spacecadet

Shirley you can't be serious. I'll get my coat.

Well, Ed's ruled out Porto, but I don't think Jinotega is on his list. Level road surfaces are a basic requirement.

As I said, they go on occasional fishing expeditions then issue their orders to Alamy. It's not the law, but they have the lawyers, we don't. Images taken from outside the property are unaffected. You asked specifically about the NT. If you mean the royal palaces, they belong to the Crown. I don't know what their policy is but I haven't heard about any deletions on Alamy.

Yes, a dozen or so removed, one weeks after it had licensed. It and some other, but not all, were put back after I proved they were taken from the road or public right of way. The NT has a very restrictive policy and periodically strongarms Alamy into removing images to tighten its own picture library's monopoly. It's misusing a 50-year-old byelaw designed to control itinerant photographers, but it's not an argument we're going to win, so I don't visit NT properties any more. Images taken from the highway or public footpaths are fine, but be prepared to prove it. Are the restrictions on images from its own library (NTPL)? It won't tolerate images it hasn't commissioned on any terms. If you do put images up, append the captions with "seen from the highway" or whatever and don't put National Trust in the tags. It makes them a bit harder to find. They only apply the policy to pay-to-enter properties, not the land they own.

Too bad. There are trams, but I can't deny it's basically downhill all the way to the Ribeira. One of the best winebars is up a slope or two. Can't help with any non-steep bits of Portugal.

Do you mean the National Trust in England? It has a very restrictive policy and periodically strongarms Alamy into removing images to tighten its own picture library's monopoly. It's misusing a 50-year-old byelaw designed to control itinerant photographers, but it's not an argument we're going to win, so I don't visit NT properties any more. Images taken from the highway or public footpaths are fine, but be prepared to prove it. I don't know about the Parliamentary estate but I apply David Kilpatrick's protocol- if no-one stops you from taking photographs you can do as you wish, if they do, you stop, but you already have some photographs by then, don't you? Hampton Court is a royal palace and I don't know about those. They're too expensive for me anyway. Maybe start a new thread on it- we haven't had one for a little while.

I'm surprised because I didn't think that sensor noise had been a problem for years. My A58 images are passing QC at 3200 with appropriate NR. That must be a much older sensor than you have.

Sure they can, but images only appear in relevant searches. Not every buyer wants all your images from day one. You wait for searches. Good variety gets you more search hits. After that it's down to how the image meets the buyer's needs. It's perfectly logical.

Not many, Sony RX100 is one. But Canon do make mirrorless. Better to start a new thread,

Porto it is, then, Ed.

Less than a quarter of my sales this year are from images taken in the last 2 years, but I've had sales from every year back to 2009. Even a few from 1979 if you count archive. This is a long game.

Evidently an unenforceable condition of entry. It's not the law. Considering adult admission is now £22- to a church- I'd consider it fair game!

Tailoring? He seems to be cutting shapes from stacks of fabric. Or possibly leather, given the way he's holding the tool. Are there no clues from the source of the image?

What then.....arrriving in Porto with a guitar, camera and a fistful of escudos euro?

Yes, but even so, you can't answer "yes" to the question "do you have property releases" so that's that. It's concievable that the Church of England could object to certain uses, I suppose- the church is not incidental. Editorial restriction is up to you- I don't do it.

No. Fossilised leaves look like, well, leaves.

I think you may be confusing this with freedom of panorama. Although very unlikely, it's possible that a brand owner could have a case for passing-off if a commercial use falsely implied an endorsement.

I'm well aware of that but when an individual asks a question about an account in his own name I think my answer is appropriate.

I meant changing the bank account beneficiary online. I would expect them to require contact from the executor before they would act. I mentioned this in the duplicate thread.

60007. Have you had a few deletions come into effect?

It probably isn't. The contract is with you and ends on your death. Alamy is unlikely to permit a different name on the account.

Just put it in your will. The executor will write to Alamy and they will change the payee details.

I get that, if Google ever pings your site and gets no reply it flags it up. It's momentary and fixes itself.

Not "whining", certainly not, just wondering if there's a fix. There are some, but they're imperfect. What is odd is that some of the stray results for "mola mola" don't seem to contain the word twice, which no doubt yours do, having it in the caption and the tags as recommended. The second part of the sentence I do agree with.

mola mola without quotes returns over 4000 results, with quotes only 400. So phrasing is working pretty much as it should but it relies on the searcher using quotes. Presumably you rank much higher in a search for "mola spain" or whatever. I'm not sure it's fixable, not perfectly anyway. If you could exclude the term you'd lose your La Mola results. Most of us can point to a couple of our own tags or attributes that occasionally throw up a spammy result. My Christian name is Mark so I get them because it's also a word. Keeping your common short words to a minimum is probably all you can do.