Gordon Scammell

Verified
  • Content count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Forum reputation = neutral

About Gordon Scammell

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={82B3C327-164E-4072-A733-7855E8F5C655}&name=Gordon+Scammell
  • Images
    31368
  • Joined Alamy
    12 Nov 2007
  1. Phone images allowed for Live News?

    If I had something really really newsworthy I certainly wouldn't be offering it to stock libraries. I'd be punting it to news desks directly. If they are very interested they'll snap your arm off - for a very good price.
  2. IQ sales

    Country: United KingdomUsage: Internal business usageMedia: Internal poster/décor (1 use only)Industry sector: General business servicesStart: 30 October 2017End: 30 October 2020License to include print on window glass and In-context web and social media usage. Duration: Life of windows of Spa. Top-up fee. First time I've ever seen that clause - 'Life of windows of Spa. Top up fee'
  3. Have you found any Alamy images in October?

    Much thanks for spotting. Appreciated.
  4. (100) of these daily = happy camper

    OK. Let me repeat myself - it is what happened to me when i opted out of PU. It is not a case of 'where did I hear that...' It is what happened. I suggest you opt out of PU and see what happens.
  5. (100) of these daily = happy camper

    I haven't 'heard' it - it's what happened when I opted out of PU.
  6. (100) of these daily = happy camper

    Well and truly corrected. Thanks John. Still, an outrageously low price - in my opinion.
  7. (100) of these daily = happy camper

    If you opt out of 'personal use' your images are taken out out of the distribution scheme. Some members are happy with that - some are not. What really irritates the hell out of me is the ridiculously low price for some of the personal use licences. I would expect that if someone wishes to buy an image for 'personal use' they should pay the stated price in the price calculator thingie - £9.99/$13.75 Why were Jeff's images sold for $4.50/£3.41? Is Alamy now giving discounts on 'personal usage'? Or have I got things wrong? Very happy to be corrected.
  8. New contributor

    Alamo? Yes. Alamy does feel like the Alamo sometimes......
  9. Summer returns to UK - where you been to today

    Tattoo convention.
  10. Caption and Tagging - using same words twice

    Maybe my mind is playing tricks..... but when I looked at this thread earlier today there were 2 pages of discussion. The Big Censor been at it again? Or am I mistaken?
  11. Download Packs

    The silence from Alamy is deafening.... no. Hold on, I can hear something....yes, the noise from Alamy as they roll around on the floor holding their sides in hysterical laughter. Do they care about us contributors? I honestly do not think so. I'd like them to prove me wrong. Are they happy to coin it in at our expense? Yup. I actually believe that if Alamy announced that in future the photographer gets no money just a byline, there are still enough 'photographers' out there who will continue to contribute. I'm now working through all my images and adding restrictions. Will my sales suffer? Of course they will. My sales from other libraries are still reasonably strong so I have faith in those who operate those libraries. I lost faith in Alamy some time ago.
  12. ....and yet another 'personal use' is licensed.

    I promised to remain silent on this issue but..... From a business sense Alamy will allow this licence to continue as they money from it. This licence is so easily open to abuse yet Alamy seems to either not care (it makes money) or they are simply incapable of chasing infringers (it still makes money). To suggest that people who licenced an image on a PU basis may have been mistaken and thought they were buying the subject of the image is, frankly, insulting to our intelligence. There are so many contributors to Alamy who are unhappy about the PU licence and the 'Presentation or newsletters' licence yet nothing is done. If Alamy are unable to 'police' the use/misuse of the PU licence then they should withdraw the licence. Alamy has a duty to afford some level of protection of contributors work. Will this abuse of the 'PU licence' continue? Undoubtedly, yes. Will the level of abuse rise? Undoubtedly, yes. With Alamy's inaction on this matter we have to ask the question whether Alamy actually cares..... I think I know the answer - and I believe many other contributors also know the answer.......
  13. Honestly... words fail me about this 'personal use' useage. So I'll say no more...... just let my silence try to convey my utter contempt for this licence.
  14. Interesting article re: Daily Mail

    I have sold images to The Daily Mail The same images are used online and I have received a separate payment. These images were not licensed through Alamy. I have sold images to The Daily Mail. The same images are used online and I have not received a separate payment. These images were licensed through Alamy. Someone is allowing us to made mugs of - and I don't think It's the Mail. I have found the Mail to be fairly generous with their payments when I have dealt with them directly.
  15. Interesting article re: Daily Mail

    With the greatest respect, I think you have missed my point. I have no interest in Paul Dacre or his protests, but when, as owner, he states that the Daily Mail and Mail Online are separate entities then my interest is well and truly piqued. I assume that from now on Alamy would be charging for every use and not including online usage in the same deal as the print usage. Contributors should realise that every time one of their images is licenced via Alamy to The Mail and it includes online usage for a single fee then they are being shortchanged. I know what I will be doing in future. If I find an image of mine is licensed to The Mail and Mail Online for a single fee I will be invoicing the Mail for the online usage. Usage in the Daily Mail and in the Mail online are two separate uses and should be treated as such. As far as I am concerned any usage for the Mail Online that isn't separately paid for automatically becomes an infringement that I will be happy to pursue myself. I'd just like an opinion from Alamy.