Alamy stock photography

Launch of Limited Use – the first of our Novel Use initiatives

Permalink Comments (153)5 June 2008 at 10:33 by James West - CEO
Posted under News, Rambling CEO

What the new Limted Use search tab will look like
What the new "Limited Use" search tab will look likeWe are delighted to announce that Limited Use, the first initiative to be released under our Novel Use scheme will launch in the coming weeks.

Limited Use has been devised to let your images compete in the low cost ‘micropayment’ market without undermining your existing revenue streams on Alamy. There are three aspects of this project that we regard as essential:

It must not undermine our existing business, so we have restricted the licence to usages that do not currently feature in our revenue mix.
It must be easy for the customer to use, so licence terms for Royalty Free and Licensed (Rights Managed) images are the same and not time limited.
It must acknowledge the existing low cost pricing structures that are already out there if it is to stand a chance of competing.

This doesn’t mean that all our new pricing strategies from now on will be cut price. Far from it. We have lots of ideas under development this year that should improve our scope for seeking out new revenue streams. More details to follow later.

The terms of the Limited Use scheme are defined below:

Blogs

Use in articles posted by an individual blogger on personal and special interest blogs for an unlimited time. Images cannot be included in a corporate site, used for advertising or promotion or used in a defamatory, sensitive or controversial manner.

Social Networking

For use by an individual on social networking and virtual world websites for an unlimited time. Images cannot be used in advertising, promotion or in a defamatory, sensitive or controversial manner.

Education

For teachers, academics or higher education students on a single user basis for any of the following combinations:

Interactive whiteboards
Hand outs
Project work
Reports
Dissertations/theses
Presentations/lectures

Please note that the images can be used by people working in education as defined above, it will not cover educational publishing which will continue to be sold under our standard model.

We have specifically selected these usages to cover areas where we do not currently sell images. Limited Use was set up to address our need to break into these new markets and to compete with other pricing models that are becoming established.

The pricing for these usages is outlined below. Limited Use will only be visible to buyers in the UK to begin with. (This means that only contributors in the UK will be able to see the changes on the web site when Limited Use is launched.) The service will be rolled out worldwide once we are satisfied with the performance of the scheme.

Size and price
Size	File size	Resolution	Price
XS	0.4 MB	Web 450 x 300 px (16 x 11 cm @ 72 dpi)	£0.60
S	1.4 MB	Electronic media 689 x 462 px (25 x 17 cm @ 72 dpi)	£1.20
M	5.5 MB	A6 print out 1142 x 1688 px (20 x 29 cm @ 150 dpi)	£1.80

We are sensitive to the fact that we are becoming more active in the market where web resolution file sizes are adequate for the usage required. This is one of the reasons why we have brought back watermarking on your images.

If you haven’t signed up to the Novel Use scheme your images won’t be available to these buyers. To sign up visit the Additional Revenue Opportunities page within My Alamy

Add your own commentComments (153)

09 June 2008 at 10:53 vipin

A long standing confision is over!!
09 June 2008 at 11:10 Danx

It's better (for my bank account) find a blogger who steals my pics (and take him to the Police) than sell my work at this price:)
09 June 2008 at 11:14 John hatcher

Well I suppose that `micro` was enevitable on Alamy. My only worry is when it goes worldwide what will the figure we the photographer will receive after distributer commissions are taken out.
09 June 2008 at 11:23 Richard Thomas

Firstly the new search tab isn't showing on the landing page.

However it's good to see that you're now offering a license that competes with microstock, not sure about RM usgae though as I think it could cause problems with the market you're targeting.
09 June 2008 at 11:25 Thyrsis

There is NO WAY we would sign up to novel use. After 30 years in the photography business it's insulting to think our images could be sold for less than £1. I'm really disappointed by this move.
09 June 2008 at 11:52 Mary clark

Oh Dear ! dreadful news
09 June 2008 at 11:52 michael arthur thompson

The standard Alamy image prices are now so low in 2008 (with big big discounting to regular customers in particular) already that a travel photographer today on Alamy gets paid peanuts almost after all the deductions - and now this?

Novel Use NEVER in a million years its almost insulting imo, i will never join micro stock by any name it comes under.
Thank goodness that the rest of Alamy is so innovative and photographer friendly they do lead the stock image industry in this respect.
09 June 2008 at 12:21 Ian sanders

For those who've signed up, the option to opt-out of Novel Use before next April would be appropriate now that you've published details.
09 June 2008 at 12:32 Pete jenkins

And so it begins...
09 June 2008 at 12:35 Richard Thomas

I also think this could be used as a useful marketing tool now that watermarks have been reintroduced, offer buyers of the above license a refund of the amount against subsequent purchases of the SAME image at a larger size/license.

No arguments about the lack of non-watermarked 'comp' images then.
09 June 2008 at 12:41 Nic Cleave

The beginning of the end...Last one left please turn out the lights...
09 June 2008 at 12:43 Robert Slade

No, please do not do this! No, no, no and no.
09 June 2008 at 12:59 Povl

At least it's priced in pounds and not US Dollar ......

Disturbingly low prices though ???

Couldn't you charge the double of that - it would still be a bargin?
09 June 2008 at 13:06 Martin Wilson

Glad I did not sign up for the undefined Novel Use. Nor will I now.

And how will Alamy control "single use" in the education sector who are reknowned for photocopying copyright material!

And will they bother chasing out of lcence usage by these "customers".
09 June 2008 at 13:10 Martin Wilson

At these prices transaction and accounting costs outweigh the benefit.

Also once used for these purposes, especially RM, images will be worth nothing elsewhere!

If they are going to do this then it shou;ld be a completely separate collection/brand.

I am accelerating my search for alternative representation.
09 June 2008 at 13:26 nicholas frost

Well If Alamy dont give us the opt out option I'll be removing alll images from alamy!

No Consultation at all, they've known this has been coming yet didn't warn those signing up for novel use.

To say I'm p****d off is an understatement.
09 June 2008 at 13:36 Aron Hsiao

I'm upset about the fact that "novel use" has turned out to be "microstock," especially since there's no way to opt out of novel use for a full year.

I now find myself reconsidering Alamy, which is a shame. I think giving everyone who opted in a chance to opt back out now that it's clear that "novel use" simply means "microstock" would be the minimum of fairness.
09 June 2008 at 13:40 Scott Hortop

Why 60p?

Placing "from 60p" on the Alamy home page will cheapen expectations for the whole site. Surely to be hidden away...

Notwithstanding that some bloggers make lots of money out of their blogs, I do recognise that most bloggers may not want to pay £50 for an image, but surely would not sneeze at £2 - £5 given unique choice on offer.

But 60p? The chance to get the bottom of the market mindset away from $1 an image has been wasted.
09 June 2008 at 13:42 Linda Kennedy

So if one of my images sells for web I get 30p; wow, I wonder what I'll spend it on.

You have got to be kidding! It takes hard work and time to out together a collection of saleable images and then to have them sold at 30p a go. What a slap in the face to Alamy contributors. Why couldn't Alamy have come clean when Novel Use was first mooted and called it for what it is - Microstock.

If I had wanted my images to be placed on a Microstock site I would have done so, that is why I am with Alamy, because it was/is precisely the opposite.

Bad move guys :(
09 June 2008 at 14:04 Ian homer

Terrible news. To put it into real world figures I can't even buy half a litre of fuel for the price Alamy wants to sell the use of images for. Beer money? Erm, no, not even enough for a pint. A loaf of bread? Again, not enough. Those are commodities and Alamy isn't, supposedly, selling commodities.

Commodity markets have traditionally exploited those at the bottom end of the chain. We're going to have to look into joining the fair trade movement ourselves soon.
09 June 2008 at 14:13 David Bleeker

You should have come with this scheme before we opted in, not when we have no choice of opting out until next April!
I guess a lot less Photographers would have trusted Alamy and opted in. How are you going to police linked images as happens all the time on blogs, one person writes something buys a 60p image and 10 other bloggers link to that image/article and display it on their own blog. Are you going to chase those 10 people for 30p??
09 June 2008 at 14:16 Kevin

DIDN'T SIGN UP - WON'T SIGN UP

I guess that phrase "better than a poke in the eye" can no longer be use here!
09 June 2008 at 14:19 Mark Scheuern

I imagine some who opted in are now rather upset given that Alamy said "The scheme ... shouldn’t be confused with Micropayment." (http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2007/09/19/1931.aspx)
09 June 2008 at 14:29 Charles polidano

Offering reduced rates for special uses is OK in principle but 60p is a slap in the face to photographers like others have said - especially since it is going to be impossible to make sure that users keep within the terms of their licence. Seems like the trust I put in Alamy when I signed up for novel use was misplaced.
09 June 2008 at 14:30 Greg wright

I can see why Alamy want to do this but I can't see an advantage to the contributors. If they wanted to go down the microstock route they would already have done so. And those of us who were trusting enough to sign up for Novel Use are locked in until next April.

I'm not happy!
09 June 2008 at 14:34 Ian Homer

In addition to my comments above:

I didn't sign up to the scheme at the outset being sceptical and am glad. I won't be doing so now, or ever, given the paltry demeaning sums on offer.

Delighted, no way.
09 June 2008 at 14:47 Ryan mc.

Well Alamy, you lied to us contributors.
You told us novel use wasn't microstock.

Disappointed, very much so.
09 June 2008 at 14:50 Darrell Young

I sent an email to memberservices@alamy.com this morning with the following:

=========================================

Alamy,

I am not interested in selling my images under the current "micropayment" Novel Use scheme. I signed up to Novel use under the understanding listed here:

"...shouldn’t be confused with Micropayment." (http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2007/09/19/1931.aspx)

You have violated your own words, and I am uninterested in supporting this. Do you realize that this type of use for an RM (licensed) image will destroy its value in the market? I can understand this, to a degree, for RF images, but NOT for RM. You have changed the game drastically, and this is completely unfair. I don't care if it is limited to the three uses you outline in the blog. I am not interested in Micro sales, in any form. I opted in to Novel use with the understanding that it would not be "micropayment." You have misled us.

Please reconsider allowing me to OPT out before April. If you are unwilling, then I must remove my images from Alamy.

=========================================

I suggest that each of you who are unhappy with the current Novel use, and want out, do the same thing.

- Darrell Young
09 June 2008 at 14:57 Nic Cleave

Is anyone from Alamy listening/reading these comments from some of your most valuable contributors? I'm sure we'd like to hear your responses...
09 June 2008 at 15:01 Alan Spencer

Dear Alamy; In your original announcement of Novel Use scheme in September 2007 you stated "Alamy 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." I emphasise "Organisations" and "High Volumes" Now your first Novel Use scheme talks of "individuals" and single licenses at knock down prices.

This is bad, sad news!

Alan Spencer
09 June 2008 at 15:09 Bob Croxford

You can't even control sales properly to your favoured 'self-billing' customers. How on earth do you think you have the capacity to control the rights on 60p sales?

Bob Croxford
09 June 2008 at 15:16 Jinny Goodman

Dear Alamy
I opted in for Novel Use as I trusted Alamy following reassurances given that it was not going to be "microstock".
I feel I have been misled in to now allowing my images to be sold at microstock prices and I strongly object to this.

As you have now, finally, shown us what Novel Use really is, will you please allow the many contributors who have been misled, the opportunity to opt out of this scheme before it is launched.

Thank you.

Jinny Goodman
09 June 2008 at 15:20 Gaspar Alamy

I think it was a very bad move to release this now, that people can no longer opt out. Until now, Alamy never explained exactly what Novel Use was...
I'm glad I opted out a long time ago, and I understand that many people may feel betrayed now. Not to mention these ridiculous prices!...
09 June 2008 at 16:10 Tony watson

Oh Alamy, what have you done?

What are you thinking?

Glad I didn't sign up. I too will be concentrating my efforts on my other non 'microstock' agencies.

Very disappointed.
09 June 2008 at 16:12 Philip scalia

No thanks, Alamy. Frankly I'm outraged at this, after you assured us that Novel Use was NOT micropayment. I wish you'd spend your energies not on deceptive "schemes" but on implementing the annotation options, so we don't have to keep re-keywording our imagery. Will somebody please put the horse BEFORE the cart again?
09 June 2008 at 16:28 Peter jones

Bad news, bad move Alamy; I am saddened that having signed up for "Novel Use" and having had the goal posts moved under my feet the opportunity to opt in or out should be given despite your own t&cs.
Aggrieved.
09 June 2008 at 16:36 Pat kane

As I recall Novel Use images cannot have any restrictions. Seems simple enough - make your images not available for sensitive use or not available in Puntland, or whatever.

I have a problem with the irresponsible use of images that may defame or cause embarrassment to a model and the likelihood for abuse with Novel Use seems high.

We've already had the problem of people downloading our images and representing them as their friends on social networks.

And blogs? What if it's a blog on white supremacy or state-sponsored abortion?
09 June 2008 at 16:37 Scott MacQuarrie

This is a disturbing and underhanded business practice. Novel use was explained as usage not covered by standard agreements - not microstock. As well, by only allow using to opt out in April, we are forced to allow this usage until then.

This is deception and NOT how novel use was presented. There is nothing novel about microstock.

So, you leave contributors, such as myself, who trusted you when agreeing to Novel use only two options. Either tolerate microstock sales or delete their work from Alamy.

Personally, I am seriously considering deletion. If I wanted to go microstock, I would join istockphoto, not Ilmy.

This is just wrong and shows what Alamy thinks of its contributors.
09 June 2008 at 16:38 Ian M Butterfield

This NOT what I signed up for with the Novel use scheme. We were told it was for organisations and bulk purchases that were outside the current licencing model. NOT to individuals. We were also promised an opt out option in April 2008 which we have not been given.

Not happy.
09 June 2008 at 16:54 Adam romanowicz

Very disappointing indeed. If I can't opt out of novel use now, I'll have to remove my images as well.
09 June 2008 at 16:57 David robertson

I didn't sign up for this. I want out, now!
09 June 2008 at 17:03 Phil duff

I'm in agreement with Ian - this is NOT what I signed up for under Novel Use. I would have never signed up for it with any idea that this micropayment scheme was in the pipeline. To say the least there should be a special Opt in/Opt out window for Novel Use with an announcement of this significance. Not allowing a temporary Opt in/out window under the premise of needing a stable image base for Novel Use is not reason enough given the way this was rolled out.

Also not happy.
09 June 2008 at 17:06 Bob croxford

"The pricing for these usages is outlined below. Limited Use will only be visible to buyers in the UK to begin with. (This means that only contributors in the UK will be able to see the changes on the web site when Limited Use is launched.) The service will be rolled out worldwide once we are satisfied with the performance of the scheme."

How many of us need to pull all our images from Alamy for them to be 'NOT SATISFIED' with this scheme?
09 June 2008 at 17:12 Alexei fateev

I am very much disappointed too.

Like many others here, I do feel misled about what Novel Use scheme is. Having details of the scheme now, I would like to opt out, but can't (and sincerely do not understand why).

I believe you should give us that opportunity, for the scheme is not what you were talking about introducing it.
09 June 2008 at 17:14 Matt jones

I wish I hadn't signed up for Novel Use. I feel misled and locked in to something that I would never have agreed to if I had known the details.
09 June 2008 at 17:20 Lisa valder

Surely this CANNOT possibly apply to rights managed or rights protected images, but only to royalty free ones. Alamy, please comment!!!!
09 June 2008 at 17:20 Lisa valder

Surely this CANNOT possibly apply to rights managed or rights protected images, but only to royalty free ones. Alamy, please comment!!!!
09 June 2008 at 17:21 Ronnie mcmillan

Who ever masterminded this "Novel Use" feature needs to brush up their C.V. Check the forums guys. There's a firestorm brewing and it's heading your way. For your own sake, I urge you to give those who signed up blind to this, the option to withdraw before next year. You've earned yourselves a good reputation. I don't think any of us would want to see you lose it.
09 June 2008 at 17:29 Steve davey

So along with:

"The cheque's in the post!"

"I will respect you in the morning!"

"I won't come in your mouth!"

We can now add:

"...shouldn’t be confused with Micropayment."

Deviously brought in granted, but a good lesson in business – don't sign up to things where you don't know what the terms and conditions are!
09 June 2008 at 17:29 Jacques Jangoux

If my memory doesn´t betray me in the early seventies the minimum price for a picture was $(not devaluated)225 for 1/4 page textbook. Of course there was no internet personal use. It is absolutely insane to sell at the prices cited above, considering either studio rental costs, or months spent in the rainforest, or plane rental, or the cost of converting to digital etc. First the RF movement, then Getty, then the various varieties of microstock have made it inviable to take pictures. The market has been thrown to the snapshooters. The cultural richness of the photographic information supplied has necessarily suffered. Now Alamy steps into the ballroom to dance with the crowd? Should we re-consider where we submit our pictures?
09 June 2008 at 17:31 Jason O. Watson

This is a terrible idea. Like the dozens of colleagues who have posted before me, I am extremely disappointed that Alamy would make such a move. Clearly a slap in the face of the creatives who provide Alamy with images. Sad day - I sincerely hope Alamy reconsiders this launch. I rather suggest Alamy announces a campaign to help fight for the true value of our work. PSC at least set a $50 floor on their sales -- that would be a start in the right direction.
09 June 2008 at 17:31 Oleg Shpak

I think this 'Limited Use' is not what was promised when alamy introduced 'Novel Use'.
I'd like to have an option to unsubscribe from 'Novel Use' now, please.
09 June 2008 at 17:37 David gould

A very bad move, devalues the whole collection.
09 June 2008 at 17:49 Tony watson

IMAGES FOR 60p...... On alamy's front page??

What kind of message does that send out?

Please reconsider this move.
09 June 2008 at 17:50 Paul Collis

1. This affects every contributor, including those of us who did not and will never opt for Micropayment; I cannot see how images that are currently Licensed can be sold for peanuts without pissing off every buyer in the Editorial and Advertising communities. They pay for a certain level of exclusivity, and they will now seek it elsewhere unless they can be assured that a Licensed image is NOT available as Microstock. Alamy Microstock - if it survives our arguments against it - MUST be limited to RF images.

2. As already mentioned, Alamy has trouble getting regular buyers to pay on time. How will you deal with thousands of forgetful, distracted individuals? You don't mention if the buyer will have to make an IMMEDIATE payment by credit card or Paypal in order to download the image. If not, your Payments Department will be spending $100 an hour chasing $10 worth of bills. I'd rather they were chasing your consistently tardy distributors.

3. This is an ill-considered plan, and once again a decision seems to have been made without consulting representatives of your core contributors. (Has Alamy ever consulted any photographer, ever?) Just get on with implementing the annotation for keywords and you'll improve sales immediately.
09 June 2008 at 17:56 Tony Lilley

VERY BAD NEWS.
I agree with all that has been said above. I did sign up to this thinking that Alamy had a good plan. I would not like my pictures on Alamy to be sold for this extremely low price. I would like to opt back out again.
I will be interested to here what the next new development is?
09 June 2008 at 18:04 Mary clark

My second time back to see if it was true and I wasn't dreaming .
Please can I ask you to reconsider this idea it's a very very bad one .
What have we been working for ?
09 June 2008 at 18:10 Pedro Luz Cunha

Quote: "We are delighted to announce that Limited Use"...

Well, I am not 'delighted' to see it the way it is presented. How can I opt out now, when the news come after the deadline (2008) to opt in/opt out? Limited Use sounded like something else to me. Sorry.
09 June 2008 at 18:15 Paul wasserman

This is an underhanded way to do business, releasing a highly controversial feature of "Novel Use" in June, knowing that it's not possible for us to opt out of Novel Use until next April.

If Alamy absolutely must go through with this, they should at least try to be fair to those of us who are appalled by the idea.

This should either be a separate opt-in from Novel Use, or they should open up a short time window allowing opt-outs from Novel Use.

Kudos to those who had the foresight to ignore Novel Use in the first place.

Good luck to Alamy the next time they offer another "Additional Revenue Opportunity"
09 June 2008 at 18:16 Charles Polidano

When Novel Use was introduced lots of people doubted Alamy's motives. I was one of those who argued in its favour. Thanks Alamy for proving me wrong and the doubters right!

I WILL NOT have my images sold at 60p. I will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to stop it happening. And I am EXTREMELY UNHAPPY with Alamy about this.
09 June 2008 at 18:27 Roger Eritja

This violation of what they said in the first place is just too blatant. They can't ignore this may be a no-return path so I'm guessing Alamy has just decided to turn to microstock... with many of us on boat.
Not allowing opt-out of an undefined scheme should have raised concern among us.
09 June 2008 at 18:29 Cristina Lichti

Very underhanded gentlemen. You not so much implied as explicitely stated that this "novel use" would not be microstock.

Relying on our trust of you, we were assured it was not like this at all. Requiring an ambiguous ,"act now" deadline you enlisted a great number of contributors. Only to betray that trust by doing what you said you would not!

To add salt to the wound, you make it such that nobody can even opt out wonce they were aware of how things work. Frankly, a con job. Shame on you collectively!
09 June 2008 at 18:34 James O'Rear

Are we thought so dense a group of people that we would not associate the words "micropayment" with "microstock"? Seems like Alamy is trying to play both sides of the stock photography fence and it just doesn't work like that.
09 June 2008 at 18:36 David robertson

Sadly, I signed up for Novel Use.

Without support from me, and everyone else who signed up, Novel Use would not have got off the ground. Alamy, show the same support for us that we did for you and give us the chance to opt out now.

No one is going to buy an image of mine for 60p, ever!
09 June 2008 at 18:36 Philip Crean

More than underhand. I feel that you have lied to us.

If you have the slightest bit of business ethic left you will allow an opt out of this scheme now.
09 June 2008 at 18:44 Ryan

I wonder how Alamy will feel about having a stable base when their 12+ million images drops to oh lets say 8 million (or less) since this is the best way left for us to OPT OUT.
09 June 2008 at 18:47 Carol Buchanan

Alamy, what are you doing? A few pennies for an image? I want out!
If I wanted to sell these images for these kind of prices, they'd have been on the micros years ago.

Frankly, I'm horrified!
09 June 2008 at 18:47 Linda Matlow

I never signed up for novel use. I do not venture into any agreements that have the word,'Scheme" in them or are worded so vaguely or without an 'opt out' immediately clause.
09 June 2008 at 18:53 Morten Svenningsen

I just wrote an article recommending Alamy as a good alternative to microstock. Luckily it wasn’t published yet - guess I’ll have to recommend someone else now, since new contributors aparently can’t opt out.

50% of 60p to the photographer! Sure, if I could expect to sell an image a thousand times. But I’m not taking that kind of generic pictures. Surely this scheme isn’t as good for the photographer as the agency.
09 June 2008 at 19:14 idmurray

My immediate concern is that once an image has a 'history' of any sort, especially for an unlimited use as described, any image so licenced becomes barred from any exclusive site. I gain 30p and the image cannot be moved to Getty, age or elsewhere. Ever.

I have always been broadly in favour of micro RM prices for micro RM uses and can understand and to a large extent support this development. But there are big BUTS, not least the way it has been sprung on people and that it automatically includes all images.

How will image use be controlled in this era of Orphan use?

We need more details, it needs more discussion and we need more time whether to decide to participate or not, also image by image or at least pseudo by pseudo control.

As I say I can see very big advantages to a controlled micro use licence but this comes as something as a bolt out of the blue.

How are contributors going to be able to respond?
09 June 2008 at 19:16 cristina

I would like to opt out, because this isn't what I signed for and morevoer it embarassed me in front of other agencies that deal with my images, since I agreed not to put my images for sale on microagencies. If I had to choose between being banned and alamy, I would choose the other agencies which don't apply tricks to its suppliers. Please give me the option to opt out. I don't trust the possibility to control every sale.
09 June 2008 at 19:21 Peter jones

this decision seems to be really damaging a good name in the industry;what a pity. By all means go down this road but please let those of us who don't want anything to do with the Microstock market and value our images far higher than such a market will pay (rightly or wrongly)have an option to pull out of Novel use immediately.
09 June 2008 at 19:22 Christine Webb

I am confused and bemused. I hate to think what all those buyers of spot sizes and 1/8th pages do when they see that they can buy a 5.5mb file for only £1.80. Unfortunately I can see the day when lots of people dealing with a deadline, a strict budget and a gift horse (of a stunning photo that has passed a stringent QC process) is looking you in the mouth, you don't give the truth too much of thought.
09 June 2008 at 19:40 Stephen Oliver

The howls of anguish are predictable and I have to admit that I haven't signed up to novel use and won't sign up to this in this form. However I think this is a good move although a bit too timid and possibly not likely to be implemented effectively.

I think you need a separate portal to access these micro-price images. It could be integrated with the relevant part of the online library once inside, but it would make sense that people entering were not confused as to what was on offer.

Secondly the uses envisioned are too limited. Bloggers and social networkers are going to carry on doing what they do now with ease. They pinch and hot-link. School kids and students just google an image and print it out any size in their Epson printers. They wouldn't have a clue about file size or copyright. Educators however are a realistic market but probably won't account for the high volume such a scheme is predicated on.

The real volume market for Microstock is web-site usage for small scale businesses put together by small scale web site "designers". Their clients want the whole job for under $500 they aren't ever going to pay out much from their bottom line on these jobs. And the average hairdressing salon or aromatherapist isn't going to pay out much more for an online presence either. Nonetheless it is the explosion in this marginal entrepreneurial activity on the web that makes the microstock model a fact of life. The big mistake of the microstockers was to offer pictures at ultra low prices irrespective of the end use.

I believe that if high quality generic pictures like commercial RF stock were offered to this market under strict conditions of qualifying as a small enterprise, low resolution, single use but for an indefinite period, possibly including a discreet logo at exceptionally low prices but giving contributors a high percentage of that then it would be possible to undercut and outmanoeuvre the microstock market. You could retain mainstream clients at mainstream prices while taking much of the microstock market which is not inconsiderable. I believe iStock generates revenue at least as big as Alamy. You could police the usage using new technology like 'Tineye', with whom Alamy already have a connection. You should make it a contributor condition not to supply the same, similar or other material to the Microstock libraries offering the kind of unconditional use licences they do now. Even if stock contributors viewed offering micro priced stock under these strict conditions as a loss leader or a spoiler tactic, it's effect would be to protect the market to mass media outlets at realistic prices. Demand for low priced pictures is not going to go away, and neither is the technology that allows anyone who got a camera or a computer for Christmas to become a 'stock photographer' or a web site 'designer'. This is the real world.

As far as Alamy's many travel and specialist photographers go I doubt that there is much to be gained from Micro sales. I think it would be reasonable to let any who have signed up for "Novel Use" out now if they do not agree with this development.
09 June 2008 at 19:50 Richard donovan

I agree with all the comments being made. However I don't believe that you have to pull your images off, I think that Alamy are in breach of contract if they do this. The Novel Use contract is supported by the conditions in the information given to contributors before signing up(already quoted above). A few law suits will soon change their minds. Any lawyers around?
09 June 2008 at 20:08 David Klein

Correct me if I'm wrong here... The only way to close an account is to delete the images and once you delete a RM image it still remains available for sale for 180 days.
09 June 2008 at 20:09 Lisa Valder

With reference to previous post no. 75, the following is self explanatory:
"All Images sold under Novel Use Licences may be sold at any rates in Alamy’s discretion without Alamy having to consult the Contributor."
09 June 2008 at 20:09 Lisa Valder

With reference to previous post no. 75, the following is self explanatory:
"All Images sold under Novel Use Licences may be sold at any rates in Alamy’s discretion without Alamy having to consult the Contributor."
09 June 2008 at 20:34 Richard Donovan

Dear Lisa
It is not the explicit terms of the contract that are in question. It is the qualification to that contract contained in the supporting information, which I believe also forms part of the contract.
It is not the price of the image that is in question but the type of usage.
09 June 2008 at 21:07 Fabian Gonzales

I actually do believe in certain forms of microstock/micropayment as a viable market for stock, and the restrictive categories you have selected are a fairly good choice (with the possible exception of blogs).

However, I do think you are making some big mistakes:

* The price is too low.

Blogs can be big business. There are plenty of people who earn 6-figure incomes on their blogs! Images do add value to these blogs, and should be priced accordingly. Maybe $100 is too much, but $1 is too little. $5-10 would be much more appropriate.

* Non-RF images should never be licensed for unlimited periods of time.

The whole idea behind rights-managed images is to restrict usage by type, size and time period. Charging traditional media for a 1-month or 1-year use while allowing new media (blogs) to use the same image in perpetuity for $1 is just plain wrong.

* Contributors should be able to select which images to allow novel-use for on a per-image, or at least a per-pseudonym basis.

If you allow your entire collection to be sold for $1, you are nothing but a fool. Who in their right mind would sign up for this scheme in its current form?
09 June 2008 at 21:10 Rye

^^^ what he said!!!!
09 June 2008 at 21:24 Cristian baitg

Glad I didn't trust Alamy on this one. I opted out and will keep out. Really dissapointed with them. I wish you well but this endeavour is an insult to Alamy contributors. Sad sad news.

Cristian Baitg
09 June 2008 at 21:27 Bob Deering

Well Alamy you have made the contributors who trusted you look fools. You should at the very least allow an opt out before the scheme gets going. Perhaps then you will restore a little trust but I doubt you will ever recover your former status.

Bob
09 June 2008 at 21:36 Robbie

Bloggers will not pay for images. Social networkers will not pay for images. Pupils will not pay for images, hell, I suspect even teaachers will not pay. Espcially when the paid for price is only 60p. I can hear them thinking already..."Well, it only cost 60p anyway so what's it matter if I just rip a few off".
09 June 2008 at 21:46 Mat

I agree entirely with Robbie ( 84 )
09 June 2008 at 21:49 Paul glendell

Well Like so many other above I signed up to Novel use and like everyone else I trusted Alamy. I will do my best to get out of novel use but will certainly opt out next april if I still have any images in alamy!!!
09 June 2008 at 22:04 John Mitchell

I didn't sign up for Novel Use, but I think it's only fair that those who did should be allowed to opt out before limited use comes into effect. Many contributors, myself included, have photos posted with other agencies and portals that don't accept low-cost images.
09 June 2008 at 22:23 Lisa valder

Fabian Gonzales wrote: " Non-RF images should never be licensed for unlimited periods of time."
Entirely agree Fabian. Call me old fashioned, but this to me is the beginning of the end of what we all knew as the stock photography industry.
(PS: I apologize to all that me previous comments appeared in duplicate, not intended, something to do with silly security code picture messages....)
09 June 2008 at 22:47 Disgusted TunbridgeWells

I regret having to hide behind this ridiculous pseudonym, but I am one of the individuals who now feels that they have been duped by Alamy. The issue of Orphan Works has come to the fore after the Novel Use idea was floated and the type of customer Alamy is courting is very likely to create orphans. I believed in Alamy as a company which would do the right thing and now feel trapped and betrayed. The legality of a contract where one party signs up with no idea of the consequences is entirely questionable.

Alamy to regain our trust should allow opting out immediately to "Blind Joiners" and if they must proceed on this course allow contributors to opt in on an image by image basis so that we can protect our valuable images from misuse and devaluation.

What is the point of following this selling model if most of the paricipants are going to remove their images as soon as they can? How many contributors who now feel that they have made an error by opting in are now going to stop uploading to Alamy in favour of other outlets?
09 June 2008 at 23:02 Suzanne long

The goodwill that led many photographers (including myself) to sign up to novel use is evaporating fast.

And no, a couple of 60-p sales is not going to magically restore goodwill!

And it is difficult to understand, when sales are only worth 60 p, how Alamy could afford to invest any effort in policing Limited Use. Who's going to check whether that 60 p image was used by a blogger or in a profit-making company website?

Come on Alamy, show us some goodwill in return and either give us more information, or permit us to opt-out now that the disagreeable details have been revealed.
09 June 2008 at 23:14 Really Pissed Off

There are three aspects of this project that we regard as essential:

1. It must not undermine our existing business

Wait there. Ever heard of the phrase "never knowingly undersold"? It's about quality, retaining brand perception of a quality product. What don't you understand Alamy?
09 June 2008 at 23:15 Alex Hinds

I hope and trust Alamy will be reconsidering this whole plan, given the feedback.

I can understand, and would support, wanting to compete with microstock but this wont even do that! Alamy has a bigger collection for sure, but if you look objectively at the offerings the typical micro buyer will find much more to their liking at the existing micros with better licences than this 'limited use' offering.

Alamy state they do not want to 'undermine existing business'; I'm sorry I feel this is exactly what this will do, with limited likelihood of benefits elsewhere.

It's a bad idea - listen and rethink please!

Alex
09 June 2008 at 23:16 Don

I stupidly signed up, and now feel both misled and foolish.

Do the right thing Alamy, allow us to opt out now that you've revealed all. This is a breach of trust.
09 June 2008 at 23:25 vpics

I think Alamy should open up the opt in/opt out process again. That's only fair. We were told it wouldn't be Microstock but now it is but another name.
09 June 2008 at 23:37 Nick meers

looks a lot like BETRAYAL, which will not only make your loyal contributors want to pull all their stock out, but will also engender a very bad dislike for Alamy for a L O N G time to come....
you want to alienate all of us in one go?
..DON'T DO IT!
09 June 2008 at 23:38 vpics

Sorry, forgot.

Can Alamy please send around an email to everyone who opted "in" to Novel Use as not everyone reads the blog on a regular basis as I think everyone should be told.
09 June 2008 at 23:46 David Hancock

I'm another who feels a sense of betrayal in this decision. Do the right thing Alamy and allow us to opt out now!
09 June 2008 at 23:49 Disgusted Again

For your interest I have sent the following toMembership servicesand Alan Capel

Dear Sir, I give formal notice to you to withdraw my images from the Novel Use scheme with immediate effect. Some years ago Lord Denning, one of the UK's senior Lawyers as Master of the Rolls established the legal principal that an unfair contract was void and unenforceable. In soliciting Alamy contributors to agree to the use of their images for a new secret Novel Use without giving clear terms and conditions Alamy has created an unfair contract. I therefore reject it in totality.
10 June 2008 at 00:00 Paul Collis

Like all brands in the marketplace, Alamy's brand can be defined as 'a promise made to customers'. Alamy has slowly and carefully achieved a reputation as a major player, positioned between premium brands like Getty and the bargain-basement microstock brands. It is reputable and reliable and transparent, and has the potential to dominate the middle of the market. BUT - a brand retains whatever values it has only by staying true to them. How will current, active customers perceive this 'selective' bottom feeding? My ad agency-educated guess is that Alamy's brand personality can only suffer by being split in two this way. And there is no such thing as a successful schizophrenic brand.

I don't know if you senior people at Alamy will read these responses, or all the posts to the relevant forum. But if you do, perhaps you could give us a sign...
10 June 2008 at 00:03 Simon stanmore

I'm signed up to Novel Use and at this stage quite interested to see the the sales figures. Thing is, my perception of Alamy's marketing makes me think this scheme is gonna take a damn looong time to make any inroads, if it does at all.
So 'f' it. I'll join in .. THE SKY IS FALLING, MY 'ART' IS BEING DEFILED, OMG OMG OMG ! ! !
Getta grip peep's.
Note to Alamy - Make it RF only and you'll be saving yourself a whole lotta grief from the contrib' side. The fundamentalists will say to their RF colleagues "I told you so", whilst their RF collegues will, in the main, watch and analyse before drawing any conclusions.
10 June 2008 at 01:03 NotSoArrogantAsSimonStanmore

Simon,

There are many arguments here and all are reasonable. If you need to belittle people perhaps you could do it elsewhere?

In your own words "get a grip".
10 June 2008 at 01:22 Jerome yeats

The novel use scheme has no merit. Alamy has always seemed directionless but this is a leap over the cliffs with the lemmings.

For all of you who joined the novel use scheme, did you really think Alamy had your best interests at heart? Alamy cannot police unlawful use for normal stock. With novel use you will see the same small images all over the world in minutes; all devaluing your mainstream stock generally.
10 June 2008 at 01:22 Simon Stanmore

To the human being and fellow photographer too insecure in their convictions to use their name: If you think all of the 'arguments' on this blog thread are "reasonable", you're as arrogant and ignorant as GWB is on the environment.
I belittle nobody. The only sorry slander here is your attitude toward an opinion that contradicts yours. This attitude is the real damage that's undermining the stock image industry toaday.
I have a firm, steady, logical and profitable grip on my business thank you very much.
This is the last post I'll make here on this issue, so feel free to exercise your well-rehearsed attack(s) on a fellow photographer who's not entrenched in dead thought.
10 June 2008 at 01:54 Don

Simon, Novel Use may wll turn out to be a good thing for many, but the way it has been introduced was misleading. Now there are quite a few of us who want to opt out of this shameful "contract".
10 June 2008 at 02:00 Thomas R. Fletcher

This just goes to prove the old adage: 'Never buy a pig in a poke.'

This is EXACTLY what I feared with the 'Novel Use' scheme and EXACTLY why I have not signed up for 'Novel Use.'

Those who did sign up: Thanks a lot, you have contributed to the further deterioration of the market.

Thanks for being so gullible and RUSHING down the slope of no return on the marketing of images.
10 June 2008 at 02:37 Kevin shields

Mr West,

Callous and underhanded treatment of your contributors has led to ill will. My opinion of Alamy sank to the lowest level today (Monday). The timing of the scheme relative to the ability to opt out is obvious. After seeing this first Novel Use, I can hardly wait for the rest. Hope you enjoy your micro revenue; it looks more like an act of a desperate company.
10 June 2008 at 03:56 Ryan mcginnis

Glad I didn't sign up for this trainwreck. I guess the upside is that as veteran contributors pull all of their images, there will be less in the archive to compete with mine. :)
10 June 2008 at 07:36 Darrell young

Alamy responded to me with the following, when I wrote to Member services earlier today:

QUOTE
"Hi Darrell,

Thanks for your mail.

Novel use differs in that your images are still available for sale as Royalty Free or Rights-Managed images. You can still sell your images under our standard licensing conditions and prices, so you are not committing your images solely to a low cost model.

We need to be able to present a stable base of images to novel use customers, if it was constantly changing, our offering would not be as compelling. Because of this we have set an option for contributors to opt out of this by April 2009. Please can you let me know your thoughts on this matter?

Kind Regards,
Member Services"
END QUOTE

I responded to them in this manner:

QUOTE
"Alamy,

I belong to at least two other agencies whose contracts disallow pricing my
images for less than $50 USD in ANY agency. If they find out that my images in Alamy are being sold for less than $50 USD, I will lose my other
contracts.

In reading the reaction from Photographers in the Contributor's
Blog, you have lit a fire that could easily consume your company. I will
NOT remain with Alamy if you pursue this micropayment foolishness. I want
out of Novel Use NOW, not in April of 2009. I will not allow Alamy to ruin
my images' value. This is utter foolishness!

I went to the Novel Use area, and there is still no way to remove my
acceptance of Novel use. If you are not going to allow us to get out of
this "scheme," then you can expect to lose a great majority of your
photograpers, have very bad press, drive away many new ones who would have
signed up, and ruin the reputation of Alamy in the stock photography world.
As photographers we are being beaten up by this world - Orphan works bill,
microstock, lower fees, higher expenses, and now our trusted agency Alamy is busy preparing to stab us in the back with stinking micropayment sales.

Personally, I am going to await your reply, and if it is not positive, I
will begin the process of deleting my images immediately.

Darrell Young"
END QUOTE

<<<>>>

Might I suggest that YOU let member service know how YOU feel about this issue. I'm sure they are readin this blog, but a personal email is more effective.

- Darrell
10 June 2008 at 08:00 Paul Heinrich

Novel use - novel rip-of more like. This is NOT what I signed up to novel use for so let ups opt out NOW not next April.
10 June 2008 at 08:23 Mary clark

Alamy says " Novel use differs in that your images are still available for sale as Royalty Free or Rights-Managed images. You can still sell your images under our standard licensing conditions and prices, so you are not committing your images solely to a low cost model"
I can see all these images popping up all over the place , and trying to find out who paid what for what usage ,is going to be an absolute nightmare.

I cannot see that this is a workable model at all .If you have to go down this route it surely has to be with separate stock , in a separate place, so that contributors are well aware what they are committed too.
The silly season came a bit late ,like spring !
10 June 2008 at 08:40 Nic cleave

Alamy staff...

Please respond to this outrage with some form of comment in this thread, please....
10 June 2008 at 08:49 ian reynolds

I too signed up for novel use as it was said it was not going to be microstock, I trusted alamy to do the right thing, now I don't. It is microstock, how misleading, I want out of novel use now.

this really bad
10 June 2008 at 09:18 f/0.7

Applause for Alamy for trying to go new ways in this changing marketplace. Still this idea looks a little half-baked.

My main concerns are

1. The way contributors got informed and the lack of a opt-out option (for 12 months) is far away from being acceptable (and even legally disputable).

2. Who exactly will get this novel use prices? The line between blogs and others kinds of online publishing keeps growing fuzzier. Also it is not always easy to identify whether a blog is commercial or noncommercial. The wording used in the announcement above implies that Alamy has not yet thought about intricacies like these.
10 June 2008 at 09:38 Kevin

I myself saw clearly when Novel Use was first announced that the scheme was definitely not something for me to sign up to and argued against it. Seeing the first statistics come in and the contributors obvious discontentment on the Alamy blog and forum, I now wonder what it was that convinced so many people to join the Novel Use Scheme as I thought it was quite clearly stated by Alamy how the scheme was focused.

Not wishing to insult anyone now, but I assumed that Alamy was expecting few professionals would sign up and considered the scheme more of a way of trying to sell those pictures which remain at the bottom end of a search, those dormant pictures which don't generate an income at present but could be of interest to a certain area of the market. I may have been very wrong with that assumption.

As you can see, I'm not dead against the Novel Use idea, just the way the scheme seemed to be implemented was rather clumsy, would be difficult/impossible to regulate and in time could undermine the conventional side of Alamy.
10 June 2008 at 09:59 Sami Sarkis

I'm just wondering why one did sign-in before precisely knowing all the details?

I didn't and now that I know where this Novel Use will go, I'll never sign it.

At least now we know what to do, and why.

Of course, Alamy wasn't fair - for the least - when they introduced this new scheme.

The best thing to do when there's too many unanswered questions is to wait and see.

It's unfortunately too late for those who opted-in but remember it next time!

I feel sorry for you, and for the future of Alamy.

Sami Sarkis-
10 June 2008 at 10:22 Heather

It has taken me many years to build a reputation of trust with my customers and agencies, I have never given in to micro pressure, and my customers and editors know that the images they buy can not be found on micro's, Alamy or so I say Almicro will undoubtedly destroy that trust, if they do not allow me to opt out immediately, I will have no alternative but to remove my images. I am not selling my trust and reputation for 60p - ever.
10 June 2008 at 11:02 Mat

When "Novel Use" was first implemented I signed up for it.No sales appeared, so in April this year I opted out of the scheme and now this has appeared I'm glad I did.

I think anyone who is opted in now, should have the opportunity to get out, now that the conditions have changed.
10 June 2008 at 11:03 Mark Hodson

Why not just give our work away and save the cost of accounting?... wait a minute, you are!
10 June 2008 at 11:42 Michael Griffin

I thought Alamy wanted to improve the collection to make it salable to ad agency's.
What big brand name is going to buy from a site where the same image can be used by any blogger with a grudge against their brand.
10 June 2008 at 12:19 Alan Gallery

I have not jumped into this issue because I have come to realise that reacting in the spur of the moment often leads (for me at least) to outbursts that I later come to regret. I have called the QC system Stalinist for instance but that was in the days when it took the best part of a month to get through the QC system. Whatever failings the QC system had, real or imagined is massively offset by the almost universal 48-hour QC turnaround. The recent QC statement on this blog is an example of a useful communication that could have been months ago saving an awful lot of grief for contributors and Members Services staff alike.

To contributors who have been continually disappointed by the low return on sales to different parts of the world and the massive discounts that are being offered the idea of selling images for £0.30, in our terms, is very disturbing. My experience with Alamy is that they very often do things very well but do not communicate with contributors very well leading to anger and distrust as displayed by the comments on other threads on this blog and in other places.

If Alamy do not do something to release those who signed up to this, and to explain how this is not going to be damaging for all of us contributors and the stock photography market in general then it is going to hurt the relationship of trust that Alamy depends upon.

I am also alarmed that resources have been diverted to an area of marginal profitability that must have had a detrimental impact on other parts of the business.
10 June 2008 at 12:25 Alan gallery

I see that Alamy have opened a two week opt-out window for those who signed-up. This is welcome news and I hope an email will go out to all concerned.
10 June 2008 at 12:31 David

This is not what I expected from Novel Use, I thought NU was to be for special deals you did behind the scenes... Not published publically on the front page! This will devalue Alamy amoungst serious picture buyers...

Next you'll be giving them away with the Mail on sunday!
10 June 2008 at 12:35 David

Please remind me what is in it for the photographer. Is it likely that each individual photographer will sell vast quantities of these 60p deals per month? I estimate that I would need 200-300 of these to equal one average normal sale.

Alamy will make from this due to the economics of scale, not the photographers.

Blog

Launch of Limited Use – the first of our Novel Use initiatives

Blogs

Social Networking

Education

Add your own commentComments (153)

09 June 2008 at 10:53 vipin

09 June 2008 at 11:10 Danx

09 June 2008 at 11:14 John hatcher

09 June 2008 at 11:23 Richard Thomas

09 June 2008 at 11:25 Thyrsis

09 June 2008 at 11:52 Mary clark

09 June 2008 at 11:52 michael arthur thompson

09 June 2008 at 12:21 Ian sanders

09 June 2008 at 12:32 Pete jenkins

09 June 2008 at 12:35 Richard Thomas

09 June 2008 at 12:41 Nic Cleave

09 June 2008 at 12:43 Robert Slade

09 June 2008 at 12:59 Povl

09 June 2008 at 13:06 Martin Wilson

09 June 2008 at 13:10 Martin Wilson

09 June 2008 at 13:26 nicholas frost

09 June 2008 at 13:36 Aron Hsiao

09 June 2008 at 13:40 Scott Hortop

09 June 2008 at 13:42 Linda Kennedy

09 June 2008 at 14:04 Ian homer

09 June 2008 at 14:13 David Bleeker

09 June 2008 at 14:16 Kevin

09 June 2008 at 14:19 Mark Scheuern

09 June 2008 at 14:29 Charles polidano

09 June 2008 at 14:30 Greg wright

09 June 2008 at 14:34 Ian Homer

09 June 2008 at 14:47 Ryan mc.

09 June 2008 at 14:50 Darrell Young

09 June 2008 at 14:57 Nic Cleave

09 June 2008 at 15:01 Alan Spencer

09 June 2008 at 15:09 Bob Croxford

09 June 2008 at 15:16 Jinny Goodman

09 June 2008 at 15:20 Gaspar Alamy

09 June 2008 at 16:10 Tony watson

09 June 2008 at 16:12 Philip scalia

09 June 2008 at 16:28 Peter jones

09 June 2008 at 16:36 Pat kane

09 June 2008 at 16:37 Scott MacQuarrie

09 June 2008 at 16:38 Ian M Butterfield

09 June 2008 at 16:54 Adam romanowicz

09 June 2008 at 16:57 David robertson

09 June 2008 at 17:03 Phil duff

09 June 2008 at 17:06 Bob croxford

09 June 2008 at 17:12 Alexei fateev

09 June 2008 at 17:14 Matt jones

09 June 2008 at 17:20 Lisa valder

09 June 2008 at 17:20 Lisa valder

09 June 2008 at 17:21 Ronnie mcmillan

09 June 2008 at 17:29 Steve davey

09 June 2008 at 17:29 Jacques Jangoux

09 June 2008 at 17:31 Jason O. Watson

09 June 2008 at 17:31 Oleg Shpak

09 June 2008 at 17:37 David gould

09 June 2008 at 17:49 Tony watson

09 June 2008 at 17:50 Paul Collis

09 June 2008 at 17:56 Tony Lilley

09 June 2008 at 18:04 Mary clark

09 June 2008 at 18:10 Pedro Luz Cunha

09 June 2008 at 18:15 Paul wasserman

09 June 2008 at 18:16 Charles Polidano

09 June 2008 at 18:27 Roger Eritja

09 June 2008 at 18:29 Cristina Lichti

09 June 2008 at 18:34 James O'Rear

09 June 2008 at 18:36 David robertson

09 June 2008 at 18:36 Philip Crean

09 June 2008 at 18:44 Ryan

09 June 2008 at 18:47 Carol Buchanan

09 June 2008 at 18:47 Linda Matlow

09 June 2008 at 18:53 Morten Svenningsen

09 June 2008 at 19:14 idmurray

09 June 2008 at 19:16 cristina

09 June 2008 at 19:21 Peter jones

09 June 2008 at 19:22 Christine Webb

09 June 2008 at 19:40 Stephen Oliver