Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alamy

  1. Hi All, Your input is required, and there's a triple potential benefit to what we're proposing so we want to get it right. This post details a proposed change that we think will: - Make the restrictions process far simpler for you, which means less time in admin mode and more time in photography mode - Make the process of buying licences for customers even simpler, which means higher potential for more sales - Simplify our back-end technical logic, allowing us to make improvements to the site and search engine much quicker For those of you who have been with us many years, you may recall the system we used to have where image restrictions were available for every possible end use. This system was overly complex and due to customer demand we needed to simplify it down to just 4 possible restrictions, with only 3 of the 4 being available to be selected. They are: Don't sell for advertising and promotion Don't sell for consumer goods Don't sell for editorial Don't sell for personal use including single copy, non-retail wall art prints Even though this is a huge improvement on the old system, from customer feedback and activity, it’s clear that this restriction system is still overly complex, so we are proposing some simple changes that will make life easier and hopefully lead to increased sales potential as a result. We think this will work and is the right approach, but before we press on, we want your thoughts, feelings and feedback. This is what we are proposing: A removal of the restriction “Don’t sell for editorial” A combining of the advertising and consumer goods restriction to just be: “Don’t sell for commercial”. Keeping the “Don’t sell for personal use” the way it is now. So essentially, it will mean all images on Alamy will be available for the editorial licence. You’d be able to restrict commercial use and personal use if you wish (which encompasses consumer goods, advertising and personal prints). Therefore there are no changes to the “editorial only” restrictions you can place now. This will make applying restrictions easier for you, whittling the restriction options down to two. This will make things far simpler for the customer, allow us to remove some of the complex combinations of logic that have to be applied behind the scenes whilst essentially still allowing you to be able to restrict for what’s important to you. So – what do you think? Can you foresee this causing you any issues? Do you think this is a good idea? Let us know. Cheers Alamy
  2. Impossible to say with 100% certainty. The question you have to ask yourself is "does my image contain artwork that takes up more than 1/3 of the total frame, by which someone else could claim copyright to?" If you're not sure, don't take the risk. Cheers Alamy
  3. The benefit is that you earn a higher commission for images exclusive to us. If you mark images as exclusive when they are not, then this could be treated as a breach of contract leading to possible consequences including removal of images from the site. Our sales staff can view images marked as exclusive and we do have options of sharing exclusive images to customers if that's what they require. Cheers Alamy
  4. We can refer you to the contributor help pages for that, but for ease here's the info you need from that very page: What classifies an image as Exclusive to Alamy? You will receive 50% of each direct sale for images that are Exclusive to Alamy and 40% for images that are not Exclusive to Alamy. Below we have answered some frequently asked questions surrounding what classifies an image as exclusive. Images of artwork Images of artwork in context can be marked as exclusive. The general rule of thumb is that the artwork can’t take up any more than 1/3 of the image frame. Different versions of the same image Similar versions of the same image that are available on other licencing platforms can’t be marked as exclusive (i.e. B&W, different crop, or slight adjustments). However, images that are from the same shoot, but shot from a different angle or the model is posing differently, is considered a different image and can be marked as exclusive if that particular shot is not available elsewhere. Facebook and Instagram You can upload exclusive images to Facebook and Instagram. Selling direct Images can be sold through your own website or directly to customers and still be marked as Exclusive on Alamy. POD sites Images that are available via POD sites can be marked as exclusive as long as they’re not offered for additional licencing through the POD site. We consider additional products as mugs and towels the same as prints. Cheers Alamy
  5. Just a quick one on this from us - sorry for the confusion regarding the number. There has been a lag on the number pulled from the database for the email and what today's total may be. All other info is correct, the exact number may not match though in all cases. Cheers Alamy
  6. Alamy


    Hi David - totally agree, we'll look into rolling out a fix as soon as possible if there is an issue our side. Best, Alamy
  7. Hmm - seems an odd one, thanks for raising. It looks like when you search for "trick or treaters line at house", the results are just showing for "line at house". We'll speak to the search guru's in their secret lab and find out what's going on. Until then. Cheers Alamy
  8. We've published a short blog post in tribute to Keith. Comments are open if you wanted to add your thoughts. https://www.alamy.com/blog/our-friend-and-talented-photographer-keith-morris Alamy
  9. Here's our latest infographic detailing some of the charitable initiatives we're currently involved in.
  10. As posted elsewhere, we’d like to share our deepest sympathies with the family and friends of Keith Morris. He was an incredibly talented, smart and energetic man and this is a huge loss for all that knew him. Keith was one of Alamy's most admired and successful photographers; his photos were regularly seen on newspaper front pages and websites around the globe. The past couple springs he held a workshop in Cirencester where he taught other photographers how to shoot for Alamy giving them tips on Stock and News while inspiring them with his mantra #shootlocalsellglobal. He will be sorely missed by the Alamy family. See more of his work: http://ow.ly/vmXX50wEzux
  11. We're looking to get your views on this, please vote using the options above. Thanks Alamy
  12. Wouldn't say we were happy with the Flickr photo - just that the photo posted to Flickr bears little resemblance to the image at full resolution and 100% magnification. ISO levels are irrelevant if you've manipulated the image beyond what it's capable of taking. No matter what label it has, "Noise, Soft" etc, the image is severely degraded and lacking technical quality. Alamy
  13. To confirm, this level of image quality is way off acceptable. There is a highly insufficient level of sharpness and detail. We also wouldn't recommend using the free photos window software to post process your images, and would always recommend shooting and processing in RAW. Alamy
  14. Yes, we can confirm they are the dimensions of the image. Here is a 100% crop of the tree area, right of centre: And here is a 100% crop of the top of the centre tree area with the roof in the background: Can we just ask - what software are you using to process these images? Alamy
  15. Are you happy for us to post a 100% crop of an area of the image that shows the issues? This may help you identify the problems we're seeing. Best Alamy
  16. Just to step in here before anyone thinks that the example posted above was representative of what we were sent. To confirm, it isn't. The file QC received, when viewed at 100%, looks nothing like the image posted above and is one of the most extreme examples of a QC failure we've seen in recent times. We wouldn't post a 100% crop here without permission but this really was nowhere near the borderline of acceptability. We don't normally intervene in threads like this but the problems with the image that was sent to us are excessive. Alamy
  17. Alamy

    DACS suggestion

    Unfortunately it's not possible for us to provide this. Although we do sometimes have visibility of ISBN numbers, this isn't always the case and retrieving this information for claims incurs considerable cost and internal resource, which varies per individual claim within the overall large claim. Alamy
  18. A simple admin error on our side meant a delay in sending the funds to transfer. Contractually we are bound to pay within the month but we'll always try and get the money sent asap. Cheers Alamy
  19. Hi all, There is a slight delay in payments made to US bank accounts but you should receive payment by Tuesday - at the latest. Thanks, Alamy
  20. Hi All We've removed any posts referencing Shutterstock and their processes as this isn't the platform to be discussing this on. We suggest that you get in contact with them or use their forum if you wish to discuss this further. Thanks, Alamy
  21. Hi everyone - I think we can all agree that at certain times, certain pockets of tourists can cause frustrations for the seasoned stock photographer and the general public. That said, we'd appreciate it if you could all refrain from making sweeping national generalisations in the way certain groups behave based on their country of origin. Many thanks Alamy
  22. Just to clear this up, we may have recommended that Adobe RGB was a preferred workspace for processing back in the day for various reasons including processing compatibility, but it's never been a QC requirement. Some of our standard responses still included that reference and we've now updated them for clarity. There is no conspiracy to uncover - just process your images in whatever works best for you then when you upload we will: Convert to sRGB Display in sRGB on the website When ordered by a customer, provide a file without a colour profile for compatibility reasons We won't keep an Adobe RGB version of your file if you do send one. We have no recorded cases of a client asking for one, but if they did, we would contact you directly to see if there is one available. Cheers James A
  23. No payment was received and no payment would ever have been received as it was credit card fraud. The sale was cancelled rather than any money refunded. This is another reason why credit card sales don't clear instantly, as we need to allow time for potential fraud to be reported to us so we can cancel before a contributor is actually paid. It's likely the user in question had no actual interest in that particular image, however it's impossible to know for sure. These situations are unfortunate but thankfully rare - frustratingly they are impossible to prevent 100% of the time. Alamy
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.