hdh Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 somewhere hidden in the simplification of restrictions the new contributor tools are announced for September. http://www.alamy.com/blog/simplifying-restrictions-millions-options-four YEAH!!! - I am so looking forward to them Edit: thanks to Matt for spotting - in this thread http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/6145-simplified-restrictions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Looks like we can block these "personal use" licenses that should be re-named Personal Abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 So far I've had two Personal Use sales -- one for $25, the other for $13.88. That's fine with me; I have had lower-priced "regular" sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I understand that point of view, Geoff. My personal involvement with Alamy includes planning shoots, shooting, PP, and keywording. Basically, I trust Alamy to do the best they can with everything else. And this is not a co-op agency. Of course as a retired pro and a senior, I'm not building a career. This is what I do now instead of playing golf or watching daytime TV. Many contriburors have different levels of involvement. Good on 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeRay Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Totally agree Ed with both points. Just "beamed ya up" to a giddy 1,000 greenies ! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 My goodness! Thanks, ReeRay. And I've very interested in hearing the thoughts on the image-size question you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Totally agree Ed with both points. Just "beamed ya up" to a giddy 1,000 greenies ! LOL Well, one of our forum heroes (cough) threw Ed a coward's arrow and knocked him back down to 999 . . . rectified :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I missed that -- thanks, Dusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I missed that -- thanks, Dusty. . . . hey, love the new avatar . . . seems the cult of the selfie has spread to Manhattan . . . . . . to be fair, I've followed suit . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 LOL -- it's not me! That's George C. Scott working on his makeup as Abraham in the film The Bible. I see you've gone show business, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Was that an official announcement or just a hint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Was that an official announcement or just a hint? No, it's official: selfies are "in" in Manhattan . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mayall Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 It's been talked about a lot lately because they are sometimes used for non-personal use. Some clients seem to be purchasing PU as it's the cheapest way to get the non-watermarked hi-res image, then using it for other purposes. That's why some want to opt out, not because of the fees. Geoff. +1 Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Walker Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 It's been talked about a lot lately because they are sometimes used for non-personal use. Some clients seem to be purchasing PU as it's the cheapest way to get the non-watermarked hi-res image, then using it for other purposes. That's why some want to opt out, not because of the fees. Geoff. +1 Paul. + another one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callie Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 It's been talked about a lot lately because they are sometimes used for non-personal use. Some clients seem to be purchasing PU as it's the cheapest way to get the non-watermarked hi-res image, then using it for other purposes. That's why some want to opt out, not because of the fees. Geoff. +1 Paul. + another one + another, providing we can be assured that only low res images are being supplied for the low priced presentation use, otherwise this will be used instead by these clients. My last presentation use to show the size of image supplied said a 60MB 5616 x 3744 pixel image was supplied, ie full sized, totally not necessary for a presentation, "Use in slides/materials to support a presentation or talk - such as Powerpoint or Keynote.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted July 31, 2016 Author Share Posted July 31, 2016 PU seems really a topic of discussion and I have added a separate thread with an idea to "Introduce RM Pricing Based on Image Size" Maybe as a separate license type aside RM and RF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 It's been talked about a lot lately because they are sometimes used for non-personal use. Some clients seem to be purchasing PU as it's the cheapest way to get the non-watermarked hi-res image, then using it for other purposes. That's why some want to opt out, not because of the fees. Geoff. +1 Paul. + another one + another, providing we can be assured that only low res images are being supplied for the low priced presentation use, otherwise this will be used instead by these clients. My last presentation use to show the size of image supplied said a 60MB 5616 x 3744 pixel image was supplied, ie full sized, totally not necessary for a presentation, "Use in slides/materials to support a presentation or talk - such as Powerpoint or Keynote.". I'm interested to know if anyone can provide an example of someone buying an image then abusing the personal use license. And if anyone can do so did they report it to Alamy and what was the outcome, i.e. was a new license issued at increased sale price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 It's been talked about a lot lately because they are sometimes used for non-personal use. Some clients seem to be purchasing PU as it's the cheapest way to get the non-watermarked hi-res image, then using it for other purposes. That's why some want to opt out, not because of the fees. Geoff. +1 Paul. + another one + another, providing we can be assured that only low res images are being supplied for the low priced presentation use, otherwise this will be used instead by these clients. My last presentation use to show the size of image supplied said a 60MB 5616 x 3744 pixel image was supplied, ie full sized, totally not necessary for a presentation, "Use in slides/materials to support a presentation or talk - such as Powerpoint or Keynote.". + me, of course Cheers, Philippe + and me Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlessandraRC Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I prefer to have Alamy and the customer deciding on the restrictions. I simply indicate the lack of a release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.