wiskerke Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 This morning I had this pop up in my Dashboard: 4 images - add more details to improve sales. It was in the Status column. It wasn't there yesterday and I'm pretty sure I had them all keyworded and tagged properly. As far as I can see only some tags went missing. I quickly re-did them from file, but this is weird. A glitch? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I had it a good time ago on some old images. Presumably Alamy was tightening up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandyAppleRed Images Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Happened to me yesterday - three images on sale for ages with no problems and full info suddenly lost their "no of people" fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stipe Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Same thing happened to me yesterday. About 50 images, including a few very old ones, lost their number of people fields. I have fulfill all of them but this morning again Alamy reported five same images with the same problem. I wonder if it's a technical problem of Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Ramsay Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Same here - 'no. of people' went missing on 2 images a couple of days ago, corrected them, and one showed up again today with the info missing again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I have had a dozen pop up - ranging from 12 years to 2 months since upload. It is clearly an Alamy data loss issue as the recent ones could not have gone live without the number of people/ model release answers. One will have to be resubmityt3ed because it was RM-E which seems odd as I am not aware of ever using RM-E so I am wondering if that has got corrupted as well; that is a problem I suddenly had with a couple of other very old images in last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Yep, same here, 34 images need more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy deWitt Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Yes. Yesterday 19 images needed number of people fields redoing. Seemed ok this a.m. This sort of thing has happened before but not for a while. Kathy deWitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 Any possibility of someone at MS checking them by hand and deciding the number of people had been wrong? wim edit: just to make sure before we start mailing MS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Looking at loads of shots in the papers, many of the larger agencies don't appear to bother with the number people field. I suspect that it ( the field) is an effort on the part of Alamy to keep us smaller operators safely on the straight and narrow, and would doubt that any checking has occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 Looking at loads of shots in the papers, many of the larger agencies don't appear to bother with the number people field. I suspect that it ( the field) is an effort on the part of Alamy to keep us smaller operators safely on the straight and narrow, and would doubt that any checking has occurred. I can tell from my own experience and from posts here on the Forum, that checking by hand has occurred. To much annoyance sometimes. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 Maybe in Abingdon one who loses at the lunch hour board game or card game has to go check amounts of people in images for an hour? ;-) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travelshots Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 it would be much more sensible if the people box said "recognisable people". Saying "more than 4 people' for a wide angle shot of a beach seems stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 it would be much more sensible if the people box said "recognisable people". Saying "more than 4 people' for a wide angle shot of a beach seems stupid. Quite, several other major libraries I have looked at (you know who) seem to manage with a more pragmatic and less legaly dogmatic(in my view flawed) approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I had a couple of those yesterday as well. It does seem silly to me as well if a hand or foot is shown and you need a model release. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie5 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I had 4 show up that needed the number of people changed. I was wondering if a human at Alamy actually looks at the images because two of the photos were a group of mannequins in front of a shop in Chinatown Los Angeles. I marked them as 0 people and I am waiting for them to come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arletta Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Yep, three here. Wouldn't see it if you didn't tell here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 Yep, three here. Wouldn't see it if you didn't tell here That's why. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I had a couple of those yesterday as well. It does seem silly to me as well if a hand or foot is shown and you need a model release. Jill I agree. "Recognizable people" makes much more sense. My guess is that, once again, we can blame stuff like this on the lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Me too. I just checked and an image from the Elephant Orphanage had nothing for the how many people. There is a person's arm reaching to touch the baby elephant. I wonder if I missed it the first time and they just caught it. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 So I refreshed "My Alamy" and again 2 images come up as more details needed. Clicked on the 2, - Manage Images comes up - but no images in "images for sale but need more details". Go back to My Alamy, refresh again, and poof - the 2 in "add more details" is back to 0. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I had a couple of those yesterday as well. It does seem silly to me as well if a hand or foot is shown and you need a model release. Jill I agree. "Recognizable people" makes much more sense. My guess is that, once again, we can blame stuff like this on the lawyers. I am wondering if this is less to do with legal fear and more to do with the "without people" selection by customers This way they are guaranteed that there will be absolutely no people when this is selected. The could have a selection for: Number of people, then How many are recognizable? - then the MR choice. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I had a couple of those yesterday as well. It does seem silly to me as well if a hand or foot is shown and you need a model release. Jill I agree. "Recognizable people" makes much more sense. My guess is that, once again, we can blame stuff like this on the lawyers. I am wondering if this is less to do with legal fear and more to do with the "without people" selection by customers This way they are guaranteed that there will be absolutely no people when this is selected. The could have a selection for: Number of people, then How many are recognizable? - then the MR choice. Jill Or how about a "without body parts" option for buyers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Looking at loads of shots in the papers, many of the larger agencies don't appear to bother with the number people field. I suspect that it ( the field) is an effort on the part of Alamy to keep us smaller operators safely on the straight and narrow, and would doubt that any checking has occurred. I can tell from my own experience and from posts here on the Forum, that checking by hand has occurred. To much annoyance sometimes. wim I'm sure that you are correct Wim, but I have just looked at one of the larger agency collections within Alamy and here are the stats. Total images - greater than 300,000 Images with More than 4 people 12 4 people 1 3 people 2 2 people 6 1 person 6 0 people 27 i.e. the huge majority of images do not appear to have used the number of people filter. Why then is Alamy so concerned about our relatively small collections? I have to say that I attempt to honestly state the number of people in my shots, including the unidentifiable arm or leg etc, and I guess my motivation is partly to avoid litigation in those cases ( the vast majority) where I don't have a release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 "I have to say that I attempt to honestly state the number of people in my shots, including the unidentifiable arm or leg etc, and I guess my motivation is partly to avoid litigation in those cases ( the vast majority) where I don't have a release." I generally count the number of miscellaneous arms and legs and then divide the total by two in order to get the exact number of people. Other body parts (e.g. fingers and toes) can be more troublesome. HOT TIP: If you want to be super exact, round the results up or down to the nearest whole person. Then do a scatter plot and draw a line of best fit so that you can eliminate the outliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.