Jump to content

Welcome to the Alamy Contributor Forum. Log-in using your existing Alamy account details. If you're not registered yet then you need to create an Alamy Contributor account to be able to post here. Once registered, you'll be able to choose a forum display name and there will be a link to your images on Alamy within your profile. Please have a read of the rules and announcements before posting. Your first post will be moderated before appearing. Welcome to our photographer community!


Photo
- - - - -

Personal Use?


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#21 Ed Rooney

Ed Rooney

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 3,431 posts
  • LocationNew York City
  • Images:3889

Posted 4 weeks ago

You have quite a few RF images, Edo, and, if I'm not mistaken, they would need to be changed to RM in order to have any restrictions.

 

It's possible to make bulk changes through Alamy Image Manager. In the upper right, click on Select First 500 Passed.

Then go to Optional and click "Don't sell for personal use including single copy, non-retail wall art prints".

I'm not sure how it handles the conflict with RF, but probably by changing them to RM.

 

Cheers,

Don

 

 

In fact most of my collection is RM, Don. I recently changed all my tabletop food shots to RF, and at Alamy's suggestion, more recently, I've tried using RF on other things. That's why you see them on the most recent pages.

 

Except for anonymous food, I don't feel RF is going to work for me, especially with this PU problem. However, I don't want to be changing directions every other week.  


  • 0

#22 John Mitchell

John Mitchell

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,291 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC
  • Images:6327

Posted 4 weeks ago

Has anyone else noticed if a 'personal use' sale also shows up as a  zoom just before it was sold?

 

I was assuming PU sales were to people buying on a one time basis rather than being a regular Alamy client.

 

Yes, I've had that happen not long ago. I think it might have been a legitimate client who wanted an image for personal use along with two images from the same set for editorial use -- i.e. it looks as if the buyer bought one image for PU and two for editorial use (just surmising, though).


  • 0

John Mitchell

 

 

 


#23 John Mitchell

John Mitchell

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,291 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC
  • Images:6327

Posted 4 weeks ago

 

Right, Bryan -- there is more than one issue here. I've had an email from Alamy everyday this week announcing that they have removed certain images of street art. This is the latest:

 

"We’ve recently seen an increase in the number of complaints we have been receiving from street artists who are copyrighting their work.

 
We have identified a number high risk street artists who we know are actively chasing copyright infringements of their work.
 
Where the work of these street artists has been shot with wider context to the image, we have made the decision to add editorial restrictions to the images to help prevent any potential issues.
 
We have restricted the following image(s) from your collection;
 
XXX
 
We don’t want images solely of artwork, as this could be seen as ‘passing off’ the original work, but if you upload any new images of murals taken with wider context to the image (e.g. a street scene), then please make sure they’re restricted for editorial use only."
 
I don't plan to shoot anymore street art. Too bad; it's been 5% of my sales in the past year. I feel PU has complicated things. PU is not editorial. And I'll probably delete all or most of the street art murals I have now. 

 

 

Thanks for sharing this info. I've already made all my street art/murals editorial only. I'll probably now do some deleting as well.

 

Have only had one issue, not on Alamy but on my own website when an artist contacted me complaining about a photo of her mural (I deleted the image).


  • 0

John Mitchell

 

 

 


#24 Bryan

Bryan

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • LocationNE England
  • Images:9922

Posted 4 weeks ago

 

Right, Bryan -- there is more than one issue here. I've had an email from Alamy everyday this week announcing that they have removed certain images of street art. This is the latest:

 

"We’ve recently seen an increase in the number of complaints we have been receiving from street artists who are copyrighting their work.

 
We have identified a number high risk street artists who we know are actively chasing copyright infringements of their work.
 
Where the work of these street artists has been shot with wider context to the image, we have made the decision to add editorial restrictions to the images to help prevent any potential issues.
 
We have restricted the following image(s) from your collection;
 
XXX
 
We don’t want images solely of artwork, as this could be seen as ‘passing off’ the original work, but if you upload any new images of murals taken with wider context to the image (e.g. a street scene), then please make sure they’re restricted for editorial use only."
 
I don't plan to shoot anymore street art. Too bad; it's been 5% of my sales in the past year. I feel PU has complicated things. PU is not editorial. And I'll probably delete all or most of the street art murals I have now. 

 

 

Thanks Edo, seems to me that this should be generally known.

 

In the first instance I'll mark all of mine as editorial use only and remove them from personal use.

 

I've had a French sculptor complain about one of my shots, which Alamy then removed.

 

I would have thought that we were providing free advertising for these people, but clearly they don't see it that way.


  • 1

#25 Ed Rooney

Ed Rooney

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 3,431 posts
  • LocationNew York City
  • Images:3889

Posted 4 weeks ago

Editorial only, of course! But we must also click No PU. 

 

I expressed the same thought, Bryan: why would artists have a problem with free publicity? I think it's PU they have a real problem with. I'm going to let my thinking settle in before making any changes. 


Edited by Ed Rooney, 4 weeks ago.

  • 0

#26 Cryptoprocta

Cryptoprocta

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 373 posts
  • LocationScotland
  • Images:3069

Posted 4 weeks ago

I just had another sale of a photo of box of medicational tablets as 'personal use'. I guess they think they are buying the actual tablets.

What sort of idiot would buy serious medications at what is apparently a very low price from a website they know nothing about?

Another refund awaited.


  • 0
There is a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in
~Leonard Cohen

#27 John Mitchell

John Mitchell

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,291 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC
  • Images:6327

Posted 4 weeks ago

Editorial only, of course! But we must also click No PU. 

 

I expressed the same thought, Bryan: why would artists have a problem with free publicity? I think it's PU they have a real problem with. I'm going to let my thinking settle in before making any changes. 

 

Also, tourists often photograph street murals and then make prints for themselves or to give to others. If you paint something on a wall where everyone can see it, then this is bound to happen.

 

I guess it's the idea of someone (Alamy and us) making money indirectly from their work that really sticks in the artists' craws, which is understandable.

 

Again, more proof that PU and stock photography agencies make strange bedfellows.


Edited by John Mitchell, 4 weeks ago.

  • 1

John Mitchell

 

 

 


#28 Ed Rooney

Ed Rooney

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 3,431 posts
  • LocationNew York City
  • Images:3889

Posted 4 weeks ago

I just had another sale of a photo of box of medicational tablets as 'personal use'. I guess they think they are buying the actual tablets.

What sort of idiot would buy serious medications at what is apparently a very low price from a website they know nothing about?

Another refund awaited.

 

 

Maybe the buyer will OD on your snap?

 

Yeah, John -- we are in the Twilight Zone of imaging.


  • 0

#29 Cryptoprocta

Cryptoprocta

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 373 posts
  • LocationScotland
  • Images:3069

Posted 4 weeks ago

Maybe I should put in the description field that this is a photo not a box of tablets.

To be fair, maybe the buyers (that's two now) weren't total eejits. Maybe someone is really ill but can't afford meds in their country, and has very little to lose by taking possibly dodgy drugs. That would explain why the first one, and no doubt the second, would ask for refunds. If I'd done anything that stupid, I'd be too embarrassed to ask for a refund.


  • 0
There is a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in
~Leonard Cohen

#30 Foreign Export

Foreign Export

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 318 posts
  • LocationSydney
  • Images:22460

Posted 4 weeks ago

Interesting issue here re street art - I believe in many countries it remains illegal to decorate the street or walls

Not that two wrongs make a right - but would be an interesting legal matter

 

Martin


  • 0

#31 spacecadet

spacecadet

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,079 posts
  • LocationLondon
  • Images:7674

Posted 4 weeks ago

I wonder about removing the location for artworks where it's not relevant to make them harder for artists' lawyers to find. GIS isn't that good at finding images unless they're identical, so including a bit of background will throw it off anyway.

On the wider legal point, they're always going to be at risk in the US because suing is a participant sport, but the only danger point I can think of in Europe is France where I believe right of panorama is restricted. Anyone trying it in the UK, where there's a specific exemption, is toying with restraint of trade. CDPA s.62.


  • 0

Mark Dunn


#32 Thyrsis

Thyrsis

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 4 weeks ago

 

On the wider legal point, they're always going to be at risk in the US because suing is a participant sport, but the only danger point I can think of in Europe is France where I believe right of panorama is restricted. Anyone trying it in the UK, where there's a specific exemption, is toying with restraint of trade. CDPA s.62.

 

Alamy have added this interesting clause in the recent amendments to the contributor contract:

 

'The Image complies with the privacy and property laws of the country in which it was taken, e.g. in certain countries before taking a photo of someone you are required by law to ask the subject’s permission.'


Edited by Thyrsis, 4 weeks ago.

  • 0

#33 Wawa

Wawa

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 4 weeks ago

QUESTION: When you make changes under Alamy Image Manager > Optional > Restrictions > Don't sell for personal use.... There is a small calendar to the right of this > "Add end date" - What does this mean? Do you have to specify how low long you want restrictions to last? Confusing.

Also, Restrictions can only be applied to RM images not RF, correct?

Thanks.


Edited by Wawa, 4 weeks ago.

  • 0

#34 DDoug

DDoug

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 541 posts
  • LocationGermany
  • Images:1166

Posted 4 weeks ago

 

 

 

In fact most of my collection is RM, Don. I recently changed all my tabletop food shots to RF, and at Alamy's suggestion, more recently, I've tried using RF on other things. That's why you see them on the most recent pages.

 

Except for anonymous food, I don't feel RF is going to work for me, especially with this PU problem. However, I don't want to be changing directions every other week.  

 

 

You're right, Edo, I didn't scroll down far enough to see that only a few are RF.

 

At this point I do not block PU sales because, unlike many of the rest of you with larger collections, I have yet to experience abuses of it (or any PU sales at all, for that matter). However, remaining open to distributor sales was not the reason. As this is April, I took the opportunity to opt out of that plan.

 

One primary reason for this is that, during the couple years that I've been getting sales on Alamy, the amounts received through distributors have been declining considerably while the amounts received from direct Alamy sales have exceeded my expectations. No doubt I'll lose some income by opting out of distribution, but not enough to override the feelings I have when, for recent example, an image is sold to a restaurant for a display print for 10 bucks and my cut was just three. I doubt that Alamy's own sales staff would have made that deal.

 

Also, I've noticed that a certain German magazine buys a lot of Alamy images through one highfalutin German agency (HGA), compared to relatively few from HGA's own collection. HGA is quite picky in what they accept and maintain high prices, but they are no doubt happy to let Alamy do all the work of maintaining the image files so they can sit back and collect 40% for doing little more than the act of collecting.


  • 2

#35 spacecadet

spacecadet

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,079 posts
  • LocationLondon
  • Images:7674

Posted 4 weeks ago

I stick with distributors partly because I have a biggish German collection and German buyers usually go through one. The prices are quite fair comparatively these days even at 30%.


  • 0

Mark Dunn


#36 DDoug

DDoug

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 541 posts
  • LocationGermany
  • Images:1166

Posted 4 weeks ago

I stick with distributors partly because I have a biggish German collection and German buyers usually go through one. The prices are quite fair comparatively these days even at 30%.

 

As a resident of Germany, photos of this country form a large part of my collection also. Perhaps next April I'll decide that it was a mistake and correct it.

 

One might hope that at some point they'll realize that Alamy is the Alice's Restaurant of stock and they can get anything they want here.


  • 0

#37 spacecadet

spacecadet

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,079 posts
  • LocationLondon
  • Images:7674

Posted 4 weeks ago

Maybe try to submit direct to Mauritius, which often seems to come up?

Of course they'll then put your port on Alamy and Alamy will be the distributor instead. Sigh.bt

btw the brick church- I have "backsteingotik" in my keywords for those. Showing off, probably, I don't think there's ever been a search on it or even brick gothic, but you never know.


Edited by spacecadet, 4 weeks ago.

  • 0

Mark Dunn


#38 John Mitchell

John Mitchell

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,291 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC
  • Images:6327

Posted 3 weeks ago

I had a PU sale for $10.64 today. The price for PU usage shows up as $19.95 here in Canada. What is the official (on the Alamy calculator) price for PU usage in the UK and Europe these days? And in the USA?


Edited by John Mitchell, 3 weeks ago.

  • 0

John Mitchell

 

 

 


#39 arterra

arterra

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 3,913 posts
  • LocationBelgium
  • Images:44381

Posted 3 weeks ago

I had a PU sale for $10.64 today. The price for PU usage shows up as $19.95 here in Canada. What is the official (on the Alamy calculator) price for PU usage in the UK and Europe these days? And in the USA?


Mainland Europe: a measly € 9.99 (Euro)  :(

Cheers,
Philippe


Edited by arterra, 3 weeks ago.

  • 0

Arterra Picture LibraryWildeyes

nature, travel and environmental photography

LogoFineArtAmericaBlueShape.jpg


#40 spacecadet

spacecadet

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,079 posts
  • LocationLondon
  • Images:7674

Posted 3 weeks ago

Showing as £12.99 here but I've had one for $12.05, my first. If it's a sterling sale it equates to about £9.99.


Edited by spacecadet, 3 weeks ago.

  • 0

Mark Dunn





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users