Jump to content

geogphotos

Verified+
  • Content Count

    4,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,205 Forum reputation = excellent

4 Followers

About geogphotos

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.geographyphotos.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Suffolk, England

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={95B42DF3-1E9B-4C8F-A843-DA54AD10C8AA}&name=ian+murray
  • Images
    70057
  • Joined Alamy
    19 Dec 2002

Recent Profile Visitors

7,432 profile views
  1. You can opt out of the distribution scheme. I'm really interested in the vintage film shots that you have. Could you kindly explain how copyright works for them? Presumably the original copyright belongs to the various studios and not the photographer. I'm just curious because I'm always grappling with copyright problems with the old slides that I copy. Thanks
  2. And perhaps that is the policy to follow? Alamy want to cover themselves but do they really care? How many times did contributors ( okay it was only me! ) point out that they had RF images with property and people that stated there was no property or people. You'd get a polite reply saying that they would look into it but nothing EVER changed. This was long before the Frankenstein monster of RF Editorial. Probably what the Alamy contract says is different from the reality. ie) if you get caught it is down to you.
  3. I am not referring to images from a newspaper but to a famous UK history collection. But what you say may be the case.
  4. Not sure about other countries but in UK copyright in still photographs lasts 70 years after the date of the photographer's death. It passes along with any other property to the beneficiaries of the estate. The problem is that most people have no understanding or knowledge of this. If they had the awareness they would know that signing a copyright transfer letter would add value to the sale of the slides/negs and was in their best interest - assuming that they do not want to keep the material. Unfortunately those people working in this sector such as auctioneers and house clearance companies, also it seems probate solicitors, have little knowledge of copyright either. As a result of this lack of understanding and the less than effective operation of the Orphan Works scheme more and more 'orphans' are being created all the time.
  5. UK does have a system of licensing Orphan Works, it was introduced in 2014. There is a register of all the images that have been licensed. Most of the licensees are public sector organisations such as libraries and museums. I also understand that they use a straight stock agency calculator based on Getty pricing ( which is a work of pure fiction in the real world). For a museum to use an image that they own, they have to apply and jump through all the diligent search hoops, then pay a fee. So we have a government funded museum paying a fee to a government funded Intellectual Property department which itself is funded by government. And since the government has cut funding to museums and libraries they do not have the funds to pay these exorbitant fees leaving the government to pay out even more to fund the existence of the licensing authority. I don't know the figures for recent years but in the first year of operation around 300 licenses in total for all categories were issued under this scheme. Less than one a day. Just looked and for Visual Stills the register has just over 700 images listed in 6 years ( 2014-2020) and some of those are for applications that have been withdrawn ( one from Manchester United for an aerial of Old Trafford I noticed was withdrawn). Not exactly working very well is it?
  6. Unfortunately - and I really mean that about the situation you find yourself in - the Alamy contract states that we can only upload images for which we own the copyright or when there is no copyright ie) public domain. I bought some excellent slides last week at a local auction. Beforehand I spent time talking to the auctioneer about this whole business. He really didn't seem interested but did agree that he would pass a letter on to the seller for me - but from his manner I am not convinced that it won't have ended up in the rubbish bin. So now the slides are separated from the copyright holder and nobody can publish them ( without a lot of bother and expense dealing with the IPO)! So much is being lost because of this copyright problem creating Orphan Works which are very difficult to publish. Something needs to change. I would think that if the owners cared about the images and cared about copyright they wouldn't send them to an auction to be sold off to a stranger. It would be much more straightforward if the default position was that copyright transferred with the original slides/negs/Raws. The chance of litigation must be tiny if you don't use pictures of people/property but just general views that could have been taken by anybody. But the contract is clear in what it says. Having said all that I see a certain famous agency with images from the 1950s and 1960s with the description 'photographer unknown'. Which begs the question how can they possibly have copyright?
  7. "The sarcastic fringehead is a small but very hardy saltwater fish that has a large mouth and aggressive territorial behavior" A few of these up the local pub.😀
  8. I can imagine that being very off-putting for newbie buyers who aren't quite sure what they are doing. Personally I don't see that this is a problem of any importance and I would be far more concerned about the possibility of lost sales should there be a no refund policy. Anyway, it is an optional sales channel.
  9. I'd imagine that it is hard to operate a refund policy which treats customers differently and gives them different rights. I can't think that I have had any PU refunds - is it truly such a big problem?
  10. Guess what happens the one time you actually want pigeons in your allotment.....
  11. Thanks Harry. I still need to do those old black and white prints. This looks the right gear for that too.
  12. I don't see the problem with those two images. I can imagine somebody using them for some sort of personal study or project, perhaps an educational report. There is no rule that PU has to be for pretty pictures of landscapes and flowers. People have all sorts of interests that they need images for. But if misuse and deliberately buying the wrong licence can be proven Alamy should hit them hard. The fact is that a PU licence costs more than UK's major circulation newspaper pays for web use. I also find it hard to understand why PU should bother those who willingly accept micro-stock fees without any clue who is using their images and for what.
  13. It might be more a sign of craziness than anything positive but I have reached 70,000 images. Nearly all 'Stock' as I don't do 'News' ' - which are two completely different sales life-cycles I reckon. I have always been clear that I am not a 'professional' merely a former geography teacher with a camera. Lately since lockdown that includes other people's old slides, also I have some Public Domain which in ratio terms sell well. I'm on $218k total sales ( yes, modest for the number of images compared with others) 222 sales in 2020 for $5.2 k gross I'm not in competition with anybody else and can completely understand why others have better statistics. But I continue to enjoy stock and continue to be grateful to Alamy for making this possible.
×
×
  • 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.