Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Novel Use - Further clarification

Permalink Comments (65)24 September 2007 at 16:16 by Alan Capel
Posted under News

We have been reading the feedback on both this blog and on the Alamy Forum and felt it may be helpful to reiterate some of the key points regarding novel use.

It is an optional scheme, we've changed the contract because it’s an addition to our current model but if you chose to opt out then its business as usual.

Novel use is not about discounting, it has been implemented to enable us to sell images for usages that fall outside of our standard price calculator.

Novel use is also not the same as Microstock, both RF and RM images can be included and whereas with Microstock you are committing to only work with that business model; with Novel Use your images also remain available on the normal Alamy site.

We appreciate the lack of concrete examples has not helped some of you come to a decision regarding whether to sign up or not. We were intentionally vague for two reasons, firstly we were reluctant to show our hand in what is an increasingly competitive market and we feel this is an opportunity to gain new customers. Secondly we do not have a prescriptive list of 'novel uses', by their nature these opportunities come from a wide variety of sources and a wide variety of forms and we will assess each one on its merits.

So whilst this may be frustrating that we are still not providing specific examples I hope you can understand our reasoning. We want to be as transparent as we can and we will be looking to make more information available in the near future to help you understand the scheme and hopefully persuade you to sign up.

Keep an eye on the blog where this information will be posted. Top

Add your own commentComments (65)

  1. 24 September 2007 at 16:38 Ian M Butterfield

    Sorry, Alan, but I'm not sure this really helps. While I can understand the comercial reasons for not showing your hand, it really does make it difficult for us to take a decision.

    The biggest concern photographers have is about the price of our work being watered down, and while this may not be Microstock it does sound very much like Alamy is planing to sell the images at microstock prices.

    I am still undecided about this. Yes I'm happy for unusual licences to be negotiated, but I am still very afraid that siging up will mean that I will see my hard work being sold for peanuts to organisations which can and should be paying the full rate.

    What would make me sign up? Some indication of the type of price structure. Or at the very least some guarentee that our revenue per image is going to be higher than the few cents earned for each image at the microstock sites.

    I look forward to the promised "more information in the near future" and I really hope it _will_ be be suficient to persude me to sign up.

  2. 24 September 2007 at 16:44 Bob croxford

    Dear Alan

    Lets try and make it easy.

    1/ Will Novel pricing mean that Alamy will promote or advertise lower prices? Yes or No?

    2/ Will low priced images appear next to mine on the web searches? Yes or No?

  3. 24 September 2007 at 16:45 Jaybee

    Alan,

    I agree with Ian. I can see your reasons for commercial confidentiality but with no meat on the bones and a 6 month lock in nothing is making me want to leap into the unknown with my ENTIRE collection.

    Suggestion:

    Let us add images in from one or multiple Pseudonyms.

    Let us opt out with a one month notice period.

    In this way we don't "risk all" or get burned for 6 months should the Novel Use result in a less than Novel fee.


  4. 24 September 2007 at 16:55 Ian murray

    My understanding was that a very significant amount of sales happen completely unrelated to the price calculator - hence Alamy's edge in the marketplace by having a sales staff to deal with enquiries.

    I do not understand why 'novel use' sales can't be negotiated by the sales staff in the normal way. If anything too extreme is on offer the photographer can simply be contacted as happens over issues such as exclusibv use. As I understand my contract Alamy has an existing right to market my images as they see fit.

    I genuinely don't understand why a special Novel Use agreement is required.

  5. 24 September 2007 at 17:06 Fabian Gonzales

    Alan,

    You are of course free to not reveal any business details, but on the other hand, why would I want to be a partner in some unknown venture?

  6. 24 September 2007 at 17:44 Bob croxford

    "I genuinely don't understand why a special Novel Use agreement is required."

    Dear Ian

    One novel use could be for mobile phone screens sold at $1 each. Alamy could sell $1 million pounds worth but each photographer would only make a few 50 cent sales.

  7. 24 September 2007 at 18:14 Kim Karpeles

    Alan,

    Will Novel Use licenses be made only by Alamy or will distributors also make these licenses?

    I find it to be poor business practice to agree contractually with a vague concept. Until there is further explanation and examples provided as to what constitutes Novel Use, I will not opt-in.

    With the price of the average Alamy sale continuing to fall and the workload placed upon photographers increasing with the new keywording requirements, I am reluctant to give Alamy an additional 15% of a sale.

  8. 24 September 2007 at 18:48 Mark scheuern

    Actually, 15 percentage points greater but that's an increase of 43% in commission.

  9. 24 September 2007 at 20:37 Alan spencer

    Dear Alan,

    Thanks for the further information. Like many of the posters here I am unsure as to whether to sign up or not. We simply do not have enough information to make an informed decision. At the moment opting in is a risk through lack of our ability to assess the risk of opting in. If I can't assess the risk, I can't opt in or opt out. Perhaps some examples of novel use which you have turned down in the past and which will not reveal your hand too much would help.

    Regards

    Alan Spencer

  10. 24 September 2007 at 20:41 Paul panayiotou

    Dear Alan Capel

    What is the minimum licensing fee proposed for Novel Use?

    It's reassuring to know that Alamy is listening to its contributors but there is still not enough information

  11. 24 September 2007 at 21:13 Bernie olbrich

    Hi Alan,

    Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

    Quite frankly your explanation does not help at all. The impression it has created to me is that either Alamy does not really know where it wants to go with this, or, is not able to be entirely open because it may not be in the suppliers best interests. Surely you should be able to make a more compelling argument why suppliers should agree to this rather than just appealing to suppliers to "trust us"?

    Also if "....Novel use is not about discounting, it has been implemented to enable us to sell images for usages that fall outside of our standard price calculator" surely it should be possible to give a few examples even if only hypothetical?

    Regards, Bernie Olbrich

  12. 24 September 2007 at 21:28 Bill Kuta

    Alan, I would like to see a new paragraph c in the Agreement under section 11, "Obligations of Alamy," to see what Alamy believe are their contractual obligations to contributors in selling Novel Use licenses.

  13. 24 September 2007 at 21:55 Bill Kuta

    And as I've said elsewhere, Alamy need to establish a focus group of experienced contributors to preview these initiatives. Could avoid having to issue clarifications.

  14. 24 September 2007 at 21:59 Kevin

    Er... aah yes..! Glad the 'clarification' has cleared that all up now...

    Just read the text before signing up:

    "high volume, low value sales"

    "different from micropayment because..."

    "50% of novel use sales"

    "Yes please - No thanks"

    I won't be signing up, that's clear for me. NO THANKS..!

  15. 24 September 2007 at 22:03 Ryan mcginnis

    Is this the Tony Snow school of public communications -- i.e., repeat what you've said under the guise that you're relaying new information?

    Personally, I find Alamy's position on this rather ridiculous. It's all well and good to have trade secrets, but you don't pitch secret schemes to clients and then expect them to put their name on the dotted line out of blind trust (and 15% more commission!)

    Alamy has seemed, up to this point, an extremely well run professional outfit. This vague new "secret scheme" with increased Alamy commissions is a bit surprising; it's the type of vacuous verbal shenanigans and hand-waving one would expect from a pyramid scheme operator, not a multinational stock-photography agency.

  16. 25 September 2007 at 00:11 Rainer raffalski

    "Novel use is not about discounting, it has been implemented to enable us to sell images for usages that fall outside of our standard price calculator."

    If that really is the problem, why don't you just develop and adapt your standard price calculator?

    Rainer Raffalski

  17. 25 September 2007 at 01:03 Mike long

    Alan,

    I'm not sure which marketing seminars you've been attending, but you're dealing with creatives here, and we aren't sold by the sales-babble that you have so carefully crafted.

    There is no point at all in a post to "reiterate some of the key points regarding novel use". We have read the first post. What we want are answers.

    I can only conclude by the lack of any information to help us make a decision on the future of our images that the reality for photographers is bleak. The only information we have so far is that we will have to pay Alamy more commission for these sales. Beyond that, we are in the dark.

    I am glad however, that Alamy were smart enough to make this scheme opt in, because on the evidence so far, if it were automatically part of the Alamy Contract then I would be cancelling my images held with you immdediately and moving elsewhere. In fact, I'd rather retire them all together than help in the further decline of our industry.

  18. 25 September 2007 at 02:45 David r. frazier

    I Agree with most of the others on the issue of OBFUSCATION.

    To this point, I have been pleased with sales results by ALAMY, but recent developments try my faith in what I thought was an "up front" operation. Alamy must remember--they don't OWN any product. It is all owned by the CREATORS who deserve a fair return on their investment. We have all hired ALAMY to sell our work. We need to be thought of as shareholders who own the STOCK (pun intended).

  19. 25 September 2007 at 05:08 Pat kane

    I too appreciate the position you are in regarding trade secrets, but like most previous posters I find it difficult to convey the means (my product, if you will) to such an open ended proposition. And, I too, have some straightforward "yes / no" guestions:

    1) Is it fair to assume that some or all of this anticipated novel use envolves a potential permanent arrangement, contractual or otherwise, with a third party?

    2) Is it fair to assume that some of all of this anticipated novel use can not be likened to anything else currently existing in the legitimate stock industry?

    3) Can we be assured that the reason this is not like microstock isn't only that RM, and not just RF, images are included?

    4) Do you believe that photographers will ultimately financially benefit in the short- and long-term by opting in?

    5) Is this a move Alamy believes it MUST make to remain financially viable?

    6) If all the independant photographers were to decline this offer, would the plan still move forward with only the agency-placed images?

    7) Have, in fact, the agencies agreed to this?

    8) Are you willing to discuss more specific details, in confidence, with a representative such as a handfull of trusted contributors or a legal representative of a photographer's professional organization?

  20. 25 September 2007 at 06:00 David Hancock

    Thanks for the further information but for my own part I find it not specific enough to reach a decision. Therefore for the moment I have determined not to take part in your offer. This is not to say however I am not open to persuasion. I have always found Alamy to act in good faith but I need more information with this offer!

  21. 25 September 2007 at 08:35 Nic cleave

    Unfortunately nothing in this 'additional information' satifies me that the situation is any different from that speculated about on the first thread regarding this announcement.

    If you wish to sign up for this 'novel use' scheme, then be prepared to see your sales revenue perhaps increase in total sales numbers, but certainly decrease in overall revenue earned by your hard work.

    Sign up at your peril people. I still vote 'Stay Out,' and hope that others will follow.

    Nic.

  22. 25 September 2007 at 08:43 Kevin

    I am glad to see sensible comments from the contributers on such an irrationally proposed scheme.

    The question remains for me, who do the decision makers at Alamy think they are dealing with here?

  23. 25 September 2007 at 08:44 Rudi sebastian

    I agree to all other comments before. I had an image sale for a double spread page + a quarter page in the financial times magazine for 133 $ because Alamy has a flatrate negociated with them. What else than a "novel use" is this? So, i got roundabout 65 $ (not even 50 €) for such a use. I think it was a bad joke. Tell me, what uses do you need to generate any noticable money. I see, there are lots of uses where the clients are not willing to pay much. But, if uses like this are paid so badly, nobody should wonder about the down going quality of imaging in total.
    If Alamy agrees to flatrates like this, so far away of a fair value, they should at least reduce the comission for such kinds of sales to share the discount effect with the contributor.
    I know our business is tuff, but the answer is not to agree to everything. Market is at the very beginning of a turn. Quality and uniqueness of images will return. Be prepared for this. And to proclaim the 10 million images as the only thing of interest on the homepage is - for my opinion - the wrong way to be prepared for the future.

    Best regards.

  24. 25 September 2007 at 09:46 Scott hortop

    "it has been implemented to enable us to sell images for usages that fall outside of our standard price calculator"

    Many sales are already outside the price calculator.

    If I say 'yes' will I get 50% only?

    If I say 'no' will I be excluded from such sales in the future (eg newspaper salea)

    Scott Hortop

  25. 25 September 2007 at 10:39 Oriol alamany

    If I understand well, in this Novel Scheme if Alamy will sell (for example) 200 images at low price to one client, and 1 image is mine (and 1 from other photographer, and 3 from another photographer, and 2 from another...), only Alamy is selling 200 images at one time.

    Not all the individual photographers who are selling only 1, 2, 3 images at a lower than usual price and instead receive less comission than usual.

    I think for this sales the comission scheme would be at least the same as before or HIGHER for the photographer, not less as proposed.

    I that is true Ithink I will not sign for selling cheaper and with less commission.

  26. 25 September 2007 at 10:46 Martin wilson

    If Alamy can't share what novel use is with us contributors how are they going to be able to share it with customers?

    It has to go out into the real world at some stage!

  27. 25 September 2007 at 10:48 Keith

    A solution to allaying the fears of contributors while at the same time maintaining commercial confidentiality would be simply to reduce the length of the tie-in.

    If contributors are given the ability to quickly exit stage left if they don't like the way things are going, then they will be more likely to tentatively sign-up to something about which they have very few details.

  28. 25 September 2007 at 12:06 Phil Robinson

    No, still no clearer. I suspect I will in fact want to sign up, but not until it is made clear what we are signing up to. We could always wait until half way through next March, then quit in April if we don't like what we see.

  29. 25 September 2007 at 12:29 Bob croxford

    I have just received this from member services. It seems that Novel means 'a low cost model'.

    This means I will quite likely remove all my images from Alamy. I don't want my images to be in price competition from other images on the same site.


    Hi Bob,

    Novel usage can be defined as anything that's outside of the scope of
    our standard price calculator. It is impossible to give a 'profile' of a
    novel use customer or a novel use agreement.

    Even if you opt for this model, images will remain for sale on the Alamy
    site under our stand licensing conditions and prices, so you are not
    committing your images solely to a low cost model.

    Please check our blog post link given below for more inputs:

    http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2007/09/24/2130.aspx

    Hope this helps,

    Regards

    Hari,
    Member Services,
    Alamy Images.

  30. 25 September 2007 at 13:47 Kevin

    Many contributors including myself regularly see up to 80% discounts on some of our sales.

    Perhaps the "Novel Use Scheme" is a simple way of fully legitimising these discounts, and in turn, the beginning of the end of pricing as we know it. Making the stock price calculator as it stands now redundant at some point.

    This would indeed mean a kind of 'AlamyMicro', and I would not submit any images to this system.

    If you have the same product on the shelf, one at a greatly discounted price, which one would you pick?

    The question is simple for Alamy to answer, which clients are eligible to buy pictures under the 'AlamyNovel' scheme, for what kind of usage and in what price range? Or is it an open house 'free-for-all' eligible to all?

    It would be very easy to answer these questions and the very legitimate ones previously asked in this blog and put an end to all this "prevaricating about the bush".

  31. 25 September 2007 at 14:22 Charles polidano

    I need only one question answered. Does "usages that fall outside the standard price calculator" mean types of use that are not included in the calculator? Or does it mean (as many seem to be suspecting) that it also means usages that are included in the calculator, but at different prices? If the former, I'm in. If the latter, I'm out.

  32. 25 September 2007 at 14:27 Ian M Butterfield

    Re Bob (Post #29)

    Thank you for sharing that reply. Bad news indeed, and a sad development for the industry.

  33. 25 September 2007 at 14:27 Charles Polidano

    Actually on rereading Alan Capel's blog entry I realise my question has already been answered. "Novel use is not about discounting, it has been implemented to enable us to sell images for usages that fall outside of our standard price calculator." Presumably then, this means that usages which are included in the calculator will continue to be sold at 65% for the photographer.

  34. 25 September 2007 at 15:20 Martin wilson

    Charles that will be 65% after discount and the apply distributors commission on the full price and teh take off miscellaneous other charges.

  35. 25 September 2007 at 16:21 Ben plewes

    alamy has got a good trustworthy reputation among photographers who've been in the business of stock for some time. I think the key question is, do you trust alamy with your business? I personally do, so I've opted in. If it all goes tits up (which I doubt) I can opt out next April, which is just around the corner.

    If alamy were more specific about uses / prices this would defeat the object of novel use. Surely this is an opportunity, and one without a high level of risk because you can always opt out later...

  36. 25 September 2007 at 16:28 IanMurray

    "Surely this is an opportunity, and one without a high level of risk because you can always opt out later..."

    Might there not be the possibility of some future Rights conflict - lets say if you wanted to place an image that had been used for some form of Novel use with an RM exclusive agency?

  37. 25 September 2007 at 18:55 Bill Kuta

    Is there a deadline by which we have to opt in or out?

  38. 26 September 2007 at 16:34 Gary curtis

    If we were to issue a blank cheque by agreeing to the new cost model would it not be reasonable for us to be able to ring fence risk by opting in on a per pseudonym agreement?

  39. 26 September 2007 at 19:45 Scott hortop

    Per Karlsson in the previous thread said.... "The only thing that is clear in this proposal is that Alamy takes 50% instead of 35% of the revenue."

    Quite. And my many sales from the past outside the calculator got me 65% whereas in the future it will be 50% (or nothing, no sales unless I opt in)

    Well Alamy, this it is the way it seems unless you explain more to tell me that this is not the way it is!

    I can cope with 50% to get in new customers in new 'novel' ways but not to deal with old customers in the existing way.

    Scott Hortop

  40. 26 September 2007 at 20:24 Ben plewes

    36. Hi Ian,

    My understanding is that any image with a restriction applied to it won't be included in the novel use scheme. This could present a workaround for potential rights conflicts.

    Also, it would be nice to see some further options made available e.g:
    1] Choice of whether to include just RF or RM images for NU.
    2] Choice for excluding particular images with a check box in image management.
    3] An option to set your minimum price for NU, either for entire collections of for individual images.

  41. 27 September 2007 at 00:23 Tim McGuire

    Dear Alamy and Fellow Photographers,

    Why the reduction in % of royalties paid to photographers? I see it says Alamy will have increased operating costs and that is fine. At the same time the operating costs of professional photographers is not going down so why / how can you justify licensing my images and reducing the % of the revenue that I get?

    I'd recomend to all photographers to consider this "Novel" idea but to reject the reduction in your percentage of revenues derived from your work. Have your expenses as a photographer gone down lately? Why should your % of the revenue go down with this new Alamy Novel Scheme?

    Perhaps Alamy is setting the price too low and making up for that by taking a higher percentage from photographers.

    Photographers have got to wake up and not allow this sort of stuff to happen. Reject this reduction in your piece of the pie!!

    Tim McGuire

  42. 27 September 2007 at 13:29 Rainer raffalski

    Just to second Tim McGuire (post no.41):

    One of the few hints Alamy gave us is that Novel Use may be about high volume low cost sales.

    Why do high volume sales increase Alamy's costs as opposed to selling images one by one? Sorry, I don't get that.

    Of course, if you sell them at 1$ per image, this may apply...

    But then, that applies even more so to the photographer who has 10 images among the 10.000 images sale. And gets 5$ while Alamy keep 5.000$.

    Actually for such sales the photographer's share should be increased, not reduced!

    Rainer Raffalski

  43. 27 September 2007 at 15:41 Bill Kuta

    OK, Alamy, what do we have here so far? "Novel Use is not about discounting." Well, of course it is not about discounting from the current price calculator, because Novel Use deals fall outside of the calculator. So that is not an informative phrase.

    Novel Use may be "deals involving a high volume of sales at a low price." Also, recent MS responses to contributor questions equate Novel Use with "a low cost model."

    My own recent sales have already been on a low cost model, and have been all about discounting--discounts of 20-65% from the price calculator, and multiple $50 flat-rate purchases (shades of the Getty $49 solution).

    All of this makes me feel that my current QC/ZT backlog is a good thing--it gives me time to reconsider whether I want to commit hundreds of new images to this bargain bin.

    At this point, I do not merely need a bit more information about Novel Use--I need some strong indication that it will be BETTER for individual contributors than the current price model.

    Speaking of more information, someone mentioned recently in the Forum that you provided SAA with more information on Novel Use in response to specific questions from them. How about sharing that additional information with the rest of us? How about answering our specific questions from this Blog?

  44. 28 September 2007 at 03:57 Michael kronmal

    I was originally 100% against this, as there was no substance to the announcement. I have actually now opted in, although have reservations about how Alamy handled this,the poor contract language, and am not sold on my funding their sales though a increase of my fees paid out. The reason I signed up is that I did some research online to see what they may be up to.

    I figured out a few companies where Alamy has a business relationship that could be expanded to some sort of "novel" product. I do believe that this could be a positive opportunity. I also believe that it could set precedent for additional changes in our commissions.

    I sincerely hope that Alamy does not attempt this. We are partners in this business and do not ask them to subsidize our business costs, nor should they. What they should do is be more aggressive on their accounts receivable and help both of our revenues!

    I am hopeful, but still watching my back.

  45. 28 September 2007 at 11:28 Kevin

    sorry Michael but signing up to something you have very little info on until next April, and taking a pay cut as well isn't watching your back as far as I'm concerned.

    There needs to be considerable caution as a lot of contributors have interpreted this move as the thin edge of the wedge towards Alamy Microstock ... or perhaps "AlamyMicro"..!

  46. 28 September 2007 at 13:12 Pat lam

    Ian Murray,

    I agreed completely what you said, the Noval Use is NOT needed.
    When there is a NEED, it should be 35:65%, and not 50:50.

  47. 28 September 2007 at 16:24 Cristian Baitg

    I also second Tim on this

    ¿Nouvel use? Prices are already quite competitive I would say. To reduce them even further and also give more share away is a step back.

    I am out..., prices are already very low when there are bulk discounts.



    Cristian Baitg

  48. 28 September 2007 at 19:13 Matteo del grosso

    Maybe it's not about Nove Use at all but testing the waters for Novel Commission?
    With 10 Million images Alamy can easily afford to lose a few hundred contributors.

  49. 29 September 2007 at 10:34 Michael howard

    "With 10 Million images Alamy can easily afford to lose a few hundred contributors."

    Yes, but they will be the wrong ones! 100 part-time snappers (some of whom may well sign to make a dollar or two, will not equal one Bob Croxford.)

    The vagueness shrouding the word "novel" will no doubt be extended to informing us how many have signed up to it, as that might not be a good figure for the marketing bods who thought this up.



  50. 29 September 2007 at 13:04 Paul Panayiotou

    FWIW I've just Opted Out of Novel Use and the process activated a screen message which confirms the opt out and then advises that "You can choose to opt in at any time"

    Therefore it seems that anyone wishing to register a No "vote" can do this and be assured that the decision can be reversed if later Alamy releases favourable information

  51. 30 September 2007 at 13:57 Bob croxford

    Michael howard
    "With 10 Million images Alamy can easily afford to lose a few hundred contributors."

    Yes, but they will be the wrong ones! 100 part-time snappers (some of whom may well sign to make a dollar or two, will not equal one Bob Croxford.)"

    I'm sure Michael Howard is being slightly ironic. He knows that my sales have dropped to little more than a couple of meals out a month. Alamy could easily lose my sales and not notice.


    The only clue we now have from the SAA communication is that Novel Use means selling to an art poster site. OK Alamy you can have any images of mine you like for that use at a minimum of £500 and no drop in commission.

    Actually I think that use is covered on the existing calculator. I've just run through a use for a display print in an estate agents personal office in California and it comes to £870. I really think at that fee you don't need to drop the percentage.

  52. 30 September 2007 at 18:44 Michael howard

    "I'm sure Michael Howard is being slightly ironic."

    I mean Alamy could be losing their quality photographers in favour of the ones that are prepared to sell for piddly sums.

  53. 01 October 2007 at 10:11 Pete jenkins

    Let us sell your pictures in a new and different way.
    Can’t tell you what for.
    Can’t tell you who.
    The only thing different from the selling model that you all loathe with a passion (micro-payment) is that we will let you sell all your images this way not just RF.
    Oh and yes we are taking more commission than we normally do!

    Have I missed something here?

  54. 06 October 2007 at 04:37 Peter Phipp /Travelshots

    The Getty 49 dollars idea is getting a lot of stick from all the big professional photographers and their representatives. Its time to say to our Agents that we dont want our images being sold for peanuts, and we are very happy to work with agencies who have great software such as Alamy, ( the best), but remember we make our living by selling good images for as much as we can, and its no good if agents try to increase volume by reducing prices because the pro photographers wont want to go along with it.

  55. 06 October 2007 at 12:56 Dean mitchell

    In my experience the novel use scheme has been in motion since i signed up to Alamy. In the past I have sold images to agents that have been out of the RF pricing scheme only to have the sale refunded two months later due to a 'special arrangement' Alamy has with the client.

    Two things: Why reduce the price so much? and how can the sale be refunded so long after the sale?

    As a commercial photographer, i am aware of agencies using stock images for briefs that are presented to agency clients. After they agree on the briefs layout and design a commercial photographer, like me, is then hired to shoot the images.

    The stock photographer needs to be protected from this!

    Although i understand business is all about making deals, Why have RF prices online to then reduce them well below the minimum RF price?

    It seems to me that the photographer is the only one loosing out hear. Contributers with thousands of images will still be making money, however, at a massive reduction. To maintain the same annual income, more time and thousands more images will need to be taken.

    My advice to new comers who want to make a living from stock photography is to find a speciality library who aim at the high end of the industry and not a general one such as Alamy.

  56. 07 October 2007 at 10:46 lisa valder

    have any of you ever heard of market forces. the whole thing is driven by demand and supply. no matter how much you go on about not wanting to sell your work for peanuts, if clients can get images cheap elsewhere, they go there. sad development but that's the way it is.

  57. 07 October 2007 at 12:04 Kevin

    Lisa,

    Unless you've not noticed, you generally get what you pay for. Pay peanuts, get monkeys..!

  58. 07 October 2007 at 14:56 Paul panayiotou

    Hi Lisa

    Market Forces (MF) and Supply and Demand (S&D) are not entirely the same thing!

    Sorry if this doesn't interest other readers (please stop reading now if that's the case) but the difference is significant

    This link might help:

    http://www.coursework4you.co.uk/pest.htm

    Market Forces is a complex concept and consists of several macro and micro environmental variables.

    S&D is an economists' model, with just two variables it is simple to understand, helpful to a degree but falls far short of providing a complete understanding of market dynamics.

    For example, an understanding of Market Forces can show how pressure groups such as photographer associations can effect change regardless of supply and demand dynamics

  59. 08 October 2007 at 09:33 Kevin

    Paul, well said. Only wish I was so eloquent as you!

  60. 10 October 2007 at 06:25 Forrest smyth

    I absolutely agree with the above sentiments - with the exception of "I trust Alamy, so I'll sign up." That's not to say that I don't trust Alamy - they have been pretty photographer friendly right from the beginning, but I suspect that it will be those photographers who don't make their living from photography who will be rushing to sign up, not the seasoned pros. - Until we are all in a position to properly judge this proposition, (or 'opportunity') anyway.

    I think Tim McGuire raises a very important issue which hasn't been well canvassed: Why should photographers accept a lower percentage? The cost of producing <good> photography is not going down. If Alamy have increased costs to administer Novel Uses then these costs should be passed on to the buyer, not subsidised by the photographer!

    Is the Novel Use model really just a Trojans horse with which Alamy hope to bring in lower commissions to photographers through the back door? I sincerely hope not, but until we know more we just don't know.

  61. 21 October 2007 at 15:55 Allen Russell

    A month ago you made the following statement and request:

    "We want to be as transparent as we can and we will be looking to make more information available in the near future to help you understand the scheme and hopefully persuade you to sign up.

    Keep an eye on the blog where this information will be posted."

    When should we expect to hear something?????

  62. 25 October 2007 at 07:06 Peter dean

    It's a few days since Allen Russell asked for more information so i will ask again.
    Perhaps if i give you a list of what i think some Novel Uses could be you can say which ones are in and which ones are out? If any?

    One off art prints for private viewing?
    One off Greeting cards?
    Other one offs such as..
    ...Deck chairs?
    ...Radios?
    ...cushions?
    ...vending machines?
    ...keyrings?
    Images for mobile phones?
    School white boards?
    cheap sales for ezines?
    etc

    Some idea on how you will price and Police things is also needed and importantly concise and up to date sales information will be required in the sales data. (not waiting months for self billers)

    I don't have any problem with all of the above uses but if pricing is too low and download data not available i think i may be better to make my own deals via the websites offering some of these services direct to consumers. If we are talking pennies or a few pounds per use then there is no real room for a middleman. A reduction in percentage on small sales is not very attractive.
    But this is just speculation without information.
    regards
    Peter Dean
    agripicture.com


  63. 25 October 2007 at 20:37 Frank naylor

    When I was a young lad there was only one photographer per town now there are hundreds and all fighting for the same dollar things aint what they used to be and only the best will survive!
    I don't normaly bother to read Alamy Bloggs, Its always the same people complaining about all and every thing!
    I would rather spend my time taking pictures and if they dont sell I only have myself to blame! If in Doubt DON'T is my moto..

  64. 26 October 2007 at 10:50 Peter dean

    The fighting for dollars or pennies has to be put in some context. For example The Rolling Stones sell their music per track for pennies but if you want to use the music to promote something you have to add a few zeros. I don't supply RF and therefore look for all ways to maximise managed sales. When you look at what is now possible with the printing industry in theory a managed collection could do very well from so called "novel uses". For example the price you would receive per greeting card is significantly higher as a "novel use" than if you sell a license to print 10,000.

    In many ways the market for novel uses could be more efficient if it could be controlled. Instead of an image distributor making an edit which is given to a card printer to edit who then prints 10,000 cards with no idea if they will sell; instead the consumer who wants a card goes online to choose directly what they want with direct feedback to the photographer as to what is selling. With Alamy its slightly more efficient as presumably they are asking the novel distributor to take an edit? (or not if thats why the percentage is lower?)

    As these new services are open to all photographers why do i need to add another distributor in the chain ? Especially at a reduced percentage and reduced feedback to the photographer.
    However this is still speculation without information.

    regards
    Pete Dean
    agripicture.com

  65. 14 November 2007 at 00:32 Paul Collis

    Not only is the Novel Use model still unclear (apart from the fact that the fee will be much less than 'normal' and thus we are now helping to load the gun that will shoot us in the foot), we are now being asked to double the amount of time we spend key-wording and annotating. More effort for even less reward.
    Plus, we have been told that the photographer must decide if the image needs a release or not. This is the publisher's job, not ours.
    Plus, we still have to add restrictions, about 30 clicks in all, instead of click on one 'Editorial Use Only' button...

    I think a previous comment about Alamy exposing new ideas to a focus group of seasoned contributors is an excellent idea, because at the moment Alamy seems to be making arbitrary decisions based on dubious marketing gimmicks such as 'AlamySafe'. These decisions have repercussions for us, their content providers, that Alamy seems unable to appreciate.

    It's now November 13th, nearly 8 weeks after this blog was posted, and I have seen no sign of a reply from Alan capel, James West or anyone else. Which makes me wonder if ANYone at Alamy bothers to read these messages...

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.