Gordon Scammell

....and yet another 'personal use' is licensed.

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just had my first one.  I was waiting to see if I got one before deciding whether to change my settings to take this option off my collection.

I know we cant second guess why someone might want a particular photo, but I cant even guess what the one of Stephen Fry and Elliott Spencer in the Royal Box at Centre Court plus othreally folk would be used for.

 

 

Edited by Sally
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had another pu sale this week of an image that was licensed and then refunded last year...... surprise surprise, it was refunded this morning. Nearly every pu license I have had has resulted in a refund.... time to opt out I think......

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not sure that it has been mentioned on these PU threads before, but a friend pointed out that when we arrive at an image page, PU is highlighted by default (if not disallowed) and is also the cheapest (equal) option, so probably a lot of non-regular stock buyers just go for that. That would tie in with what Alamy told me in reference to a similarly unlikely PU sale, where the sale had been zoomed earlier in same day by its actual number*. Alamy told me they had no record of the details of the buyer and couldn't follow it up, but they couldn't find it being used on the internet (and neither could I).

*An incredible coincidence in a file from an old series which has had no previous or subsequent interest.

 

OTOH, I've only had one refund out of eight (according to a quick check) - a box of medical tablets. A second sale of a pic of a box of medical tablets was not refunded, and neither was a second sale of the box which was refunded earlier. I really should do a reverse-image search for all of my PU sales just in case. Arguably only one of them has actually been 'pictorial'.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

" Alamy told me they had no record of the details of the buyer and couldn't follow it up "

 

Highly unlikely as they would have credit card or payment transaction details so some thing is not straight.

 

I actually opted out of PU as some of the sales were highly suspicious. But then I started getting "Presentation or newsletters" instead.

 

It's obvious the people buying these images don't care about licensing and are going for the cheapest option.

 

The other annoying thing is assuming a PU sale is made and it's a one off purchase and paid for with a credit/debit card you still end waiting for the payment to clear.  Surely it would be almost instant.

 

It's time they scrapped this license system and changed to purchase based on image size or started doing some checks.

Edited by David Pimborough
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Martyn said:

Had another pu sale this week of an image that was licensed and then refunded last year...... surprise surprise, it was refunded this morning. Nearly every pu license I have had has resulted in a refund.... time to opt out I think......

 

They should not be giving out refunds on personal use it's just really open to abuse.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.......

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

" Alamy told me they had no record of the details of the buyer and couldn't follow it up "

Highly unlikely as they would have credit card or payment transaction details so some thing is not straight.

That's exactly what I thought.

Specifically on the file I had zoomed by number and bought on the same day (from the old series with no other interest):

"The zoom on the image and the sale itself are unrelated. Zooms are recorded from a
select group of customers (not just our best ones) who have to be logged in and
spent money on Alamy before and the image was licensed by a guest user so their
activity wouldn’t have been recorded."

But what's to stop a previous customer searching while logged in, then e.g. on a different browser with cookies disabled, buying it as an unrecorded buyer?

(That said, reverse-searching on the file didn't find it online).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gordon Scammell said:

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. 

Me to Alamy:

I've had three photos of a medications sold as 'personal use'. The first one was
refunded, and it was suggested to me that someone maybe thought they were buying the
medicine. I guess there are people out there so reckless - or desperate - that they
buy medications at far under the market rate from a company with no medical
credentials. 

 

Alamy's reply:

As ridiculous as it sounds this sort of thing does happened quite a lot and it isn't
just with medication.

That said, and my previous post, I've just rechecked my eight PU sales (I checked them each on the date they came through) and none is findable online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding a recent PU sale, why would an image licensed in the UK for personal use have the country on the license details marked as 'Worldwide'?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

Regarding a recent PU sale, why would an image licensed in the UK for personal use have the country on the license details marked as 'Worldwide'?

 

 

all of mine have 'worldwide'. - but I can't see where any of the the images were licensed, UK or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of there being a Personal Use option on Alamy - I see it as a way of trying to broaden the market. The downside of opening things up to the public is that they are going to make mistakes simply because they are new to stock. I am not saying that there are no abuses at all because I simply don't know.  But I very much doubt that there is mass cheating going on. 

 

There is an opt out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

all of mine have 'worldwide'. - but I can't see where any of the the images were licensed, UK or otherwise.

If you download the excel file from 'net revenue' the last column shows the country.

(also helpful for DACs claims!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thyrsis said:

If you download the excel file from 'net revenue' the last column shows the country.

(also helpful for DACs claims!)

Thanks, I forgot about that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now