Alamy stock photography

Novel Use update: corporate subscriptions for internal use

Permalink Comments (35)10 July 2008 at 12:14 by Alan Capel - Head of Content
Posted under News

© Eastnine IncFor the next phase of Novel Use we are running a pilot scheme offering limited subscriptions to major corporations. It is currently operating in the US with four such organisations. Images accessed through these subscriptions can be used for internal business use only.

The revenue model for this project has yet to be finalised so returns are difficult to predict, but the price per image could be anything from pence to pounds depending on the number of downloads and size of subscription.

We will be paying our contributors a small royalty for any images which are downloaded during the pilot scheme.

It is anticipated that customers will occasionally need to upgrade their image purchases for external marketing and corporate communications. Images sold for these usages will fall outside of the subscription model and will be based on our standard pricing.

Future plans as a result of this pilot will be announced via email and on this blog.

If you have opted in to Novel Use, your images will be included. 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 (35)

10 July 2008 at 14:25 Martin Wilson

I will stay opted out.

Alamy gets the revenue, sit on it for up to 12 months and eventually pay a notional amount for any pics that are used. Any unused subscription goes straight into the Alamy bottom line.

So why would I want to do this?
10 July 2008 at 14:42 michael arthur thompson

Sounds incredible!

like incredibly BAD im sorry to say,

the more i hear the more i really really don't like Novel Use at all,

please Alamy explain who benefits here? not the photographer that's for sure, sounds like a good idea to rip us contributing photographers off rather nicely though (well those in the Novel Use anyway.

if i sell a massive 100 images in a month inside Novel Use (micro stock) i worked out i will maybe get around £25 or so after all deductions - FOR 100 images!!

i will STAY OUT of Novel Use for ever that's for sure.
10 July 2008 at 14:46 Kevin

Another befitting announcement in the on going NU saga aptly devoid of any details when it comes to some of the most important things to contributors, money and management.

With all these potential images sales for the successful NU contributors in pennies, ranging possibly in tens if not hundreds of sales for an individual image, it confounds me that there is still no talk of how this will be administrated or look in the poor contributors account as it stands.

Chaos I dare say, unless you have something hidden up your sleeve, or perhaps brewing up a trouser leg.

Kevin
10 July 2008 at 15:56 Tony watson

If you think this announcement is going to make us all rush to join up NU, then I think you have underestimated the strength of feeling against such micro schemes.

This only strengthens my resolve not to participate.
10 July 2008 at 16:51 David

I think this just confirms further that Novel Use is not a scheme that has been designed for the benefit of the contributor... I will stay out thanks...
10 July 2008 at 17:36 Darrell Young

Alamy really really needs to create a new microstock division. Why sully the Alamy premium brand with low-cost offerings of this sort.

It is rather clear that NU is becoming microstock. Why not create AlamyMicro.com?

- Darrell
10 July 2008 at 18:59 john

How do Alamy plan to police this? I'll join in with the less than enthusiastic response.
10 July 2008 at 19:38 EkA

subscription rules! at least for the buyer.....

micro or not micro, many major non-micro distributors are already offering these kinds of subscriptions. alamy are just following along.

i choose to be the grasshopper, and wont follow the ants.
10 July 2008 at 20:23 Chris Lilley

Funny that what I read makes perfect sense! It strikes me that Alamy probably know alot more about what they are doing, and the ins and outs of a rapidly evolving business world than most of the responders here. I admit to being new to all this, but it strikes me that the opportunity to have large corporations view and use your work is only an increased potential for sales, Alamy aren't stupid they know how to make money and that if you lot don't you wont stay as contributors. I for one have opted in to this whole side of things.Funny that what I read makes perfect sense! It strikes me that Alamy probably know alot more about what they are doing, and the ins and outs of a rapidly evolving business world than most of the responders here. I admit to being new to all this, but it strikes me that the opportunity to have large corporations view and use your work is only an increased potential for sales, Alamy aren't stupid they know how to make money and that if you lot don't you wont stay as contributors. I for one have opted in to this whole side of things.
10 July 2008 at 20:27 john

EkA

Didn't the grasshopper end up starving, while the ants survived in the traditional tale :-)
10 July 2008 at 20:34 Fabian gonzales

I have conflicting feelings about this.

On the one hand, this is a smarter kind of microstock since the use is limited, and if competitors follow suit this could be a benefit for our industry.

On the other hand however, charging major corporations a $299 or whatever subscription fee for an unlimited buffet of photography seriously undervalues our work.

Finally, worst of all, a corporate internal use subscription conflicts with Alamy's existing licensing. Alamy has a diverse collection of content you won't find at the microstocks. If a corporation is looking for a photograph more unique than the standard microstock fare, they can already license it on Alamy - for a handsome fee of course.

In the end I wish Alamy wouldn't be so eager in joining this race to the bottom and instead try to find other ways to increase revenue. For example, look at Getty - licensing Flickr content is a great way to add value while at the same time removing images from the free/low cost marketplace AND educating enthusiasts about the real value of imagery.
10 July 2008 at 21:16 Tony lilley

I have had some small file size pictures with Picture Nation, in England. They operate a similar system where people can buy images in bulk. One of my images was included in this, I received 12 english pence for this !
10 July 2008 at 21:47 Cravatte

How do you define 'internal business use'? Does this include any kind of internal usage from printed brochures, intranet, powerpoint presentations to huge billboards?

If this is the case I would not call this a new revenue opportunity but abandoning an existing market in favor of Microstock.
10 July 2008 at 22:29 HermanM

It smells like micro all over... Even at many micros where subs have been implemented there have been furious responses to the move... It is absurd and it is just a reaffirmation that Novel Use is a "just say no" proposition.
10 July 2008 at 22:47 Martin Wilson

Cravatte

If it is allowed for internal newsletters then it really is undermining normal licencing. I have worked for government departments who have workforces of 130,000 people or more. That's a circulation many times more than a lot of magazines and advertising campaigns.
11 July 2008 at 00:13 Dave Tyrer

I'm earning money from Fotolia....and nothing from Alamy. If this is the way things are going I may as well just put everything with Fotolia.
11 July 2008 at 08:27 Tom

This is absolute madness on Alamy's part.

All this will succeed in doing is placing images in the hand of corporate comms departments, who make no mistake, will not understand or respect even the novel use license. Any image released in this environment will be used and reused across the world for years to come with no way of policing it.

Corporations currently have good budgets for photography. Alamy will destroy this market sector. I'm not in novel use and never will be, but if this continues I will delete my entire collection from Alamy.
11 July 2008 at 09:22 Peter Packer

Anyone who respects and values photography cannot support microstock / Novel Use. It is the beginning of the end for stock photography as a revenue stream for photographers. That ultimately means the end of stock libraries.

How can anyone justify the cost of equipment, the travel and time needed to capture decent imagery when the returns to the individual are virtually non-existent?

A microstock library might see millions in global revenue as its upside. Bigger market share, bigger company value, bigger profits. However at the single image level it does not pay. It is the single image for which a contributor gets paid.

I would like Alamy to give out some statistics, anonymously of course, on how many individual contributors sell images in volumes exceeding 100 / 200 / 500 & 1000 images per annum. Because unless a photographer can achieve that there is no viable business model in microstock for a photographer…at least not for one who earns their living that way.

That means that decent images cannot be forthcoming from decent photographers and microstock will end up populated by holiday snaps and outtakes. In turn sales will dry up and the library find itself with a massive infrastructure for nowt!

Goodbye stock libraries.

Actually that is good for photographers because now the buyers will have to commission more to get exclusivity and quality…hey bring it on!

Alamy should consider driving up the value of photography and by that means the revenue for both library and contributor.
11 July 2008 at 10:45 Paul Williams

One area of the novel use that seems to be overlooked is the use of photography by designers and art directors for client presentation. I actually think iStock was probably conceived with this in mind. I work for 2 major London design groups that use iStock specifically for this purpose. They get a larger file size without any watermark. The advantage is if the client approves a photograph they can buy a higher resolution photo and the job is done. Allowing creatives to download at 60p a go would undoubtedly lead to more fully licensed sales on Alamy at the full price. That is after all what we really want is sales to advertising and design projects to generate real incomes, and the way that happens is to get more creative looking at the photos on Alamy. If a 60p sales leads to a full sale then this has to be good for all of us. I think incentive packages should be marketed at all agencies and design groups around the world. There are certainly enough images on Alamy to make this a very attractive proposition for all creatives I work with. I hate the idea of micro sales but I think Alamy is actually putting together a very subtle scheme that could lead somewhere. Photos used in internal presentations stand a very good chance of being like by the boss and therefore licenced for the companies advertising of web site. Our work needs to be shown to be bought and I think any scheme that helps with this is good. The market is saturated and it needs new marketing ideas to get to new clients. Lets stop being so negative and help Alamy help us.
11 July 2008 at 12:32 Alex segre

A very good point by Paul Williams, above. I was once offered a free sample of a razor and ended up buying their blades for years to come.

I cannot understand why so many are under the impression that Alamy is out to sabotage their own business.

They are simply trying to expand their market share and prosper, which benefits all of us.
11 July 2008 at 12:57 Bob croxford

Dear Paul

Oh dear! Does Novel Use have to go into every area of profitable photography? Time was when I and all members of AoP used to charge substantial fees for client presentation. The terms were enshrined in an agreement made with the IPA, that is the ad agency trade association. After all the designer and agency is making a profit on the deal, why not the photographer?

Don't you realise you are all voting for photographic oblivion?

I'm pulling all my images from Alamy. I'm not in NU but I object to a website which advertises images at 60p. Its madness!
11 July 2008 at 13:41 David h

I think what would help considerably here are some more detailed answers to certain questions.

Alamy is, in a way, a marketing department for many, many photographers. If Alamy genuinely believes that NU is good for their clients/partners in the industry, then more information would help to communicate that. On the surface, as many have pointed out, the new version of NU will appear to cannibalise high value sales. Alamy--could you please explain how this potential problem will be avoided?

The other thing that would help considerably would be for Alamy to let their photographer collaborators (us) know the market research or other research that led the company to go against conventional marketing wisdom: that advertising dramatically lower prices is best done through a new brand, rather than risking a well-established brand. In other words, on what basis did Alamy decide that advertising 60p on their front page wouldn't give an impression, subconscious or otherwise, that Alamy is cheap.

As Bob points out, advertising work at 60p does not fit in with many photographers' marketing strategies.

I appreciate the positive step in allowing photographers (in the future) to decide which photos to opt in to NU.

I do not oppose NU per se. However, I would need considerably more information before I felt confident enough to commit to it.
11 July 2008 at 14:19 Carlos davila

Novel Use sounds like the sugar -coating of microstock within Alamy. Many of us were brought to our knees when RF came out. Now, microstock will put us flat on faces.
11 July 2008 at 14:20 Eugene

#20 "They are simply trying to expand their market share and prosper, which benefits all of us."

No, Alex. Just because it is "business", does not mean it is good for ALL involved in that business. It is about struggling to win gains (ie cash at the end of the day). Some folks give up cash very willingly, others are less willing. Wise business people recognise this, and get in or get out at the right time. When businesses change (addition of NU as example), impact on people changes. Some people win more, others lose more. Alamy's NU is a VOLUME business. Alamy gets a share of EVERY sale (TIP: do some reseach, estimate revenue/employee at alamy, and compare this figure to your revenue. Notice anything?).

Alamy: NU = Volume X Low Price (win!)
Photographer: NU = Low Price (lose!)

Photographers miss out on the volume, but they carry the low price. Don't kid yourself. Micro, NU and all these internet-based volume/low-price services benefit ONLY the buyer and middle-man (where the VOLUME action is happening).

What was that poem?

When iStock came for the hobbyist,
I remained silent;
I was not a hobbyist.

When Getty introduced the $49 RM pic,
I remained silent;
I was not at Getty.

When they tried forcing Orphan Works,
I did not speak out;
I control my photography.

When they introduced Novel Use,
I remained silent;
I wasn't at Alamy.

When my photography business crashed,
there was no one left to speak out.

(modified by me, attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller)

Eugene
Malaysia
11 July 2008 at 16:11 Alex Segre

Eugene didn't understand my point, that if Alamy gains more full price sales on the back of these new licensing models then all contributors stand to benefit. Paul Williams, above at number 19, makes a good case for this.
11 July 2008 at 18:47 Paul collis

I agree with David h - some communication skills are required here. Alamy could easily send an email to all contributors explaining how they reached the decision to launch Novel Use this way (Research? Focus groups? Gut instinct? Fear?), how they can and cannot police it, and the potential benefits TO CONTRIBUTORS. Some of us are quite skilled at marketing and they could have had thousands of dollars worth of consulting for free.
Although they've missed the opportunity to launch an AlamyMicro brand from the start, it's still not too late to undo the damage already done with the lamentable 60p /$1 sticker on the current home page.
Just do it before buyers get the idea that Alamy is a competitor to Flickr, and not, as it is now, to Getty.
11 July 2008 at 19:30 Rudi Sebastian

I am also not in NU. I think that Alamy massively underestimates the illegal use of images for more commercial things after bying them as NU. I think Alamy gets lost between the microstocks which have excellent but only stereotype and symbolic images and Getty for example which has the individual high quality, while you can hardly find the raisins among all this garbage at Alamy.
I am also at Getty and another specialized agency and i can see that high end still pays. It is like in our society. High and low lewel works. Nothing in between. Alamy is in between. You can make also good money with Microstock, if you as a Photographer understand the concept and you produce the right stuff for them.
Finally, just being big is not enough. Quantity is not the solution, therefore i am not convinced about Alamys future. NU as it is now is not the solution. Definetely not for the photographers.
12 July 2008 at 09:23 IanMurray

International bank A pay pennies to use an image internally on all its stationery.

International Bank B want to use the same image in huge national advertising campaign.
12 July 2008 at 14:53 Giannis Agelou

I agree with Ian Murray, previous post.

A couple of years ago I had a RM sale (4 uses by the same client, including print and web) of a travel image (a popular landmark), resulting in a total of more than six thousand dollars.

Now put yourself in the client's shoes: when examining the history of the image he is interested in, he notices that it has already been sold a few times for a buck.

Not only it may surface in print or web somewhere but adding insult to the damage - as he sees it - he is asked to commit a few grand for using the same one.

What would you do if you were the prestigious client or his PR department or advertising agent? Wouldn't you look elsewhere?
12 July 2008 at 23:48 Paul Williams

Please, please, please. I resigned from the AoP committee after 3 years and the association all together because of the unbelievable negativity of AoP photographers.
Lets get a few things straight. No Bob you did not get paid by agency or design groups for presentations. If you remember there were people called Layout artists who drew them. Yes you may have been paid for pitches but even paid pitches for agencies went out years before iStock or micro stock was conceived and without the IPA's approval.
I personally only work for blue chip companies. That is my choice and when photographers threw away all their rights, cut their fees and started subscribing to micro stock libraries I did not bleat I stood by my principles and looked for new ways of doing business and keeping my creative standards up. I believe that is what Alamy is trying to do so lets help them instead of following the AoP habit of endless moaning with absolutely no constructive comment. That's why I am now a NUJ member now because they believe in constructive discussion and ACTION.
It is very clear what is being sold on the opening page of the site. For those who choose not to read it it quite clearly says " LIMITED USE FROM 60p" this is quite clearly defined as "BLOG, SOCIAL NETWORKING or EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY". That is pretty clear to me. It does not say MICRO STOCK.
Now the concern that this may be a way for Alamy to introduce micro stock is a genuine concern and Alamy should be persuaded that this is a very bad idea for us even though it may be a good idea for them. I certainly would never subscribe to a micro stock library.
The idea of Limited use is fantastic for photographers and actually a very clever way for Alamy to compete in an increasingly difficult market. It really will open doors if developed properly.
I am working on a very big job for a client that spends £25,000,000 on packaging photography alone annually. The product list I received recently is peppered with client notes to the agency saying "Use Royalty Free if Possible". Now that should frighten you because I know that the agency who I am working for uses iStock to download all their photography for client presentation. That means that if the client likes one of the presentation photos the agency can buy a big enough resolution for peanuts. They are one of 4 agencies that handle this photography. That means that a minimum of £6,25000 worth of photography is being approved on iStock photography. Imagine how much is liked by the client and bought from iStock. I would much rather this agency used Alamy for this service. These are facts and the die hards who are burying their heads in the sand are not working in the real world and if things are not what they used to be they should blame themselves for their lack of action in the past. The horse has bolted and greedy photographers made it happen, absolute fact. As I said on my previous comment I know at least one other blue chip agency who has an account with iStcok and uses it all the time. Please understand this. Photography is used for final client presentations because it takes the guess work out of what the client is buying and guarantees the agency zero problems with rejection. In the past it was downloaded from stock "Zooms". Obviously these have watermarks so being able to buy iStock photos is a dream come true for creative.
Now what Alamy is developing will benefit photographers. I am a little concerned about the large file size at the top end of NU, but even though photographers assume all clients are going to rip them off, I have not worked with one in recent years who does not ask me what license I will be granting for the work I do for them, or one who would knowingly miss use photography. If a license says "for internal use only" they actually understand this and will not risk bad publicity to break this. Those that will cheat will cheat anyway by buying licensed photos at the lowest price. I think that maybe Alamy could introduce an "Agree" window before NU download that makes the usage very clear and make it clear that licenses are available for other uses and greater file sizes. This really will lead to more proper license sales because clients are notoriously blind when it comes to imaging photography, so if an image fits they will want to use it everywhere. And the argument that the opposition can use the photograph is true now unless an exclusive license is agreed.
I have made vast amounts of money and gained award winning clients by either providing existing shots for agency pitches or by doing a quick free test shoot. That opens door and builds relationships. I believe with a bit of tweaking the NU offers the same possibilities. Help the students especially if they end up being creative director of the biggest agency in the world. Get that executive with an urgent next day presentation out of a fix and when he becomes brand manager he will know where to get his advertising work from. That's service and added value in 2008 and does not devalue photography in any way.
Now instead of bleating and ignoring what is happening in the real world can we please have a constructive discussion that will help Alamy open up a big door for all of us. I think they have to get this one right to expand into the future.
PS. The reason I do not subscribe to Getty is that I have on several occasions had to buy stock of unique subjects from them for clients. To be honest the experience was so unpleasant that I would not touch them with a barge pole. Its about service and understanding in this new millennium. They are just about profit with no eye on the future.
13 July 2008 at 07:46 David Mail of ProStockMaster

With the fantastic success of microstock agencies in the last few years Novel Use is a native Alamy's attempt to follow this trend and open an additional revenue stream from microstock. Just look around - virtually everyone sell microstock subscriptions, why Alamy should not?

Particularly knowing that the competition is tight and a major microstock site made $70 mln revenues last year, followed by others tens-of-mlns-dollars microstocks, does not it make a perfect sense for Alamy trying to follow their success?

Well, I am not sure. At least not with NU idea.

Let me state: we do not speak about content. This is my point: content does not matter here. Content is similar. I can hear your strong "NO!", but, - com'on, forget for a sec all these technical "TIFF+scale-up+keywording" content preparation tricks "for a really HQ content" and just look what micros sell. Would you agree now? - they sell the same, particularly from the buyers point of view. I know that content people will never agree to this statement, but buyers just made their votes with their bucks, so it is better to hear the market. You can find content at microstock prices for at least 90% of your industrial buyers' needs. Buyers can choose buying content through Alamy or through a microstock. And - surprise - buyers are already subscribed to 2-4 microstock agencies (more info: InfoTrends marketing research).

So where is the Alamy's difference on this saturated microstock market? Well, it's not about the content, it's about the community. It's Alamy's Pros vs microstock Amateurs. Can you sell your community to a buyer? Not sure. Can you sell quite similar content for non-micro prices? Sure you can not, Alamy already knows this answer and therefore NU came out.

However, NU does not takes in account the most important - psychological - factor: for many pros Alamy was an alternative to microstock. NU completely destroys this vision. The last shelter for a pro who keeps screaming "I am not going to sell my images for a buck or two! Never ever!", this last shelter fails with the NU introduction. Well, probably it should not be so dramatic, but the feeling of many pros as they express themselves in this blog and in other places on the Internet is quite similar to that.

That's why Alamy community strongly disagree to license their images under NU. Their vision is an opposite to microstock amateurs who say "I can get 30 cents per download or nothing if my images will continue sitting on my HD. Obviously, I go microstock!"

In my understanding, NU, which attempts to sell existing "non-micro" content to "microstock-like" buyers is an unnecessarily hard try. Not because Alamy has to educate the market that Alamy sells microstock too, but mostly because Alamy has to educate its own community that Alamy went microstock. And such community education could be a long and not necessarily successful process.

A reasonable alternative to this community education process could be... getting another community that is willing to sell micro. Change the community, because for the micro- market you need a micro- community. And forget your existing content! Keep selling it with "macro-" prices. For the micro market, Alamy brand, the team and agency's market knowledge supported by the right selling community can make the difference, while NU, propagating similar content with pro-community behind, which is unwilling to support micro-sales can kill the initiative at the very beginning.
13 July 2008 at 14:51 Kevin

OKAY.. looks likes we're getting into a little more serious discussion regarding the pro's and con's of Alamy's new NU business model introduction. So I'll put all quips and jibes to one side for a moment.

It appears to me that one should be asking if Alamy's new business models are sustainable for the future, and if they are sustainable, then by whom and how?

A first conclusion can be made by simply looking at what's already being sustained within a similar business model at iStock's "most popular downloads" page.

http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php

Here one can see the type of images that perform well and give the company and the contributor a good financial return. These are of course the very top 15 images of the most popular downloads of their entire collection. But it gives you an idea.

Just by looking at the top 15 downloads you can start to see what's going on at iStock, which I would assume reflects this part of the microstock industry. 9 of the 15 are photographs. Most of the top photos content I would say are arranged or set-up in some manner and have model and property releases. One can only assume that these pictures are suitable and used extensively with a commercial use in mind. One should also note the amount of downloads per image. You will see that the amount rapidly goes from almost 12000 downloads down to almost 6000 downloads within the top 15 images. Of course a much better insight would be to have the data for the top 100 or 500 downloads. I would imagine that the figure declines quite rapidly until it hits some kind of plateau at a much lower amount of downloads with other types of pictures, possibly with fewer MR's or PR's. By clicking on the "zietgiest" tab, you can also view the "Highest Average Downloads Per File" which gives a much lower average of between 54 and 23 downloads per image.

A fair conclusion to that would be, if you are shooting this type or similar material which is at the top end of iStock's downloads and have MR's and PR's which can be used commercially then you could be on the winning side and could possible sustain your production of such imagery. But if you shoot mainly editorial pictures, mostly if not solely without MR's and PR's then things could look very different for you trying to sell your images and compete in this manner.

I know Alamy's business model is a bit different and some people have quite legitimately pointed out here that low priced sales within the NU licensing model could lead to higher priced RM RP sales if they were to be used later commercially. But I think that sort of example really only fits if you're shooting the right type of picture that is commercially viable and most importantly CAN BE USED COMMERCIALLY. That is to say that this business model is perhaps only sustainable by those contributors which shoot the right type of picture, and those pictures on the whole have an MR or PR or better still, BOTH. That is unfortunately a low number on Alamy.

My position is that I shoot editorial and have few MR pictures and no PR pictures. For those pictures that I've already sold with Rights Managed licenses and where the microstock libraries have similar ones, I suspect I have already made more money with my pictures than I assume those contributors ever will on theirs judging by the amount they must sell in order to obtain an average RM license fee. So I'm just not too bothered about it, or changing. Even one more legitimate RM sale from my pictures I mentioned can amount hundreds of sales of your average micro. It's just pot luck in a way and I'll take the gamble. We have to face up to the fact though, that certain types of pictures just aren't worth what they once were due to a very healthy supply.

I think Microstock's advantage to the contributor and supplier lies in the combinations of numbers. Where my advantage lies is in shooting pictures which aren't really available as micro stock and then not offering it as microstock. If I try to shoot better, unique bespoke pictures then I stand a good chance of surviving as a photographer and selling stock with the libraries. That's as true now as it ever was. To give an example of a point made in the Alamy Contributor Event Video by Alan Capel himself, about one contributor and his photograph of the broken boiler with a black mark which a buyer paid a good fee for. Not many people look for or want pictures of broken boilers, but due to Alamy's philosophy of not editing, a buyer found just what they were looking for and paid handsomely for it.

Contributors here and elsewhere just need to make an informed choice about where they and their work fit into the business and market aspects of the stock industry rather than blindly jumping on boarding every scheme and using the word "trust", or naysaying and opposing every change in the industry without giving the potential a deeper thought.

On the whole I think Alamy has been doing a wonderful job. But, one minor but very important aspect they could certainly boost peoples confidence with their new business plan would be by having an already up and running dedicated "Summery of NU images sold" in the contributors "Sales Information" page. Because as it stands now, I don't think one can simply take it so seriously if big numbers of NU images are to be sold in this new scheme.

Regards
Kevin
16 July 2008 at 11:28 Nicholas

'We will be paying our contributors a small royalty for any images which are downloaded during the pilot scheme.'

Yes please!!!
19 July 2008 at 18:48 Tom Craig (Directphoto)

So here is an example of a sale that will be sacrificed to "Novel Use"? Country: Michigan
Usage: Internal Business Usage
Media: Internal PowerPoint/ Presentation
Industry: Financial Industry
Sub-Industry: Accounting
Start: 02 July 2008
End: 02 August 2008
$ 125.00
05 August 2008 at 14:24 Drew Hadley

Sounds to me like Alamy is desperately trying to copy iStockphoto.

At least with iStock the sales are there!
and they're upfront about micro stock!

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.

Your name

Your email (not shown)

Your comment

Security code picture

No picture? Reload page.

Type the 6 characters you see in the picture on the left:

This helps reduce blog spam by ensuring that a person, not an automated program, is leaving a comment.

Remember me?

Blog

Novel Use update: corporate subscriptions for internal use

Add your own commentComments (35)

10 July 2008 at 14:25 Martin Wilson

10 July 2008 at 14:42 michael arthur thompson

10 July 2008 at 14:46 Kevin

10 July 2008 at 15:56 Tony watson

10 July 2008 at 16:51 David

10 July 2008 at 17:36 Darrell Young

10 July 2008 at 18:59 john

10 July 2008 at 19:38 EkA

10 July 2008 at 20:23 Chris Lilley

10 July 2008 at 20:27 john

10 July 2008 at 20:34 Fabian gonzales

10 July 2008 at 21:16 Tony lilley

10 July 2008 at 21:47 Cravatte

10 July 2008 at 22:29 HermanM

10 July 2008 at 22:47 Martin Wilson

11 July 2008 at 00:13 Dave Tyrer

11 July 2008 at 08:27 Tom

11 July 2008 at 09:22 Peter Packer

11 July 2008 at 10:45 Paul Williams

11 July 2008 at 12:32 Alex segre

11 July 2008 at 12:57 Bob croxford

11 July 2008 at 13:41 David h

11 July 2008 at 14:19 Carlos davila

11 July 2008 at 14:20 Eugene

11 July 2008 at 16:11 Alex Segre

11 July 2008 at 18:47 Paul collis

11 July 2008 at 19:30 Rudi Sebastian

12 July 2008 at 09:23 IanMurray

12 July 2008 at 14:53 Giannis Agelou

12 July 2008 at 23:48 Paul Williams

13 July 2008 at 07:46 David Mail of ProStockMaster

13 July 2008 at 14:51 Kevin

16 July 2008 at 11:28 Nicholas

19 July 2008 at 18:48 Tom Craig (Directphoto)

05 August 2008 at 14:24 Drew Hadley