Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Limited Use goes worldwide

Permalink Comments (11)11 July 2008 at 09:30 by Alan Capel - Head of Content
Posted under Boring but necessary announcements, News

Globe - Image AHWFA9 © WR Publishing
© WR PublishingThe Limited Use scheme as announced on this blog is now available worldwide.The scheme was initially launched in the UK and we have now taken the step to open it up to customers in the rest of the world.

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.

Top

Add your own commentComments (11)

  1. 11 July 2008 at 09:37 Giannis Agelou

    I have just logged in Alamy's page and noticed the addition. (I am located in Greece). Made a few random searches and ,yes, there are many great images on every conceivable subject available for that amount of money. The ''Who moved my cheese'' book, is a must read now.

    Giannis

  2. 11 July 2008 at 13:05 Todd Muskopf

    I'm glad Alamy is considering modifying the LU scheme. Pics without model/property releases that need one for commercial use shouldn't be included. What if a blog is selling something? Who's training them in the legalities of using pictures? This should only be for RF images.

  3. 11 July 2008 at 17:37 HermanM

    Sad to hear this... Alamy has gone micro...

  4. 11 July 2008 at 20:53 John mitchell

    I opted out of LU, but I agree with the poster above. LU is really a form of RF. Traditionally licensed images should not be included IMO.

  5. 12 July 2008 at 07:08 jodie

    For snap shooters micro stock is perfect to boost the ego, but not for serious professional or semi professional photographers. Professional photographers don’t work for .70 an image.

    With the cost of equipment, transportation, time spent photoshoping, key wording and downloading images etc. were is the break even point, this is basic business 101.

    The reality check is this: THERE IS NO MONEY IN MICRO STOCK that is a guarantee except for some of the owners of the mirco stock companies.

    So if you like to make money for the owners of the micro stock companies go for it, but don’t tell anyone, for it would be embarrassing.

    Jordie
    Retired Advertising Marketing Executive.

  6. 12 July 2008 at 18:44 Lorry Travis

    Let’s get one thing straight about stock photographic images.

    The concept of limited use, licensed rights, etc. is for the most part nonsense, as individuals and businesses really don’t pay much attention to such trivial matters. Think of this, who is policing the image usage, the truth is no one. If some company or individual violates the so called usage of the photographic image who is going to pay for the legal costs to make a claim against the party in question? Or do they just get a slap on the hand and don’t do it again?

    Get Real, because of the advent of technology, (that camera you take pictures with and the computer and software you use and the internet) has down graded the value of ones photographic creative ability to such a degree that photo images are now no more than a cheap commodity, exception is the truly talented creative mind who sees beyond chasing the peanuts for payment scheme of the microstock companies.

    The weakest link that caused this cheapening of the photo stock industry is the people behind the camera lens trying to make a buck off their images.

    As for those snap shooters who think that the novel use or more correctly micro stock scheme is wonderful and creates another avenue of cash flow, think again for it will only be in your dreams baby.

    Lorry Travis
    Photographer/Artist

  7. 13 July 2008 at 02:49 Paul williams

    This whole discussion divided as I was writing my thoughts on the other strand about this subject. Lets go worldwide. If you want what I think from the other strand on the same subject the following is what I said, with this addition.
    Was the person who made the front page of every newspaper in the world with the Concorde crashing at Paris a professional photographer? No he was a van driver with a video camera. That's modern photography. Photography is still about photographers but in the real world we are all disposable unless we we realize that there are about 2 billion new photographers since digital took over from plate cameras and we will not move foreword as a profession until we accept that everything has been photographed at least once by somebody. Except me. What are you worried about? Are you really that bad a photographer. I don't think so. Amateurs still have no idea how to sell products or ideas thank god. I hate writing on these things because photographers are a funny lot and who cares, but these are my thoughts from the other strand about NU.

    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 stock 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.

  8. 13 July 2008 at 17:13 JG Jardey

    The Photostock Blues

    I’ve got the Alamy photostock blues.
    They use to sell my photos for big bucks.
    Now they want me to sell them for peanuts.
    What to do?
    I’ve got the Alamy photostock blues.
    I am no fool to work for peanuts.
    So take flight and sell your photos not as fools do.
    I’ve got the Alamy photostock blues, oh yes I do.

    Jgjardey

    Copywrited July 12, 2008
    Licensed usage: Novel (for conventional specific usage based on the preconceived understanding within the context of the assigned usage specifications)
    Novel use fee. $1.00 USD

  9. 13 July 2008 at 17:59 martin

    At £0.50 and £0.60 in the UK it would be cheaper to avoid the administration and give them away!

  10. 21 July 2008 at 12:36 axel

    HI, i am a photographer from germany and i think
    it is not a good idea to sell images for 1 $, thats not enough money to produce high quality

  11. 23 July 2008 at 23:33 Lolahoi

    One does not like to make negative comments about others, but I’ve done my little survey about selling ones photographs for .30 usd. or 1.00 usd.

    The survey is made up of individuals with no connection to the photostock business, just a broad spectrum of people I know.

    The results are as follows in verbal format coded to not offend.

    Fo ols
    Sutpid
    Mo ronic

    So these words will speak for all those photographers who partake in reducing their photographic abilities to the lowest standards possible.

    No offence to anyone, but lets get real here with a good dose of reality check on profitability not your dollar store ego.

    LolaHoi
    Artist/Photographer

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.