Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Novel Use announcement

Permalink Comments (79)10 June 2008 at 11:35 by James West - CEO
Posted under News, Rambling CEO

An opt out has been made available for Novel Use. The opportunity to opt out will be available for two weeks from today. I apologise unreservedly to those of you who feel you have been misled. This was never my intention and it is not the Alamy way of doing things.

To opt out of Novel Use go to My Alamy and follow the link to 'Novel use' under 'Additional revenue opportunities'. Select 'No thanks' and then 'Submit'.

Top

Add your own commentComments (79)

  1. 10 June 2008 at 11:44 phil Crean

    Many thanks James.
    You've just revived my faith in Alamy as a serious company.

  2. 10 June 2008 at 11:44 ProPhotographer

    Kudos Alamy, we spoke, you listened.

    This is excellent news indeed for all us RM shooters.

    PP

  3. 10 June 2008 at 11:47 Robert Slade

    Thanks for listening, the opt out opportunity is appreciated. I will be opting out at the earliest opportunity.

    Can I be so bold as to ask whether you consulted with any professional stock photographers before attempting to introduce this scheme and, given the reaction so far, will you consult your contributors in the future?

    Regards

  4. 10 June 2008 at 11:48 Jinny goodman

    Thanks Alamy.
    Prompt action has gone a long way to reestablishing the status quo.
    Thank you for listening.
    Jinny

  5. 10 June 2008 at 11:50 David robertson

    Many thanks. Trust is restored.

    David

  6. 10 June 2008 at 12:00 Stephen Cooper

    Thank you for your prompt action

  7. 10 June 2008 at 12:02 Kevin Shields

    Thank you for taking this step promptly. The idea of Limited Use remains though, unless all contributors opt out. Alamy must reconsider what the Limited Use scheme does to their reputation. Saying you will not become a micro stock agency last year and pursuing micro payments this year prevents me from trusting Alamy regarding Novel Use.

  8. 10 June 2008 at 12:02 Mat

    It is good to know that Alamy do listen to their contributors. Thank you.

  9. 10 June 2008 at 12:15 Peter jones

    c

  10. 10 June 2008 at 12:17 Peter jones

    ooops ignore the c dunno what happened there; me too; credit where credit is due; you listened and responded; trust is now restored.
    Many thanks, Peter.

  11. 10 June 2008 at 12:20 Ian m butterfield

    Thank you for providing this at this time. I do believe there is value in pursuing some "Novel Use" options but not THIS version of it. Perhaps in the future there should be an opt out/in on a scheme by scheme basis?

  12. 10 June 2008 at 12:29 Tony Lilley

    Many thanks for doing this. I still have much faith in Alamy.
    Best wishes, Tony.

  13. 10 June 2008 at 12:32 Heather

    Thank you - thank you, no really thank you, I can start breathing again.

  14. 10 June 2008 at 12:36 Pearl Bucknall

    Thanks Alamy. I know you have listened in the past and you have now shown that you are still listening. I have opted out for now but would reconsider if a more contributor controllable version were to be introduced e.g. by pseudonym

  15. 10 June 2008 at 12:41 Alex Hinds

    Alamy's quick and positive response to the contribuotr feedback is to be welcomed.

    However I would echo the point Kevin makes (Post 7); the concept of limited use is still there and could still damage the overall Alamy brand with that 60p on the homepage. I think most of us would rather be competing with Getty for sales than istock.

  16. 10 June 2008 at 12:41 Nic Cleave

    Thank you for the response and action of allowing those who felt unfairly duped into signing up, the option to get out of this scheme

  17. 10 June 2008 at 12:41 Charles Polidano

    Great news. I was disappointed and, yes, angry, but deep down I never lost hope that Alamy would come through with a solution.

  18. 10 June 2008 at 12:45 Suzanne Long

    Thanks James. I've opted out. But I recognise that innovation is necessary for Alamy's continued growth and survival, and await future announcements with interest.

  19. 10 June 2008 at 13:12 ian reynolds

    thanks for this thats sense, I will be opting out, how about a opt in that allows you to split your rf from your l images, so say only rf from collections can be submitted. that would be on par with agencies like image source and i stock and you could have a search tick button for only images in the scheme.

    discount for bulk buys is a business decision but slashing all prices is very bad.

    however price still seems very low.

  20. 10 June 2008 at 13:37 Cristina

    thank you so much!

  21. 10 June 2008 at 13:40 Tony collins

    Yes Thanks for the quick response on this. However I can't help feeling uncomfortable about having images sitting alongside mine at such a clearance bin price. How many Cornish B&Bs looking to illustrate their website will be tempted to fib about use to get a cheap image? Their perception will be that they are only taking a 60 pence picture. Anyone who previously removed watermarks would jump at the chance to register as a private blogger or teacher to avoid the aggro. Novel use will not be good if it cannibalises full price sales

    With such a large collection as Alamy, I seriously doubt if any micro-priced model can work for photographers. At least with a conventional micro with an edited collection the choice for buyers is small enough to ensure some repeat downloads. (Is this still true or dilution there also?).

  22. 10 June 2008 at 14:03 Ronnie mcmillan

    A really good response. Thanks for that. I'm sure a healthy debate as to the pros and cons of the scheme itself will go on for some time and that's no bad thing. But now everyone can make an informed choice, with confidence restored.

  23. 10 June 2008 at 14:25 Pete jenkins


    If Novel use is to be another string to the Alamy bow, well why not, there is a place for it, then Alamy should do what the biggest players do (Getty, Corbis, Jupiter) and keep Micro/Novel use, low payment stock separate from the bread and butter site.

    Allowing RM to be used in an unlimited way as described, does seem to be a tad naive.

    Perhaps all this was just to get the publicity... :-)

    Kind regards



    Pete Jenkins
    www.petejenkins.co.uk
    www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/
    www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/blogs/pete-jenkins-blog

  24. 10 June 2008 at 15:40 Greg Wright

    The prompt response is much appreciated. It proves that Alamy has integrity.

    Thanks.

  25. 10 June 2008 at 16:40 Kevin Shields

    As long as Limited Use exists in it's current form, Alamy has no credibility.

  26. 10 June 2008 at 16:56 Cristina Lichti

    Thank you very much for your very prompt action!

  27. 10 June 2008 at 17:06 Ajayclicks

    Hooray for all the thanks and regain integrity stuff....

    But what are the long term implications? The agency is inclined to sell at prices lower than micros. In comparison, the amounts quoted in "low priced russian federation" threads appear to be a kings ransom.

    Going forward, what kind of buyers will frequent the site?

    Imagine, going thru all this trouble of upsizing images to 48 mbs only to finally sell em as 450 px or so jpegs for 60 pence.

  28. 10 June 2008 at 17:42 Richard baker

    As soon as I learned of the details for Novel Use, I immediately opted out.

  29. 10 June 2008 at 18:06 Robert Deering

    Thank You.
    I can now get on with keywording my latest batch.

    Good luck to anyone who wishes to remain in the scheme.

    Bob

  30. 10 June 2008 at 18:17 Bill brooks

    NOVEL USE IS A GOOD DEAL FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!!
    Getty did $71 million in sales last year in microstock images. Getty is projecting $210 million per year in microstock sales by 2012 with no growth in RF or RM. I want part of that microstock market, and the Alamy deal is a lot better deal for the photographer than the Getty deal. Musicians are a lot better off today with cheap internet downloads, than they were with $19 CDs. Microstock is stealing our business. We have to either compete or go out of business. Alamy photographers can out shoot, out caption, and out keyword microstock photographers. Change can be uncomfortable, but there is great opportunity here

  31. 10 June 2008 at 18:38 Ajayclicks

    Bill,

    Good for Getty. Wonder how much the photographers earned though. I am assuming that you have decided to opt-in. Since its an informed choice, fair enough.

  32. 10 June 2008 at 19:51 Constantin moisei

    Was there a letter to announce this ?
    I learned first about this few days back from a Yahoo group I subscribed to.

    I did opt out.

  33. 10 June 2008 at 19:51 Bettina Scheidulin

    Yes, thanks.

    But I think you should inform all Alamy-photographers via email about your first novel-use pricelist and the possiblity to opt out (and the time-limit)!

    I found out only by chance since I don't read your blog every week...
    These prices are absolutely not acceptable for professional photographers and I don't think that many of the photographers who opted in had dreamt you would come about with something like this. The only one who gains is Alamy, because mass could bring money...

  34. 10 June 2008 at 19:55 Adrian

    I'm with Ajayclicks on this (and I didn't ever sign up for Novel Use). I'm glad I haven't eaten yet, because the rush to give Alamy obsequious kiss-and-make-up thanks for allowing some of you to extricate yourselves from a development that is at worst ill-conceived and at best dubiously imposed is making me feel queasy. If your husband cheats on you and then buys you flowers it makes it all OK I suppose. Getty got royally flamed for their $49 debacle, and here are Alamy being forgiven (by some) far too easily. Grow some cohones, people! More importantly, however much Alamy like to position themselves as a 'bridge' between buyers and sellers, they have a duty of care to the owners of the content they are selling, or at the very least should have understood it would be courteous and wise to not shoot first and ask questions later. They shouldn't be making gaffs that they then feel the need to apologise for. Now, if any of you want to flame me, go ahead - my barbeque needs lighting.

  35. 10 June 2008 at 21:04 Alexei Fateev

    I've opted out, thanks the possibility.

    However, my concern is whether the scheme will undermine existing business or not. How a potential customer will see if an RM image is under the scheme (which is unfortunately is possible)? If they don't know that, it may drive them off Alamy.

    I believe the best solution may be establishing a separate site for the scheme. Or at least clearly mark each image as participating/not participating in the scheme. Or, even better, exclude all RM/RP images from the scheme.

    And I'd like to join those who wonder where have you got this 60p price from? You shouldn't go so much down under no circumstances.

    I would reconsider optin in the scheme provided participation in it may be on image by image (or the at least psedo by pseudo) basis.

  36. 10 June 2008 at 21:57 David C

    I only found out about this through the Photoshelter forum, could you please make this public by informing contributors by email that they only have 2 week to opt out of an equally un-published scheme.

  37. 10 June 2008 at 22:18 Scott hortop

    Contributors need more information to make a decision on whether to participate or not.....

    Will participation affect Alamyrank?

    If a buyer only wants one photo but to spend 60p has to buy £10 of tokens then does Alamy pocket £9.70?

    Are these sales denominated in dollars so exchange diffs shave even more off before contributor sees cash?

    I could go on. There is still far too much vagueness to make a sensible decision.

    And just to reiterate, the market you identified are surely quite ready to pay several pounds for a photo rather than pence.

  38. 10 June 2008 at 22:19 Simon Perkin

    I just found out about this via photoshelter forums too! I have immediately opted out (thanks for the option). I admit my decision to previously opt in was on the basis of special deals for bulk buying account holders or truly novel business transactions/offers, definitely not for fixed micro level price tiers!

  39. 10 June 2008 at 22:22 Scott hortop

    Sorry should have put the dollar point more sensibly. It's the old one that a £ sale is translated to $ and then back again before I see my £'s!

  40. 10 June 2008 at 23:08

    Many thanks, Alamy. I remain rather confused about the whole thing: clearly the strength of feeling about this issue has worried me as I had opted in when it was first announced. I have now opted out and have been told that I can opt in again at any time.

    This outcome is the perfect solution and will give me time to weigh up the pros and cons in the fullness of time.

    Thanks again for your swift response to the misgivings clearly felt by many contributors.

  41. 10 June 2008 at 23:11 Clive Rowley

    .... somehow I managed to get my comment above published without adding my name.

  42. 11 June 2008 at 00:07 Kevin Shields

    Due to the 180 degree switch in what Novel Use is, the honorable thing to do now is to reset the choice under Novel Use to blank, and let the contributor opt in if they wish. Novel Use was not to be confused with Micropayment, and now that is exactly what it is. Mr West even uses the same term! This was to be an opt in scheme. Now that the details are known, let's make it an opt in scheme rather than the lame 2 week opt out system that will surely miss contributors who aren't present. It would be the honorable thing to do, lets see what Alamy has the courage to do.

  43. 11 June 2008 at 01:46 Reimar Gaertner

    Can someone please direct me to the place online where I can determine my status regarding opting in to the Novel Use and Distributor schemes?

    If such does not exist, I would kindly ask that such a notation be made, for example on my Manage Images page.

  44. 11 June 2008 at 08:53 Jaybee

    Reimar,

    Log in - Go to "My Images" and scroll down to "Additional Revenue Opportunities"

    You will see two links. One to "Novel Use" and one to "Distribution"

  45. 11 June 2008 at 09:09 Gaspar Avila

    Given the fact that only a few contributors read the Blog (or the forum), I thing it would be a nice thing to send a simple email with information about this decision, and the previous one, to all contributors. This would insure that no one would be caught by surprise.

  46. 11 June 2008 at 10:23 Alan Copson

    I second Gaspar's point above... as the get-out is time limited, I think everyone should be made aware.

  47. 11 June 2008 at 11:15 Peter Jones

    with over 5500 contributing photographers a very small percentage take an interest in the blog and forum, maybe they have better things to do or maybe not but as recent events have demonstrated it makes good commercial sense to keep in touch with what is going on within Alamy.

    It does seem that the vast majority at the moment at least won't have a choice to opt out of Novel Use.

    Peter.

  48. 11 June 2008 at 12:22 Patrick ray dunn

    You did the right thing. I do really wish you would get rid of your $250.00 minumum for payment or reduce it since there is this race to the bottom in pricing.

    Patrick Ray Dunn

  49. 11 June 2008 at 17:05 Christine Strover

    I am veering towards opting out but like some others I would seriously reconsider if I could opt in by pseudonym.

    I do think a separate site/homepage would be better though.

  50. 12 June 2008 at 17:49 Peter Jones

    Great news Alamy, I got your email, many thanks and well done.
    Peter

  51. 12 June 2008 at 19:43 Steve Sant

    <deep breath> In several years of membership, this is my first blog comment

    Having been with Alamy since the early days and also working as a designer so I have watched the development of ist***photo et al with interest.

    Good photography is rarely cheap, both to take and to buy. There is a place for cheap stock, but Alamy isn't it. If it wants to go selling images of laptops and coins on white backgrounds, then it should do so under a different brand.

    I have known clients purchase RM images and lie about the usage (because I asked where they got the image from)... They were actually quite proud of the "deal" they got... right up until I told them I would not use it in their design - which actually lost me the job. Perhaps this should emphasise to Alamy just how images will be used and abused if cheap enough to buy under any licensing model.

    I simply disagree with microstock on principle. It's hard to cry fair trade when the public's perception of photographers is one of wealthy paps hunting down celebs, but a lot of photographers in this country are loosing their livelihood because the only people who can survive on the revenues from the micro sites are those living in eastern europe - and sooner or later they will be demanding a better standard of living themselves.

    No... Micropayment is just about carpet bagging the stock photo industry at a time when there have been a lot of new (naive) faces and getting rich quick...

    I have absolute faith that once contributors realise they have just been goosed by the likes of ist***photo, the rich diversity and quality of creative output showcased by Alamy will remain as valuable and sought after as ever.

    Micropayment devalues us all. The only people who will tell you otherwise is either incredibly naive, holding a vested interest in running a micropayment site, or are evil designers looking for cheap stock ;-)

    Steve

  52. 12 June 2008 at 20:10 Ian Middleton

    I think the biggest problem is that if I sign up to this novel use, all my images listed on Alamy get sold under this scheme. Not only does this conflict with contractual agreements I have with other photo agency (who state I cannot sell an image with them that is listed elsewhere for sale under $40), but also means I don't have a choice as to what I sell at these ridiculously low prices. I admit there is a need for ultra cheap royalty free images, because someone who designs budget websites for small businesses, needs cheap images. Or educational facilities cannot afford to pay a fortune to use a photo in a lesson. But often these people just want an simple image and don't care how many times the image has been used. But these are things like pictures of textbooks or pens, simple stuff of which there are hundreds and would never be worth much money. So if a photographer on Alamy has a few of these types of images that he was happy to sell for peanuts, then great go for it. But this system won't allow that, Alamy want you to include all your photos in this novel use. So I at least suggest that Alamy make it possible to only submit selected images to this scheme.

  53. 12 June 2008 at 20:21 Sean David Baylis

    Shocking NEWS. Kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have run out wouldn't you say.
    This is a ill conceived idea... Microstock is already a flooded market, how many players already out there, and another one having recently filed for bankruptcy? iStock, have RAISED their price in the last year?
    Nuts just nuts, this novel use lowers the whole collection and your ability to market our images at any cost. As a commercial buyer, I will want to know why I cannot have 'that image' for 60p... 60p...AIYA... and if I cannot get it for 60p I will want it for £5...
    Now what I would have suggested is instead of trying to crawl with the bottom segment of the market, why not start EDITING the libray of all the 'unsaleable' images (yes the ones that will NEVER EVER in a millions years sell) in an effort to push the 'quality' of the collection to a point that RAISES the marketablity of the entire collection. Compete with Getty and Corbis not iStock...
    I did not sign up to NOVEL use and I never will. BAD IDEA, really BAD IDEA!

  54. 12 June 2008 at 22:10 Terence Hogben

    And here i was about to moan that one of my images only netted $125 for a DPS in an U.S textbook.

    I think they are making a big mistake here.

  55. 13 June 2008 at 03:38 Daniel geiger

    While the restricted target group -- teachers,
    students, and bloggers -- may sound harmless enough, it is just misses the point. It not the job title of the buyer that defines the price, but its ultimate use.

    A teacher working on a textbook to be commercially sold should not be able to use an image for a buck. Sorry, NO.

    I have regular inquiries from (N)GOs to use my images (traffic generated through my own website), recently NIH and some state park. They do have money to hire a design firm, but apparently not to buy image rights. So sorry, won't be my image on some NIH site.

    So alamy has to provide much more specific guidelines on how low-fee USAGE is defined. E.g., class project only shown on campus. Lecture presentation at public (i.e., not hi-fee private; US terminology used here) institution not made available to students or on internet.

    Same with bloggers. For bloggers who do not earn any income (sponsoring, add-clicks, etc), why not let them use an image rather cheaply. But for folks that get thousands in add revenue, they can pay for images.

    Until that is very carefully explained IN DETAIL, I stay away from this Novel Use Scheme.

    Yes, I have taught college in the US, and am professionally in the NGO Nat. Hist. Museum field as a researcher. So I have a bit of a clue about what's going on.

  56. 13 June 2008 at 07:52 dwo

    "A teacher working on a textbook to be commercially sold should not be able to use an image for a buck. Sorry, NO. "

    Daniel, under the proposed scheme they still won't be able to. Read the previous post more carefully.

  57. 13 June 2008 at 07:54 JG Jardey

    When a product gets to such a low value the business mindset will change and it will be expected that purchasing stock photography is dirt cheap.

    What is the incentive for the photographer? If one enjoys working for peanuts then we become a monkey with a camera.

    I may be wrong but my gut feeling says I’m right on.

    Almay stated only last year that you could not be a contributor if you sold your work to certain photo stock companies because of their ridiculous low pricing, Oh how quickly things change.

    What is needed is an international organized effort for a photographer’s co-operative photo stock agency. Owned and run by photographers. This has to happen quickly before the elcheapo mindset gets imbedded within the various business sectors that buying stock photos is dirt cheap.

    Anyone have some solid workable ideas and lots of marketing and promotional money???

  58. 13 June 2008 at 09:34 Mike

    Yes, things DO change quickly... that's part of the point! On Snapvillage at the moment you can buy 750 images over a 30 day period, *at any size and price*, for $149. And the quality is superb.

    We may not like, and people can rant and rail all they like, but that is the reality. The planet has changed, and Alamy has to change with it. After seeing the guys' presentation in London last year, I have total faith in them. They know what they're doing IMHO... which is possibly why Alamy has been so successful... do you think?

    People can take marketable images on their mobile phones now. The market is awash with great images. Of course prices are going to come down.

    I think that Alamy's model for Novel Use is innovative and brilliant. I signed up for at the first opportunity, and I'm going to stay signed up.

  59. 13 June 2008 at 09:37 IanMurray

    What about reconsidering the idea of manual editing to create a distinct Alamy exclusive premium brand aimed at the top end of the market?

  60. 13 June 2008 at 10:11 Mike

    I'd like to see the poorer quality images removed too, Ian. Hell of a job! And I'm not sure it would make much difference, as they're sinking to the bottom... and have you seen the quality of image that you can buy on Snapvillage for a buck?

    Here's another take on the reality of things:
    http://www.abouttheimage.com/innocent_thieves_rohn_engh_on_accidentally_free_images_online/

  61. 13 June 2008 at 10:39 Scott hortop

    How profitable for Alamy and how much the photographer gets is still not remotely clear. I await a response from Member Services on the following questions:

    - "If a buyer wants an image and it costs 60p, will Alamy charge just 60p to their credit card? In this case how much is available to the photographer after credit card charges?

    - Or will the buyer have to buy, say, £10 worth of tokens in order to spend one on the image? In this case, the agency gets £9.70 out of the image sale and the contributor £0.30. (One of the reasons for large micropayment profits is that many buyers want just one image but are perfectly prepared to pay for the minimum required number of tokens.)"

    The latter is the sort of detail that makes a huge differences. So photographer commission then becomes 3%.

    Even if satisfied with prices set (I find this very difficult), we still need to know about this sort of detail before signing up because my fear is that the reality is that our commission moves not from 65% to 50% but to rather less than 50%.

    Scott Hortop

  62. 13 June 2008 at 12:12 Bob croxford

    Dear Scott

    A similar question was asked of me by a designer who has signed up to the Getty subscription model. The photographer gets paid per download but what happens in the months that the designer downloads nothing?

    Business plans based on gullible contributors who supply inventory for free will continue to disadvantage the creator in favour of the schemers.

  63. 13 June 2008 at 16:09 Jim greipp

    I very much applaud management for allowing its contributors to opt out - a true partner attitude. I am still scratching my head though: Why has Alamy decided to compete in the microstock market? Alamy has proven to be a success thus far - why this direction for growth? Does BMW try to compete with Hyundai? My fear is that a buyer will view Alamy as "There is no real value here - it is what ever they can get". It is tough enough all ready to enforce usage - are you a teacher? Do you have a blog? OK - you can have this photo for $1, not $200. Very slippery slope. NOVEL USE: If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck........

  64. 13 June 2008 at 19:17 Frank paul

    First I was in, then I was out. I'm back in now.

    I believe Alamy is closer to what is happening in the stock industry than I am so I'll go along for the ride. So far the ride with Alamy has been just great!

    Have fun storm'n the castle, Frank Paul

  65. 13 June 2008 at 19:50 Giannis agelou

    I had signed in Novel use when it was introduced and today I opted out. The resulting Alamy message informs me that I can opt in anytime I wish. So, my thought is that one might consider not signing at this time and take some time to monitor how things evolve. Then, after a few weeks or months of observing and after having taken real facts and not guesstimations into consideration, one may make up his mind and act accordingly. Getting ''in'' Novel scene may be performed anytime. Getting ''out'' takes time (each April). So why make a decision in a hurry? What is the rush?

  66. 13 June 2008 at 19:55 IanMurray

    Frank Paul

    I'm very close to doing the same! I stayed out for ages and only opted in a month or so ago. Then this week I opted out with the initial shock of the announcement.

    But having calmed down and thinking more and more about it today I might well opt back in!

    I really admire Alamy's attempt here to offer a unified pricing system.

    I have reservations that I am mulling over but on balance want to support Alamy over this.

  67. 13 June 2008 at 22:37 Ferdinando piezzi

    OK I'll try

  68. 14 June 2008 at 03:13 Phil

    Thankyou very much for sending out the mail and for given people the choice of whether to be involved.

    A quick question. Will a sale under novel use effect my 'alamy rank'?

    Personally I think you could offer the same service with pricing at a slightly higher price such as a range of 2 up to 5 pounds and found it to be just as effective and with very similar level of sales.

    I understand that Alamy is missing out on revenue opportunities by not being involved in microstock and wonder why it doesn't follow the approach taken by getty / corbis / jupiter and inmagine, in that they have a seperate site.

    IMO Snapvillage has managed to get as far as it has because of the corbis name. The site has been poor and confusing and the few advertisements 'very average'.

    Luckyoliver just closed primarily because of lack of marketing and resources, similarly Geckostock.co.uk closed within the last week or two. Even though a very nice and functional site and well regarded for honesty and integrity it didn't have the resources to get it going.

    If alamy was to acquire one of these or a similar smaller site and apply some starter resources together with the Alamy name / backing (such as corbis have done) it would be well regarded by contributors and customers and wouldn't be felt to be such a risk to the more traditional models and main alamy site.

  69. 14 June 2008 at 14:40 Mike

    Post 63 "Does BMW try to compete with Hyundai?"

    Not relevant. What are Corbis and Getty doing?

    Post 68 "Snapvillage has managed to get as far as it has because of the corbis name. The site has been poor and confusing and the few advertisements 'very average'."

    Alamy has a good name too, and don't forget that Snapvillage has been in development. It continues to improve and, I repeat from a previous post, you can get 750 top class images for $149.

    Microstock is probably the future of much of the stock industry, and I suspect that screaming out against it is comparable to film manufacturers screaming out against digital, or the old corner shops screaming out against supermarkets. Regretable to many... but fings ain't what they used to be.

  70. 15 June 2008 at 15:10 Scott hortop

    Well, it's live....

    I have just bought two of my own non-model released images on Limited Use for $2. The thing that struck me is that I could complete the whole process through to inputting all my credit card details without being told what Limited Use meant and what the lack of model releases could mean.

    Only after my credit card details had been input I was asked to tick that "I have read, understood and accept the relevant EULAs for the image(s) above." The problem is that the typical micro buyer will not click on the links for an explanation.

    At this stage I was also asked whether I intended to use the image in my Blog, Social Networking or Education. I ticked blog. It did not explain that this should be the only use or that even that use should be non-commercial.

    My conclusion is that typical buyers can complete the process without having what Limited Use means properly explained to them. For habitual micro buyers drawn in by that 60p headline on the homepage, it really needs to be rammed down their throats.

    I think that clinches my decision. I'd strongly suggest that contributors test this out themselves and then make a decision.

  71. 15 June 2008 at 15:23 Scott hortop

    In my sales summary I see the two images straight away. It's explained here:

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

    Why is that short statement put in front of the photographer & apparently not the buyer?

  72. 15 June 2008 at 18:26 Lolahoi


    Finding lost golf balls and recyclable beverage containers would be more profitable and environmentally friendly, then selling stock photos for 30p.

    If you have the love for photography and illustration, and like to make money for the owners of the micro photo stock companies then go for it.

    Ticked off because no one has the balls to say no. Cheapen the art of photography to no more then the contents of a gumball machine.

    Shame on you photographers

    Lolahoi
    Artist/Photographer (Retired)

  73. 16 June 2008 at 07:16 Ryan Fox

    This IS ridiculous that we have to find out about this via flickr or PhotoShelter.

    Why weren't Alamy photographers emailed? Alamy has our email addys.

    Its too easy to upsize images these days.

  74. 16 June 2008 at 10:23 Mary clark

    Please will you split the Novel use onto another site ? Open to all who want to submit suitable images for that use.
    Having us all grouped together it looks like there is an internal price war going on.
    Working out the price for a licensed image now appears slow and laborious in comparison, and of putting. The three licensed types do not sit well together.

  75. 17 June 2008 at 22:20 Ed book

    Alamy is not following what I came here for–an honest treatment of contributors. There are too many unanswered questions posed here that could/should be addressed by Alamy. No news and no answers to questions denotes the worst.

    Peace,
    Ed Book

  76. 18 June 2008 at 11:01 John Gaffen

    I cannot help thinking that this novel use scheme will effectively cause your core business model to shift towards the lower end of the market(micro stock). I appreciate that limited use does not fully equate to micro stock, but splitting the collection is divisive in that it forces a divide between photographers who are willing to sell their images for 60p, and those like myself who put a higher market value on their work. The two collections should be kept entirely separate and marketed differently. I feel that the Alamy brand should not have gone down this road in the first place!

  77. 19 June 2008 at 06:47 Andrzej

    I see the NU on the Alamy front page here in France ! (only at work in fact, not at home), with the famous "Currently available only in the UK" note, sic !. As far as I can see great majority of the images offered in the NU scheme are throught agencies, probably the photographers themselves are not aware of the issue.

  78. 19 June 2008 at 18:34 Giannis Agelou

    I just found a small sale - around 70$ - in my account of a travel image.

    Re-checking after 20 minutes, the sale was gone..!

    A client having just discovered Novel use?

  79. 20 June 2008 at 20:31 Andresz

    I just noticed that the NU on front page is ticked on by default, so if a buyer does not tick it off, he search the limited number of images, even if he is not looking for NU but for image on front page of Time Magazine. Is it on purpose Alamy?

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.