Gordon Scammell Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 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...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 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'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Scammell Posted July 30, 2017 Author Share Posted July 30, 2017 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....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thyrsis Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 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'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thyrsis Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 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!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.