clampdown on RF in error

[Foreign Export]

I wonder if its time to really fix this issue.

 

Ive come across another contributors portfolio of some 670 images - all labelled RF, when in fact very few of them are eligible for RF.

 

Does it affect other contributors to allow these errors to go unaddressed?

 

Should something be done?

 

 

[wiskerke]

Under upcoming new rules re editorial RF, all this could very well be allowed.

You're right it's easy to find lots of unreleased brands logos property and people as RF.

I would only bother when they are in direct competition with yours. And remember we will probably all be swamped when the RF flood gates open.

 

Ah don't you love water disaster analogy? Hmm could be my ancestry.

 

wim

[MircoV]

The new rule of editorial RF is indeed coming. Anyway i think there is still a way to show that your images are not available on micro by ticking the option "Available on Alamy only". Another new feature on Alamy.

[Niels Quist]

I wonder if its time to really fix this issue.

 

Ive come across another contributors portfolio of some 670 images - all labelled RF, when in fact very few of them are eligible for RF.

 

Does it affect other contributors to allow these errors to go unaddressed?

 

Should something be done?

 

I also see this very often.

 

Another thing I sometimes notice, when checking newcomers' images when they ask questions in the forum, is that a number of RM images on Alamy are sold as RF in microstock.

[KWheal]

I reported such an instance to MS where a member had 1000's of RF where 95% were not RF by the rules and 6 months later nothing had changed. The only reason i looked because there was a sale which was in direct conpetition to one of my photos which i had as RM and the sale was RF when it shouldnt have been

Kevin

[Foreign Export]

The new rule of editorial RF is indeed coming. Anyway i think there is still a way to show that your images are not available on micro by ticking the option "Available on Alamy only". Another new feature on Alamy.

 

yes that is certainly the case, my main concern though is contributors inaccurately designating their images - i don't mind ( obviously) if they are genuine RF and of course they are free to license them elsewhere too

[Foreign Export]

This is something I've seen a lot of lately, and it is frustrating. However, I have also noticed that often the contributors who don't license correctly are also those who keyword spam, have huge numbers of similars, etc, so have a lack of understanding of the basics of how Alamy's CTR and ranking system works. So their rank is actually very low indeed and their images don't tend to get in the way. Obviously this won't always be the case of course but I have noticed it several times recently.

 

I'm nervous about the new RF licensing, and wonder how it will affect things. I currently use RF with certain types of images to get them seen, usually in the first line of almost any search. I wonder if these changes will stop that happening! Probably.

 

Geoff.

Yes i notice the same - RF incorrectly and then for good measure SPAM to death

 

I do think something should be done - unless of course they are falling to the back of the pile - then deep joy 

[Bill Brooks]

Check and see if the offending images are from another stock photo library. I think the rules must be different for stock photo libraries. I can’t see a stock photo library that is uploading a million images all at once, answering all those specific questions except in a generic way.

 

I once remember an agency claiming they had a model release for an apple.

[CM photo]

 

I once remember an agency claiming they had a model release for an apple.

 

 

That's so funny.  Was it a Granny Smith's?

[Marianne]

 

 

I once remember an agency claiming they had a model release for an apple.

 

 

That's so funny.  Was it a Granny Smith's?

 

 

 

You get a greenie for that