Kukkudrill

Verified
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Forum reputation = neutral

About Kukkudrill

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Malta

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={4565665A-465C-455F-8D5D-60FCD65E4823}&name=Charles+Polidano
  • Images
    1722
  • Joined Alamy
    18 Dec 2006

Recent Profile Visitors

323 profile views
  1. Strange algorithm.

    Perhaps you're not familiar with the expression Betty used. It simply means that there's no need to ask questions when good fortune comes your way. I'm constantly surprised at how helpful many people on this forum are and Betty is among the most helpful.
  2. Dangers of photography

    If a politician had fallen on his face outside Downing Street they'd have been all over him in a flash ... what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or so I'd have thought
  3. November Challenge :: Winner

    Congratulations Michael
  4. Does it have to be editorial?

    Seems to me, if antagonistic campaigns are allowed, then they cannot considered trademark infringements, otherwise the party that is being portrayed negatively in a campaign could sue the advertiser and stop the campaign. It would, but I don't think it's possible. The fine print sets out licensing terms equivalent to what we would call unreleased RM. It also gives Boeing the right to approve the end use work in which images are used, including photo layout, text, web page etc. Of course I don't know how long these conditions have been in place - for all I know they might have been introduced in response to that 2012 Airbus advert.
  5. Does it have to be editorial?

    My point is that commercial use of an image featuring a trademarked object is by no means automatically a trademark infringement. Just like I said in my post Meaning you might be foregoing perfectly legitimate sales if you restrict every such image you have to editorial use only. You need to use your judgement. If commercial use of an image featuring a trademarked object were automatically a trademark infringement, then this image could not have been used in this advert. Unless, of course, the photographer got a property release from the trademark owner, but we both know that's extremely unlikely. Whether the image was RM or RF (assuming it was a stock photo) is irrelevant. Free PR handouts by Boeing are released for editorial use only. Check their website.
  6. Does it have to be editorial?

    I'm no lawyer but my impression is that the definition of what constitutes a trademark infringement is pretty narrow, even in the US. Commercial use of an image featuring a trademarked object is by no means automatically a trademark infringement. If it were, an advert like this - published in Aviation Week, a US-based magazine - wouldn't be possible. In spite of the Pinocchio nose the aircraft in the advert is very recognisably a Boeing 737 and, to drive the point home, it even features the word "Max" - a reference to the 737 MAX, the current generation of the 737. Source: https://skift.com/2012/11/28/airbus-gets-back-at-boeing-for-ad-claims-by-turning-its-aircraft-into-a-lying-pinocchio/.
  7. Phone images allowed for Live News?

    I see, thanks.
  8. Does it have to be editorial?

    Commercial use is a broad term covering a multitude of uses, some of which might be permissible even if there are people or property in an image. For instance, the owner of the property might want to use your photo for advertising purposes. Somewhere on this forum a while ago I read about Alamy contacting a photographer to remove an editorial use only restriction from a particular image to enable a commercial sale which Alamy themselves were obviously happy with. So I only rarely mark images as editorial use only, even though most of mine have identifiable property in them. As vpics says I usually rely on the no model/property releases tick boxes. Most of my photos are RM but I would take the same approach with editorial RF.
  9. Phone images allowed for Live News?

    Why can't we mention that, if it belongs to Alamy?
  10. Dangers of photography

    Interesting that a news photographer at a public event should object to becoming the subject of a photo. What was the reason you got told off?
  11. Why Alamy for generic RF?

    A lot of them - well, some of them, given high rejection rates - end up on a couple of well known aviation enthusiast websites where the photo screening is far more stringent than Alamy. One of these sites has 2.9 million photos, the other has 3.6 million. Indeed lots of aviation enthusiasts out there
  12. Why Alamy for generic RF?

    Who would buy that brick wall photo? A specialist architectural textbook publisher perhaps - not a market that will generate a lot of sales. I specialise in aviation and I like to think I can offer that sort of knowledge in my field. But as far as I can tell I haven't sold any photos to specialist aviation publishers through Alamy. There is a specialised aviation stock photo agency (can't mention its name here of course) that I'm not part of and that seems to monopolise image sales to aviation magazines in the UK. No questioning the talent and the expertise at the disposal of this agency, but I very much doubt whether it makes the sort of money you're suggesting. Aviation publishers are small outfits that aren't flush with cash. And if I were an aviation publisher, and a photographer offered to sell me photos for 500 bucks per image because he could accurately describe his subjects, I'd say b****r off because I'm perfectly capable of identifying aviation subjects for myself. I'd rather negotiate a deal with Alamy for editorial images at discounted rates or even get images from micros. So I'm not sure specialist publishers would even need such expertise from photographers, let alone be willing to pay that sort of money for it. If I were a publisher, the only reason I would go to a specialised agency and be willing to pay a premium rate is if it can supply images others can't, such as rare subjects or air to air photos.
  13. Why Alamy for generic RF?

    Depends on what suits the buyer most, which I suspect depends most of all on the cost. I did an experiment using the Alamy price calculator. Front cover for a book, circulation 25,000 world English language for five years, comes to €580. RF large size (24.8 x 16.5 cm, big enough for a book cover) comes to €450. Whether RM or RF wins out depends on the specific use. In this case, if I were a publisher paying calculator prices and I had a choice of RF and RM images, I would go with the RF. Of course the question is how many publishers actually pay these prices. But another question has occurred to me. Who says that customers actually do licence generic images such as backgrounds or abstracts from Alamy instead of getting them for peanuts from microstock? Have people on this forum actually sold such images? I can't say I have.
  14. Why Alamy for generic RF?

    They might be after a very specific type of image and it happens to be available only on Alamy. Or they might be used to dealing with Alamy, perhaps for editorial images, so when the need for a generic RF image comes up they don't bother looking elsewhere. Or perhaps they believe they can get better quality images from Alamy. Or maybe they want images that are less likely to have been widely used before and they're willing to pay extra for this. This is all speculation, of course. If only we could get feedback from buyers.