 years (when I started selling through Tony Stone) bring huge changes. My 1976 magazine had just four editorial colour pages and a budget for six images plus a cover. My 2007 magazine has 52 full colour pages, uses over 100 colour pictures in a typical edition, and actually costs less to print. I used to pay almost £7,000 for an edition back then and now I pay only £2,500. Of course, printers and the NGA union were amongst the highest paid workers in the country back then and now they are just ordinary folk like the rest of us. Sadly, the same curve has applied to editors, designers and photographers but at least we are all skiing down this slope together.

    There are now projects where the picture sourcing is counted in thousands of images, not hundreds. Even small circulation niche mags can use hundreds of colour repros. A book can have a spread with 48 different butterflies like a sheet of stamps - I remember once that such a spread used a quarter of the entire image and repro budget for a book.

    So I've signed up. I know why this type of negotiated use is needed. Our fees may, overall, have dropped by tenfold but the use of images has increased a thousandfold globally.

    David

  32. 21 September 2007 at 13:46 photomamp

    Hi there!

    The possibility to opt-in/opt-out of the Novel Use Scheme is running:
    http://www.alamy.com/noveluse.aspx
    But we haven't yet any more information.
    The only difference explained respect Micros is that this cover both RF and RM.
    So... we will be under the risk that someone buy exclusive uses (or long term uses) by ridiculous prices? At least, this not happens at Micros... the RF may be sell tomorrow again (or even this evening).
    Please, tell us where will be the limit in RM uses (if they are).
    I think we (or at least me, I'm sorry) need more concrete information.
    Please, explain us some more things about it. Be a bit more specific. Perhaps that help us to opt-in more convinced and catch this new market sectors.
    Thanks.

    Miguel Angel Muñoz Pellicer
    photomamp

  33. 21 September 2007 at 13:52 Beate Rud

    alamy: "It is different from micropayment because it covers both RF and RM images. "

    this comes as a shock. so alamy goes microstock and all time here is wasted, alamy just gives away the images for peanuts, too. why did I not give everything to sucessful micropayment agencies in the first place?

    I will NOT opt in, but what will that help me in the long run?

  34. 21 September 2007 at 13:58 David cole

    My one year audit of sales and receipts for my Alamy pictures goes as follows:
    Start Sept 2006 end September 2007.

    Six sales total $812.86 (£406 approx)
    Actual payment received £141 ($282 approx)
    Balance in account $180.25 (£90 approx)

    So from the sales total of $812 I have received or have as a credit in my account a total of $462 - somehow that doesn't seem to work out at anywhere near 65%. Approx $65 has just gone missing.

    This is no criticism of the sales - for a large part of the year I had few images in the system - but if it is that difficult to work out our percentage of sales I am tempted to ask why make it even more complicated - accountants - men in shiny shoes - I somehow don't think that they are working in our best interests !

    David Cole

  35. 21 September 2007 at 14:01 david cook

    I agree with the majority of these sentiments.
    Alamy's language is too vague the term "novel use" is equally vague. Why they can't give us a couple of examples is beyond me.

    To me the underlying issues are yet more reductions in image sale prices and increased Alamy commission to boot.

    Can someone explain how selling lots of images in one batch to one buyer equates to so much more work for Alamy that they feel they can justify increasing their commission?

    Please don't lose sight of your origins Alamy!

    David

  36. 21 September 2007 at 14:02 Beate Rud

    and alamy does not even have the guts to explain it in a comprehendable way, just comes with useless paraphraseses

  37. 21 September 2007 at 14:08 Andrew

    Novel Use Scheme: received the email and signed up. Lets see how things pan out over the next 6 months or so.

  38. 21 September 2007 at 14:08 John van Rosendaal

    What is it?

    Why do you say that it's not microstock, but then not explain why it isn't.

    We need more of an explanation.

  39. 21 September 2007 at 14:15 Martin wilson

    I am not averse to Novel Use in principal. The problem is I don't know what it means in this context.

    For instance as written the proposed approach could include ANY sale negotiated outside the online pricing calculator. So if EMAP or a IKEA, say, negotiate a discount on all their purchases does that constitute novel use? In which case most sales would become novel use.

    I will be asking member services for more information.

  40. 21 September 2007 at 14:23 kris coppieters

    As one of the first photographers I followed the Alamy strategy from the beginning. The concept was good .Being paid for inclusion of images ,gives a stock agency the possiblilty to pay off his (very good) software ,office and people . Other agencies do not charge to expose images from photographers ,but choose what they are showing to their public .
    In the beginning Alamy took only 15% to attrack a lot of photographers and agencies ,and the cost for handling the payments. The prizes are fair , certainly the RF prizes ,who increased. The compatitors are more and more going down with their prizes . Alamy can follow this trend ,and become also a cheap company , the photographers and agencies linked to Alamy , get a "cheaper" imago. Wrong politic to follow as photographer. I join Craig Joiner .
    I'm more than 25 years in this business,and I don't want to produce professional photographs for peanuts .
    Alamy wanted to be the greatest ,what's commercially seen not bad to attrack searching people,but now Alamy become a supermarket in the stockphotography . It's a choice .
    I don't follow this time.
    Kris

  41. 21 September 2007 at 14:25 Tony Lilley

    The Novel Use Scheme is an interesting idea, and I'm all for looking at increasing my picture sales but I would first like to see some examples of a Novel Use sale. The other thing that worries me is how do we know that some customers might go for the Novel Use route to avoid paying the higher prices set by RF or RM licence?
    Will this also devalue our pictures?
    Could some Novel Use licences carry a higher price than normal?
    Can Alamy give us some more information please.

  42. 21 September 2007 at 14:26 Paul panayiotou

    Dear Alamy

    Can we please have a precise definition of "Novel Use"?

    Also it would be helpful to see some examples (hypothetical if need be) of usage, pricing and target market segments.

    If it is for the niche editorial usage that one poster is referring to than I will most certainly NOT apply to join the scheme as this market is already well served by Rights Managed (aka L)and RF pricing

    I do not have enough information to make an informed decision

    Thanks

  43. 21 September 2007 at 14:27 Shaun Finch

    I would opt in if there was a minimum sale fee per image that Alamy would NOT go under, not matter how big the order.
    However as I see it now I could receive lees than a penny for a sale.
    So perhaps Alamy could assure us photographers that there is a minimum.

  44. 21 September 2007 at 14:32 Jaybee

    "We often miss sales opportunities from organisations requesting licence agreements that fall outside our standard price model."

    Me too Alamy. As a professional I often get clients wanting assignments for peanuts with unlimited uses attached - is this what "Novel Use" means?

    We really need more concrete information before a business decision can be made.

  45. 21 September 2007 at 14:37 John R Crellin

    A few examples of "novel uses" that have been turned away would help so much !

  46. 21 September 2007 at 14:38 Michael howard

    Well, the magic email arrived and one is directed to this blog to explain what "novel use" might mean. Round and round in circles without giving an explanation of the term or any example. Having got this signing-a blank-cheque idea out of the way perhaps Alamy can get onto some more important reforms now - reducing the allowed ammount of keywords drastically (perhaps 30), cutting down similar or identical images and checking the newspapers daily for unpaid uses would raise their and our incomes.

  47. 21 September 2007 at 14:52 Luis de la orden morais

    Blah, blah, blah. Less marketing and more practical information please. What is this all about? Talk through examples please.

    By the way you are using so many words to say nothing, it just feels like there is a massive catch there.

  48. 21 September 2007 at 14:53 andy sadler

    of course I will sign up to something which hasn't really been explained................

  49. 21 September 2007 at 14:57 Gaspar Avila

    I'm already paying a ridiculous 10 cent fee per image per month...
    And now the prices are droping and Alamy's commission is geting higher??
    I don't like it at all.

  50. 21 September 2007 at 14:57 Barrie Watts

    Like David Kilpatrick I feel this is the way the industry is headed. If this will benefit us then I'll sign up without hesitation, but a bit more information is required first from Alamy. What sort of use is likely to happen in NOVEL. Please let us know Alamy. If everybody doesn't know check out what Getty intend to do very soon. 49 dollars flat fee for any of their pictures at 72dpi. That will ruin us all not Alamy's NOVEL.

  51. 21 September 2007 at 15:03 Ryan McGinnis

    Alamy, what the hell is this? I mean that literally. You have presented your contributors with what amounts to a blank piece of paper and a request for a signature. There have been no details as to what, exactly, this scheme is; you've merely filled your blog with vacuous management-speak. To be candid, it's insulting. It's your job to sell us on this scheme, and the fact that you can't bring yourselves to even properly describe what you are proposing suggests that what you are proposing would be even *less* well received if your contributors knew the details. You are, in essence, saying "trust us", when the nature of your actions (deception through omission) highly suggest that this would not be in our best interests.

    Tell us more, and don't be coy about it.

  52. 21 September 2007 at 15:04 Mathew lodge

    It says that novel use is anything that doesn't fit into the current licensing model. So it seems to me that doesn't mean it is about discounts for the current licensing model at all -- as some have implied above.

    It does seem to me sometimes that some contributors are extra paranoid -- or that they don't spend much time with their customers, photo buyers.

    I have been directly asked for pricing for some whacky usage which is non-traditional, such as wall murals, digital projection in an art show and as a conceptual model for an audio speaker design (I am not making this up). Sometimes it works out, and sometimes not. However, frankly I'd rather get paid for this kind of novel use vs. 'cutting off my nose to spite my face' and turning it down simply because it's non-traditional.

    And in the case of Alamy's scheme, the cut I get is actually better than I'd get from a traditional license sale via an Alamy distributor.

    Your decision may be different, of course, which is why you are free to ignore novel use completely and not sign up for it.

  53. 21 September 2007 at 15:09 Yoel harel

    my offer to the scheme is to ask the contributor about a specific image/images if he agree to change his usual protecting rights to a purpose mentioned.

  54. 21 September 2007 at 15:11 Yoel harel

    my offer to the scheme is to ask the contributor about a specific image/images if he agree to change his usual protecting rights to a purpose mentioned.

  55. 21 September 2007 at 15:12 Yoel harel

    my offer to the scheme is to ask the contributor about a specific image/images if he agree to change his usual protecting rights to a purpose mentioned.

  56. 21 September 2007 at 15:13 Yoel harel

    my offer to the scheme is to ask the contributor about a specific image/images if he agree to change his usual protecting rights to a purpose mentioned.

  57. 21 September 2007 at 15:15 Bill Kuta

    For a Novel Use sale, what information will we be getting in our "Summary of Images Sold" data? Since such a sale would involve more hands-on staff time, Alamy should be able to provide details on the terms.

  58. 21 September 2007 at 15:15 Randolf

    Still the question remains whether Alamy is not able or not willing to tell us what 'Novel Use Scheme' really means.

    Taking unpopular decisions is one thing. Communicating with contributors like they were retarded morons is another.

  59. 21 September 2007 at 15:16 Craig lovell

    I agree with many of the comments above that Alamy has not provided enough information on what a special deal is or how low the prices would go. I have been selling stock for 30 years and the prices have drifted downward all of this time.

    Lets protect the collection of 10,000,000 images from being undersold. If the big agencies such as Alamy cave to pricing pressure it will eventually ruin the market for both photographer and agency alike. Lets not give them access to this large volume of work at discount prices.

    There also seems to be no transparency so Alamy can just pay 50% instead of 65% and how does the photographer know if this is valid or not. I am old enough to be wary of corruption and greed.

    At this point I would not participate in the program. Lets hold the line on already slipping photo prices. Royalty free already ripped photographers off badly of their rightful share of the profit from their work. Be very careful of promises of golden pastures that lower prices and reduce your commission.

    Alamy pays a high percentage and that is really appreciated. I think the deal is fair because the photographer prepares the files for easy upload. Lets keep it that way.


  60. 21 September 2007 at 15:18 Mike Long

    Come on Alamy, you're going to have to explain this one a little more.

    I'm certainly not going to sign an agreement to sell my images at potentially silly amounts if I can't opt back out again until next April. Give some pricing examples...convince us that this isn't microstock, because on the evidence so far, if it looks like microstock, and is priced like microstock...it must be microstock.
    50% commission on microstock is astonishingly high.

  61. 21 September 2007 at 15:18 Brian oxley

    I'm glad almost everyone on this blog is as confused as I. We really need a bit more information to make an informed decision. Hope Alamy will oblige.

  62. 21 September 2007 at 15:20 Skip nall

    Did anyone read this under pricing?

    All Images sold under Novel Use Licences may be sold at any rates in Alamy’s discretion without Alamy having to consult the Contributor.

    This is lunacy!

  63. 21 September 2007 at 15:20 Peter phipp

    My agency Travelshots will not be following this one. 50% commission is not acceptable, This is just another type of sale which can and has been negotiated by the image selling team in the past., I cannot afford to sell for 50% commission, why the difference ? Is it more or less work for Alamy? It sure is the same amount of work here at my end. If people want to buy microstock then lets make sure that the Alamy images are much better. It costs just the same to print and distribute a magazine with Microstock pictures or proper fee images. Keep Alamy selling quality not quantity, let people know that Alamy has the best photos and send out some PR to drive the piont home. Commission reduction is not a good idea to sign up to, unless you are only doing this for fun.

  64. 21 September 2007 at 15:21 Michael howard

    What is particularly laughable is that in the "blank check" email we are directed to this blog to find out what it means. While Alamy's marketing people have obviously not bothered to look at the blog themselves! So many of us have pointed out that the thing was just a load of marketing words so far(birtspeak for private eye readers)and we needed proper information.

    Alamy can contact us by email or phone if they have some specific special use in mind. I'm sure we would usually give a favourable answer.

    But it looks as if they have at least one person signing up!

  65. 21 September 2007 at 15:30 Steve davey

    Novel use seems to be things that fall outside of the Alamy quoting system. From how I read this that doesn't include Alamy quoting less an agreed bulk discount.

    [Interested in how that works, do people who have neg'd a discount get a different quoting system or is the discount applied retrospectively?]

    There does seem to be a lot of junk talked on this forum about discounting. Sure it sucks that stock prices have dropped, but that is the way the market is going. To just stand there and refuse to follow the market is not going to help anyone. Even Getty is bringing in a discounted $49 web use price. Don't blame Alamy for trying to be competative, blame the idiots that devalue photography by giving it away.

    A large user will expect a good discount, and any agency who doesn't offer this is hiding their heads in the sand!

    A number of people have also commented on the Alamy QC. I think that it is a shame not to apply this retrospectively to the Alamy collection. There is such a lot of junk on this site, and that is swamping so much of the cream. There are also some fantastic shots yet many picture editors whom I know personally will only turn to Alamy as a last resort as the editing in the past has been so bad and they have to wade through suck crap to find the pearls.

    It was a lovely idea to have an unmoderated library and trust the contributors, but I have to say it hasn't worked. Endless idots have SWAMPED the site with junk. The worst thing that happened to Alamy was when they put the image counter on the frontpage of the site. By waving their 'manhood' around like a jock in the showers they have taken a path that will be very difficult to turn away from.

    There are nearly 10 million images on the site. With a moderate culling this should be reduced to half that, but it will never happen whilst they still boast of being the BIGGEST!

    There are a few ways that these could be cutdown without great expense:

    1). Re-edit/Junk all the work from photogs who have made no sales, or who average less than a certain average sale across their collections. This would be the best way to whittle out the crap - not Alamy Rank, which will take an age to do the same job.

    2). Use Alamy members to reedit the work. If 2000 trusted photogs each edited 5000 pictures then the whole collection would be done. This doesn't have to be checking for focus or dust etc. That SHOULD have already been done. This is just looking at a page opf 100 pics and ticking a box to say which ones LOOK sub-standard from the pont of view of an editor. Bad weather, general dross etc. This is only looking at 50 pages of images. I would do this for the good of the agency.

    You could even have double the numbers of editors and have each picture looked at twice. Two negatives and its out. A halfway decent search would also make sure that no one edited any images where they have work with the same keywords!

    Just a thought.

    I'm rambling now!

    Back to work!

    Steve Davey

  66. 21 September 2007 at 15:31 Les todd

    With microstock photos are being sold at 2 or 3 dollars so how much are Alamy intending to sell photos for under this new scheme?

  67. 21 September 2007 at 15:31 sandesh talpade

    I feel Alamy is the best site for creative people in india where we always felt the need for better and better pics plus it triger our creative juices i dont mind if my client is ready to pay the price which Alamy offers is the best that any other phototgrapic site

  68. 21 September 2007 at 15:34 Skip nall

    Just saw this under Pricing and Promotion on the new contract terms if one opts in...

    All Images sold under Novel Use Licences may be sold at any rates in Alamy’s discretion without Alamy having to consult the Contributor.

    No way!

  69. 21 September 2007 at 15:36 Paul Hebditch

    "All Images sold under Novel Use Licences may be sold at any rates in Alamy’s discretion without Alamy having to consult the Contributor."

    Scary!!!!

  70. 21 September 2007 at 15:59 Mark azavedo

    Novel Use seems to consist of two elements: Premium Use, Volume Use.

    Why not be straightforward about this; and as a corollary allow us to sign for one, other or both schemes?

    To do that we need full information.

    For instance what volumes are "Volume Use", and what discounts offered for what volumes?

    For "Premium Use", then let's be honest and say that premium rates can't be taken without appropriate quality and content control. The Alamy schema on the table seems unworkable to me. It's "Premium on the Cheap" - and that can't be done. Tight editing is required; and that increases costs through employing the appropiately skilled editorial staff in the appropriate number.

    For the latter, given the hopefully high returns, I'm happy to pay a contribution through enhanced commission. I'm less happy about that for Volume Sales, particularly if the concept isn't made transparent and is flexible (it's my guess that it would be).

  71. 21 September 2007 at 16:11 Ed young / agstockusa

    If you try to disguise a pig with a dress and lipstick, she's still a pig. The same goes with microstock.

    This looks like one more way to dilute the stock photo industry, and what the photographer receives in payment. Of course, we only have ourselves to blame. Photographers have allowed their industry to be altered to the point at which they are now making pennies on the dollar (or pound) by slick businessmen who see a large profit for themselves. They do not care about the individual photographer as long as there is an endless supply of images for them to hock, at any price. Who makes the most money with royalty free and micro stock? Not the photographer. You do not see this happening to professions such as medicine and law. I suppose doctors and lawyers are just not the suckers photographers are.

    We have a unique brand, that fortunately, cannot be easily duplicated and has held it's value. I won't be opting in unless I'm convinced (with more information) that the benefit to this scheme is in our favor.

  72. 21 September 2007 at 16:14 Henry schleichkorn cmsp

    On one hand, businesses have to roll with the changes so it is probably a good idea to try new markets.

    True Alamy's initial statement is vague, but that is because they want to reel you in slowly. Sales for a few dollars or even under a dollar are based on volume. Sales you wouldn't have seen under the old business model.

    Henry

  73. 21 September 2007 at 16:18 Sean David Baylis

    Just the fact that they mentioned the word 'Micro' in this brief has me worried. With current market trends it really does look like the Micros are winning and Alamy is rolling with the punches... Hum...

  74. 21 September 2007 at 16:21 Tina Manley

    If Alamy had come right out and said, "We are going to offer all of your RM and RF images as microstock and sell everything at 25 cents for an unlimited license for any usage", would you still be so anxious to sign on? There is nothing in their Novel Use license to prevent that. I hate to see photographers acting like lemmings and heading over the cliffs in a mad rush to the bottom, but that certainly seems like what is happening. I'm sure Alamy is going to advertise the Novel Use to their clients. If clients know that they can pay less for more usage, why would they more? This is heading down the same road as Getty and there is no turning back.

    Tina

  75. 21 September 2007 at 16:31 Nic cleave

    The problem:

    If we opt in, we are giving our work away for 'free' (below the cost of producing it as a professional photographer,) and will see our revenue drop even further as no-one is going to want to pay 'full price' for our work when they know that they can simly haggle with Alamy for this huge discount service.

    If we opt out, we will undoubtedly see our total sales numbers decline as the new (cheaper scheme becomes more popular and what Alamy will quickly become famous for thoughout the stock photo buying world, and our revenue will still fall.

    The end result:

    ...is the same...we as professional photographers trying to put our kids through school and food on our tables with the sales we make to photo buyers of our work, will end up with less money each month.

    We for one, are facing this as reality and would rather see revenue fall but still hold onto the integrity and 'real worth' of our work, by not opting in.

    I think the answer Alamy are looking for here is perhaps the introduction of a 'Premium' scheme where only top quality work is allowed, editing is tight and restricted, but license fees are protected to a sustainable level for the producers of the work...US (the photographers,) and not the distributor of the work, Alamy.

    Time to start deleting those keeywords ahead of hitting the delete buttons for our 10,000 image collection.

    Nic

  76. 21 September 2007 at 16:34 Helene

    Does any one else find it interesting that Alamy has finally given us "image uploading" capability and now there is a need for a new category in their marketing? I was planning on uploading many more images now that I don't have to mail them.

    I know they didn't connect these two actions, so maybe they aren't related. But the timing ???

    Right now, this new "Novel Use Scheme" seems like the way US politicians use the word "scheme"... and that always has a negative spin.

    Like the vast majority of photographers commenting here, I will wait until more is known before signing up.

  77. 21 September 2007 at 16:37 John Boyle

    As a new contributor to Alamy(and i mean new)could someone explain what this Novel Use Scheme is. How much would my images sell for now?.

    Thanx

  78. 21 September 2007 at 16:44 Greg

    I think we could expect this (Novel Use) to be inevitable. The way the stock photography is going, it is just the beginning of compromises and disappointments for photographers.

    I know it is hard but we have to start accepting that there are more of us and we produce large quantities of imagery more easily, to make a decent income from photography is becoming to fade away.

    So what Novel Use will mean? In my opinion now the customer will come to Alamy saying... we have budget of $10,000 we need 100 images for our project, well reasonable deal lots of pictures and reasonable discount, $100 for each image, not bad..
    Yes, but what if customer will need 1000 images for the same $10,000, or even worse 100 images for just $100. So where will be the line, if any?

    Contributors do not have to sign up but I am sure there will be many who will accept to participate by whatever reason, and what this will mean for the rest? You can guess...

    ...but do we have any choice?

  79. 21 September 2007 at 16:50 Barrie Watts

    Unfortunately if Getty end up doing what they intend to do. Then I don't think we will have much option if we want to maintain a reasonable return on our stock. Unpalatable as that may be to us all that is the reality the stock industry is facing. Fees are getting smaller each year and the market is changing rapidly.

  80. 21 September 2007 at 16:52 Peter phipp

    Why is it always assumed that people will always buy the cheapest? Perfume was never sold like that. Cars no? Restaurants food no? If I was running a premium magazine and I was the photo editor I would want to buy the best photographs I could afford. People with little websites want to buy microstock, so let them go to Macdonalds. Let us start Marketing Alamy as Great images not Cheap images.. go on take a risk try to be different .. advertise quality in a few publications that buyers read. If you keep up the advertising people eventually try you out. Start rubbishing the cheap competition. We need some balls here... nothing to lose, try a campaign for 6 months and see what happens to the sales. Alamy you are going the wrong way with all the other sheep.

  81. 21 September 2007 at 17:08 Tina Manley

    Greg asked, "Do we have a choice?"
    Yes, we can do as Nic is:
    "We for one, are facing this as reality and would rather see revenue fall but still hold onto the integrity and 'real worth' of our work, by not opting in."
    If photographers would get together and not agree to these schemes to devalue our work, we wouldn't be sliding down this slippery slope.

    Tina

  82. 21 September 2007 at 17:12 Nic Cleave Photography

    Exactly Tina, I say we start a campaign amongst the professional contributors here (and serious others,)to 'Stay Out' and see what happens. Either way we're going to lose, so why not see what we can achieve by collective action first?

    Anyone else up fo it?

    Post here to say 'No' to the devaluing of our work.

    Nic Cleave

  83. 21 September 2007 at 17:19 Jock

    quite frankly, i think this is dissemination of miss-information in the hope that alamy in their infinite wisdom can keep a grip on a loosing battle - keep themselves afloat whilst exploiting professionals. We need to see examples. I supply to another agency and they came up with a similar idea - asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement and not to discuss the new model. This is the same thing and the only ones that can lose are pro's. I have not been with alamy long but feel that they are exploiting us. I may even continue with my other agency that sell regularly for me. lET'S SEE SOME EXAMPLES SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

  84. 21 September 2007 at 17:21 Valery

    To me this is all about micro.
    The pressure from microstocks on the traditional photostock market is enormous. Alamy has to direct this way to survive.
    I am a year-old microstock contributor and I can say the following.

    1. QC on micros is much more strict than on Alamy. This results in much more quality images in microstocks.

    2. The increasing rate of microstock agency is 50% a year. This meens about 1 million a year growth - very impressive pace.

    3. The images start selling the next day they passed QC. And they really sell.

    4. The contributor see all the selling stats in real-time and he can withdraw money any time he want.

    5. On micros you are selling in volumes. The more images in portfolio the more is revenue. And more often this has nothing to do with artistic value of images.

    6. I do not have to deteriorate images upscaling them. Moreover, the upscaling is prohibited on micros.

    7. Working with 7 micros I have on average 1$ per image per month. Note that about a half of my images are not microstock oriented as I was novice to this business. The last my images do much better - several times more. I am catching the trend! So far my best selling image gives me 15$ a month.

    8. Many prominent photographers do alot of money on micros, I suppose much more than majority of Alamy contributors.

    9. Alamy and micros are different segments of the same market so far. Many images that are appropriate to Alamy will not even pass micro QC with verdict "image has no commercial value".

    I am with you in regret of low price for our work. But that is reality and we must accept it or move away.

    Affordable DSLRs, Internet, a growing demand for quality images from lower end of the market, a lot of photographers from poor countries happy to sell their work for pennies, all these gave rise to micros. And they are here to stay for long.

    I suppose that revenues of traditional stock agencies have dropped heavily. This is the reason Alamy changed the rules. It is up to us accept it or not but look out the window.

  85. 21 September 2007 at 17:32 Russ bishop

    I commend Alamy for watching market trends and attempting to stay current with their offerings both to photographers and photo buyers alike.

    Having said this I will always take a stand for quality (production & pricing) and will therefore never be involved in RF or micropayment. I believe that market trends and fluxuations aside, quality will always be in style and the true RM model will remain healthy long into the future.

    I agree with other posts that we need more specific examples of this new offering, but it appears like it would cover the non-standard usages which are the exception in stock and not the norm.

    I looked at the distribution scheme in the same way. I want no part in watering down the price standard of RM, but to have the option of making sales in countries where the economic standard is lower I believe we can accept a lower licensing fee without jeopardizing the price standard in the major markets. The same should be true of this model (with very unique sales which do not occur often) as long as clients who also purchase standard licenses understand the difference.

  86. 21 September 2007 at 17:46 Beate Rud

    well, if there is a market trend, it is obviously to optimize profit by ripping of photographers, some naiv enough to not even notice.

    it goes as follows: sell cheap the work of thousands/millions, take high royalty rates and gain millions while those who do the job gain peanuts! crowdsourcing. when will the crowd notice??

  87. 21 September 2007 at 17:53 Nick dunmur

    More information is required as to what Alamy are up to without doubt.

    I suspect this is Alamy's effort in answer to Getty's flat rate of $49 for RM and RR images for online use which has incensed professional photographic groups across the world, so much so that Getty have already agreed to reduce the term of usage from the proposed one to TEN years, to 3 months - still wholly unacceptable.

    The notion that any sale is better than no sale is nonsense if you are a professional. I suspect that many sales these days don't get much above the break-even point, which means we might be better off doing something else entirely.

    Alamy might have a huge number of images available, but I think a good two-thirds of those could be dumped. Too many contributors put up 30 (say) examples of the same shot. Learn to edit!

    If the Novel Use Scheme is an answer to Getty's $49 flat rate, then it's lunacy. Getty are in trouble - their share price is tumbling and not because of falling sales, but because of pressure to perform as well as micro. Getty are devaluing what professional image-makers do and if left unchallenged very soon the only people left to supply the market will be those who are happy to see their name in print! In a way, that would be no bad thing, because art buyers would start to make their way back to original commissioned photography and I'm all for that!

    I entirely agree with Nic Cleave and Tina Manley. Let us just vote with our feet and become self-marketeers...use Photoshelter and Digital Railroad and have control of our own destiny and leave those that think micro is a sustainable business model to scrap for pennies.

  88. 21 September 2007 at 18:17 Simon stanmore

    I've opted in. I'm taking 'novel use' to be what's described above: Usages not covered by Alamy EULA &/or online calculator. I'm not taking it to mean uses currently covered by the EULA/calculator at vastly discounted rates. That would be 'novel' pricing, not novel use. If by April 08 I'm experiencing 'novel' pricing for standard usages I'll drop the programme (and Alamy to boot).
    I'll be very surprised if that becomes necessary as Alamy has so far been exemplary in its dealings with both myself and close colleagues.
    Again I'm left asking where all this negativity & cynicism comes from.

  89. 21 September 2007 at 18:27 Barry (uk)

    Novel Use really means nothing to me - it needs clarifying a good deal more by Alamy as to how this system will work before I or anybody else could decide whether to opt in or not.

    Alamy, at present, has the reputation for adding value to a Photographer's work simply because it has been accepted by Alamy.

    Micro sales have the deserved reputation for taking advantage of Photographers and devaluaing theiur work. 'Novel Sales' sounds to me like just another name for microsales.

    I also agree with comments that for this and normal sales, payment for images sold should be much faster and should not involve having to wait for a minimum sum to accumulate before actually getting paid for a sale.

    Only Alamy benefit from the current payment system by generating interest on the photographer's license fees!

  90. 21 September 2007 at 18:30 Chris crumley

    Overall, I'm quite pleased with my business relationship with Alamy. I'm been here for nearly three years and have had a long string of stock sales; several at multi-thousand US$. A few in five figures US$.

    However, I read the description of Novel Use Scheme twice and I still don't know what it is. Please ask someone to describe Novel Use so we know what it is. Might you use an example?

    FYI, the word "scheme" in the American culture has a negative connotation. "Scheme" is usually a plot to do something evil. Let me suggest a multi-cultural expression such as "Novel Use Stock" or "Novel Use Plan."

    And, finally, I must mention that the percentages mentioned as photographer share of sales are are mis-leading. 65% to photographer is not 65 percent, it's 65% before miscellaneous Alamy charges. I'm a businessperson, but don't understand Alamy charging photographers for a payment. We certainly don't expect our clients to subtract monies from our invoice amounts because they are paying us. Same with other administrative charges. Please stop.

  91. 21 September 2007 at 18:39 Jim Goldstein

    This was one of the most uninformative updates I've ever received. Please contact me in the future when there are substantial and complete updates.

    The introduction of a vague new service that has a higher commission rate doesn't really instill confidence in my relationship with Alamy. I'd hope that Alamy is doing a better job marketing to clients than they're marketing updates to their contributors.

  92. 21 September 2007 at 18:46 chuck nacke

    This is not what I wanted to see on a Friday morning. I do not like the term 'Novel Use Scheme' although I do have an idea of part of what it could be about.

    Without more information I would join nic cleave in the JUST SAY NO campaign.

    I have not been a direct contributor to Alamy for very long, but I have been at the forefront of Editorial and Corporate Communications Photography for many years.
    As many have already written, I am more concerned with the huge number of "Sub-Standard" or non-professional images currently appearing on Alamy.

    Chuck Nacke
    http://chucknacke.com

  93. 21 September 2007 at 18:56 Michael howard

    "I'm left asking where all this negativity & cynicism comes from."

    It comes from being asked to sign (or tick) an unexplained contract.

    Unfortunately all the calls for Alamy to explain and give examples are unlikely to produce much as the explanation and examples must have been left out intentionally.

    Anyone ticking the box does not know what they are signing up for (except that it will be in the realm of cheap special offers).

  94. 21 September 2007 at 19:07 Ed Book

    "Novel Use"? What is it? (be specific) Please give some examples. I can't make an intelligent decision based on no information.

    Peace,
    Ed Book

  95. 21 September 2007 at 19:20 M.S.

    I just joined within the past week or so and my first 4 images were approved. I also joined PhotographersDirect too. I think PD may become more appealing to me then Alamy if the impact of Novel Use could ultimately affect the pricing of the online calculator of traditional RM sales. I hope that does not happen. Until I get more information I am inclined to Opt Not on this one.

    Is this the "Later this year" stuff the
    blog on the 17th referred too?:

    "This is because we are a growing company that does 70% of its business in the relatively stable secondary editorial market (magazines, non-current affairs sections of newspapers, book publishers, travel companies, etc.).

    Later this year we will be releasing a number of new products to broaden our customer base beyond that secondary editorial market. In that expansion our pricing strategy will be one that recognises and respects that prices are falling across the industry but also that contributors need to retain control over how their images are sold."

  96. 21 September 2007 at 19:22 Helene rogers

    I agree with David Kilpatrick and like him I have been a professional for many years, and I have signed up with out hesitation.

    I manage a rights managed library and I know that Alamy have no choice but to go with the tide. The market is in turmoil thanks to recent developments with the micro agencies. To survive many new ideas will have to be accepted and yes magazines will use many more images and expect to pay less.

    I think Alamy has been incredibly open and all the Alamy people I have met are open and genuine. If Alamy feel that this is the best way forward I will be happy to accept their opinion. Alamy are in the buisness to make money they will not knowingly give away pictures for less than they have to it is simply not in their interest.

    I find it hard to believe that so many people think that Alamy is out to steal their pictures!

    I am happy to support Alamy.

    Helene

  97. 21 September 2007 at 19:37 Israel antunes vieira

    Please,

    Dear, would youl mind inform me further details in what's that mean Novel Use Scheme? Does it change the way it sue to sell the images through Alamy website? I am in doubt! I do need more explanations please.

    Regards,
    Israel Antunes

  98. 21 September 2007 at 19:40 christophe notteghem

    hi
    i'm french contributor from 2 days.
    and i'm a little lost in alamy.
    i just receive a email about chnage of sheme in alamy.
    my english is not very good about technicals terms.
    if someone could help me to resume ,it will be great
    in the other hand how much the contributor receive?cause i saw on site only alamy and distributors remuneration.

    thanks a lot

  99. 21 September 2007 at 19:41 Jaybee

    Helene,

    What photographers (or lemmings) forget is that if they don't play ball the agencies have nothing to sell.

    How on earth anyone can sign a contract that says all your images (RM included) can be sold for whatever the Agency feels like is just not business sense.

    Unfortunately quick defeatist reactions like yours only compound the state the industry is in. Not all your fault of course, but when thousands blindly accept the scraps on the table the agencies laugh all the way to the bank.

    Its entirely the photographer's fault.

    No supply = no cheap images. But we do have the uncanny knack and resemblance of Turkeys voting for Christmas.

    Sad sad sad times.

  100. 21 September 2007 at 19:47 Robert torf

    I am with Michael Howard on this one. Alamy may take whatever decision they feel is appropriate. However please don't act like used car salesmen in selling it to your contributors.

  101. 21 September 2007 at 20:41 Bill Kuta

    Will Novel Use be actively marketed to buyers? If so, how?

    Will "Novel Use images" be a selection criterion for buyer searches?

  102. 21 September 2007 at 20:48 Nancy carter

    I appreciate the input opportunity and agree with others who have already noted the lack of information. My additional thought is that what may be increased volume for Alamy, gained by reduced per-image revenue, may simply be reduced per-image revenue for the contributor, since the volume order may include only one of my pictures. First, we just need more information - what kind of price are we discussing? What kind of use? Could there be a minimum number of images per contributor before the deal applies to that contributor? Also, why not continue the case-by-case basis - we have had several instances of that? Finally, thank you for continuing to look for innovative ways to structure your service and to serve picture buyers.

  103. 21 September 2007 at 21:00 Beate rud

    So rush, rush, sign up, lemming-like, do not waste time, it might be too late tomorrow!

  104. 21 September 2007 at 21:10 Beate rud

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1014&message=24915730

  105. 21 September 2007 at 22:12 RTH

    Feels like Alamy is following the lead of the empire offering cheap web usage for RM. Of course without details hard to know exactly what they are doing. But sounds crazy to let your images be s