Nice one Doug, how about setting up a lightbox (on alamy) with your sales in it?? it's always good to have a link to quickly show off your sales to friends etc...
Woooo! Just sold my second image on Alamy. Also a Hurricane Katrina image. It put me over the $250 payout limit. Nice. Now all I need is for the credit card payments to clear so that they'll actually mail it out. Anybody have experience with how long that takes? A few weeks? A few months? And then of course I'll have to wait until the end of that month of Alamy to send out their check... But nice!
Thanks again for all the help and encouragement in this thread! To others I say, give it a shot!
Doug
Congrats Doug! Credit card transactions should clear right after 45 days.
I submitted my QC CD yesterday, hoping it'll do well.
Congrats to all of you with sales on their record :)
Quick question: do you think this is an agency or a single photographer? The name sounds like an agency, but after browsing the images it seems to me some persons appear very often, the photographer might be the guy with the kid on the first page? Oh, I forgot, just search for DAJ in alamy.
Quick question: do you think this is an agency or a single photographer? The name sounds like an agency, but after browsing the images it seems to me some persons appear very often, the photographer might be the guy with the kid on the first page? Oh, I forgot, just search for DAJ in alamy.
If you click on any of the images under DAJ you'll immediately be able to see that it stands for Digital Archive Japan --- likely a smaller agency which has a deal with Alamy, perhaps they cross market each other's libraries.
You can find out about ownership by going to the Contact Us page and clicking on the About Alamy link. The three founders are listed there.
Because they are licensed on Istock as RF (royalty free) which means that a designer can use the image however (with some restrisctions) and wherever (in the world) he wants. If you license the image RM then the desinger is restricted in how (how many copies of the image he prints, or in what type of publication/website)and where (which countries) with RM he is able to purchase the SOLE use of your image in say europe (which would be very expensive)...
So.. put shortly
if you sell an image RF (on any site) you can NEVER sell it as RM
Because they are licensed on Istock as RF (royalty free) which means that a designer can use the image however (with some restrisctions) and wherever (in the world) he wants. If you license the image RM then the desinger is restricted in how (how many copies of the image he prints, or in what type of publication/website)and where (which countries) with RM he is able to purchase the SOLE use of your image in say europe (which would be very expensive)...
So.. put shortly
if you sell an image RF (on any site) you can NEVER sell it as RM
I guess I'm not fully getting it. With this argument, if you sell a photo at shutterstock for $1.00 then you can only sell that picture on Alamy for a dollar?? I agree, should never mix dollar pics with the same pic on Alamy or Myloupe or other macro sites. If a purchaser buys it say on IStock for a specific reason then the purchaser is restricted by the IStock contract. If the picture is bought on Alamy , the IStock contract has nothing to do with it, the Alamy contract is now in effect. Not all purchasers buy from all of the stock places. The contracts on the photos are mutually exclusive depending on where they are purchased. Therefore the same picture may have different contractual requirements for two different purchasers depending on where they obtained the photo. Every stock agency has different requirements that differ even within RM, differnt costs, different types of use etc etc.
I guess I'm not fully getting it. With this argument, if you sell a photo at shutterstock for $1.00 then you can only sell that picture on Alamy for a dollar?? I agree, should never mix dollar pics with the same pic on Alamy or Myloupe or other macro sites. If a purchaser buys it say on IStock for a specific reason then the purchaser is restricted by the IStock contract. If the picture is bought on Alamy , the IStock contract has nothing to do with it, the Alamy contract is now in effect. Not all purchasers buy from all of the stock places. The contracts on the photos are mutually exclusive depending on where they are purchased. Therefore the same picture may have different contractual requirements for two different purchasers depending on where they obtained the photo. Every stock agency has different requirements that differ even within RM, differnt costs, different types of use etc etc.
Please note, this is just my understanding and I could be completely wrong..
If you sell an image as RM that means you are implying a certain exclusivity to that particular image. A buyer purchasing the rights to that is expecting that for the price they are paying, they are ensured that image is NOT being bandied around elsewhere, thus lowering the impact the usuage they wish to employ.
If you put limits on usage and the ability for just anyone to purchase it on Alamy, yet it is then posted elsewhere available for anyone, then the advertisement quality is lessened because it is no longer a unique opportunity. As a buyer I would never purchase the use of a photo by a photographer that I was led to believe was RM if I then found out it had been offered and purchased as RF elsewhere. I'd feel jipped and lied to as to its availability to the masses and that would damage the photographer/stock site's reputation in my eyes.
If you spend $500 on an image because the terms include the clause that you will be the only one who can use it for say.. a 3 month period, then you were to see it in a number of different places because it was also being sold for $1.00 to multiple people on a RF site, wouldn't you feel similarly? Whether a picture is RM, RF or something else, its a licensing issue that follows the image not something that stops at where the image is being offered.
I would think that might be grounds to sue even.. ? Not sure about that though.
Again, I could be completely off, I'm not too into the whole RM aspect of things, need to get a better camera so I can give it a try.
I totally agree if a pic is on a dollar site it should not be sold again on a macrosite, not illegal but not very moral. All sites including Alamy have the option for the photo to be eclusive to that site only or even to the first purchaser. Then that particular photo does have more value. When you sell stock at Alamy it is alright to sell the same pic on other "higher prices" sites as long as you do not give Alamy exclusive rights to that photo. Yes a purchaser may but RF only from Alamy and someone else may buy RM from Myloupe. It may be the same picture but each stock company also has varied and different rules as to exacly what RF, L and RM mean. Alamy does use these term different that other sites. As long as you don't mix the same pics for a dollar and on Alamy no problem.
Also stock site require different level of size and quality. Alamy requires TIFF at at least 48Mb and Myloupe requires JPEG at less than 3Mb for large size and less than 1Mb for the small. Same picture but completely different values and probably different uses. Both ask for exclusive sales rights if you are willing to give it.
i don't think the issue is about selling the same royalty-free image on multiple sites for multiple prices. if someone pays $300 for an RF shot on alamy that they can get for $1.00 on iStock, i guess that's kind of their bad for not shopping around.
however, if you put an image online at alamy and mark it as rights-managed, the purchaser expects EXCLUSIVE use of THAT IMAGE for whatever time period is specified. they don't only have exclusive use of the image from alamy -- they have the rights to the image, period.
i haven't read all of the agreements put forth because i don't shoot many RM images, but if i paid extra for an RM image and then found it for sale for $1 someplace else, i'd be ultra-pissed at alamy. and alamy would probably be ultra-pissed at you. and then no one's happy.
The buyer obtains exclusive use of an image under the terms of the licence: these terms may affect the use, media, territory and/or duration in which the image can by used by other buyers.
exclusive use of an image. i think it's the photographer's responsibility to honor that exclusive use and remove other buyers' ability to purchase that image for the duration of the licensing agreement.
Can I submit my images from Istock to Alamy QC or I must to remove them from Istock before submitting?
I know in the past I read on Alamy that they will take non-exclusive images, meaning they can be marketed elsewhere. However, they also stated they will remove any images they find marketed at a low cost website (microstock).
But for the life of me I cannot find it anywhere on their site now. It looks like the contributor section has been updated since I last read it. Bottom line, it's just not a good idea at all to have the same image on both sites.
Thank you for responses.
I'm going just to send my first QC CD with some images from my Istock portfolio, but once it passed QC I will immediately remove these images from istock. What do you think - Is this OK? I'm not going to have same images on the micropayment and macro agencies.
Represented on Alamy by the symbol (L). This can be both Non-exclusive or Exclusive and means that the image is licensed for a specific use. This is also known in the Industry as 'Rights Managed'.
Non-exclusive:
The customer pays a licence fee each time they use the image, but another customer can also purchase and use the image under the same licence.
The customer must specify, each time: intended use, media, territory and duration.
Pricing is based on intended use, media, duration and territory.
When classifying your imagery please mark with 'L'.
If a customer wishes to use a 'non-exclusive' image, exclusively, we will have to contact you to seek your permission.
Exclusive - identified on the search system by the option "Rights protected?" underneath the price calculator.
The customer pays a licence fee each time they use the image.
The customer obtains exclusive use of an image under the terms of the licence: these terms may affect the use, media, territory and/or duration in which the image can by used by other customers.
Rights protection is particularly appropriate for high-profile projects such as ad campaigns and promotions.
Pricing for this type of licence varies depending on the terms requested. Customers of Alamy would typically pay between 20-30% more to guarantee an exclusive licence for their project.
When classifying your imagery please mark with 'RP'.
If a customer wishes to use the image exclusively, we will not contact you to seek prior permission.
Maybe we were all saying the same thing. Under Alamy "L" or RM there are two ways, exclusive or non-exclusive. If the photo is submitted as "L" non-exclusive the photograph may indeed be available on other sites or even direct selling by the photog. The buyer is not guaranteed any guarantee that someone else isn't using the photo. If the photo is agreed to be exclusive then the buy should be assured that the photo is only for his use and should pay additional for that rights.
From what I can see, with Alamy if you submit a photo as "L" non-exclusive you are free to sell that photo anywhere or by any way that the photog desires. That includes RF or RM on other sites. If listed as exclusive on other sites then the photo should not be submitted to anyother site. Like said by someone else, the buyer has a responsibility also when purchasing photos. Indeed the same photos might be cheaper somewhere else. I don't think on Alamy the photog can control the sales price, on Myloupe the photog has more control on RM and almost complete control on RF. Buyers need to shop and photogs need to try to abide by all the fine print rules ;)
Question to Istock and Alamy photographers. Did you have problems during submiting your photos to Alamy. As far as I know many agencies like myloupe don't like to accept photographers from micropayments sites. I sent my QC CD, and now I am afraid they can not accept me for this reason.
No, Alamy don't have rules about photographers using microstock sites - although I imagine they would be somewhat upset if you were to be selling the same photos on both!
