photo credit: Yukari*

If I could embed an mp3 of a violin I’d do it.

In a 6.30pm email to all contributors yesterday (March 18th) the CEO of the Alamy Stock Library, James West announced that the mainly editorial stock agency may well have to succumb to a subscription based model based upon unlimited downloads as a worst case scenario. It would seem the UK newspaper industry is in such a mess it has decided to take its ball home if it can’t buy usage for microstock rates.

I’ve seen some bun fights over on Alamy’s forum and some toys thrown out of the pram (and in this case rightly so) but I’m sure when James clicked on the send button in his office at the end of that day he had no idea of the intense shit storm he was about to unleash. Just read the blog comments. Up to 134 and counting. About 5 in favour of giving our beleaguered newspapers an as much as you can eat buffet for a fixed fee. 99% screaming (literally) for a way to opt-out of Newspaper subscriptions.

Almost 24 hours (save 3 minutes) later James responded to those comments on the blog and no doubt the trillions** of ‘Angry from Croydon’ emails he’d invited his contributors to send him via his personal email inbox.

From James West himself in a comment below:

Clarification to readers – approximately 17,000 contributors received my email about UK newspapers and 300 opted out. The author has used the reaction on the Alamy forum to gauge contributor opinion, which is not representative of opinion across the Alamy contributor community as a whole.

James West
CEO
Alamy

In this follow up response James mentioned allowing an opt-out.

If you’re still unconvinced, please email Member Services, with the subject line “UK newspaper opt-out”, and we will exclude your images from any deals we do with UK newspapers.

If you are going to take my offer of an opt-out, please do something for me in return: wait and see. Don’t rule this out until you have had a chance to gauge the impact it will have on price and volume for yourself. You will be able to opt-out at any point in the future if you wish.

This appeased some but did this stop the masses from revolting? Hell no. Off they went again. 98 comments to date. Some rather well thought out and lucid arguments too. Grab a coffee and read through especially if you’re new to Alamy and/or stock. I can’t help wondering whether Alamy’s policy wing deliberately tosses out a bad news scenario in order to brainstorm possible solutions for free. I know that’s a cynical attitude to take. It could be that they are genuinely concerned about how their contributors feel.

At least they sort of pseudo-consult (albeit in a ham fisted manner) unlike Getty who are more than likely to just tell you to bend over and brace yourself.

24 hours later the cavalry arrive in the shape of another clarification blog post from Head of Content Alan Capel.

You guessed it……. still not enough detail to quell the fires of revolt! Though we did now realise that RM images were fair game for the Newshounds too! Despite assurances that prices would be set on usage, there’s a foul smell of a download model emerging which would let these key customers (only 8% of Alamy’s business mind) fill their boots for an all you can eat monthly fee. RMs RFs RPs the lot.

Contributors rightly point out that under the current model the Newshounds quite often “forget” to account for usages. As it is the key customers get access to download hi-res images on a “self billing” arrangement which trusts said organisations to account for each and every use they have made of the image.

Worse though, and the real crux of a subscription scheme like this is that Alamy can negotiate a price that isn’t far off what they get now on a contractual basis. Guaranteed income. No such guarantee for the contributor who will get the crumbs and see their work devalued even further. Can’t blame Alamy for wanting to secure cash flow in a recession but it’s the contributor that provides the content that gets the rough end of a subscription deal every single time.

Client gets cheaper imagery – Alamy get guaranteed payments – Contributor gets sod all!

The Alamy Forum (PP side note: not for those of nervous disposition) often reports unpaid usage attributed to the Newspaper accounts. So if Alamy can’t control this now (despite assurances they’re taking it seriously) PP wonders how the hell they’re going to control usage under subscriptions where the late nite sub-editor is going to look upon the whole of Alamy as his personal free stock resource. “I’ll mark those uses up later” – not.

More worrying is the precedent this is going to set within the industry. BAPLA have already spoken out against the Newspapers’ attempt to dictate the value of photographer’s work. PP feels that once the magic download rabbit is let out of the hat the other volume clients are going to come asking for it too. There could be a slow creep until the whole editorial and educational use sector is subsumed.

Best kill it now. Like the ill-fated Novel Use scheme. That didn’t work either.

PP thinks Alamy’s contributors have a great diversity of content that’s just not available anywhere else (yes anywhere). Some of it is complete crap but thankfully Alamy Rank is doing a good job in letting that sink to the bottom. There’s good cause for the Newspapers to pay real money to licence Alamy’s diverse content. Without it they’d have to send someone to the outer reaches of whatever godforsaken place they’re doing a piece on and get it shot. And that’s going to cost them way more than the current heavily discounted licence fees they enjoy from Alamy.

Of course they could:

1. Nick it off the web or FlickR (mind you don’t nick a Getty image now Mr Newspaper man); or
2. Persuade a newbie to part with their image for the absolutely wonderful “can’t resist oh no its just too good” reimbursement of a credit line.

Why can’t they just be thankful they can licence rare content for the current 75% off calculator knockdown price. But no, they want it even cheaper. Hey, that’s capitalism! But it takes two to tango and if Alamy show some cojones and stand firm the Newspapers can’t do much about it.

Fast forward to 25th March and in response to the tidal wave of opt-out emails James West feels compelled to write to everyone again. This one isn’t on the blog and it gives more detail on the probable (his words not mine) usage price points of £25 – £55 per use. If I thought that was even remotely possible I’d applaud though it covers the current discounted rates for spot up to 1/8th, getting 60% of £55 for a DPS in a national newspaper is going to seem like a hugely bad deal.

Fact is that Getty and AP who supply newswire sport, breaking news and celebrity images are already way way below that price point. I just can’t see Alamy managing to thrash out a contract with a newspaper in a recession that comes close to £25 – £55 for every single image for single non-exclusive editorial use.

PP is with a number of commentators who call for Alamy to let this sector go. By all means continue to service them at regular prices but don’t cave in chasing 8% of revenue from a dying industry. Newsprint isn’t exactly flatlining yet but they’re in A&E and the prognosis isn’t good.

Further developments are awaited with an uneasy mix of interest and trepidation. Lets hope for the sake of our future editorial sales Alamy’s negotiations with our UK Newspaper magnates are more successful than this guy’s attempt at appeasement.

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Understanding licensing types: Royalty Free image licences (1)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Ready Image licences (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Protected or Exclusive image licences (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Managed image licences (0)
• Stock Photography: Can you sell an image as RF and RM at the same time? (3)