geogphotos

You submit a Publication History claim form online by 12 February. Submit your publication history to be eligible for royalties. Your titles are matched against a list of photocopied publications. If you get a match, you get royalties! Last year I sent this by email. I can't see where/how to submit online. I have emailed DACs to ask for help but wonder if any forum colleagues have figured it out yet? And once submitted can it be added to and edited?

The Alamy website? Thanks for the information. I didn't know that.

I think that is becoming the reality - despite the ability of some to buck the trend. Unfortunately it is a subject that is hard to discuss objectively , and there are obviously some individual contributors who are having different experiences. I am not going to use my own figures because there is an obvious retort ( and I am the first to admit to my modest abilities compared to many/most others) but looking at the numbers I see a very scary fall in RPI over the years. I suspect that the majority are facing a similar situation. More and more images but less return. It seems an inevitable consequence of ever increasing competition and falling fees.

I would also like to know the answer to whether Alamy will pursue these watermarked images being posted on other sites. Though can't anybody download a thumbnail or preview direct from the Alamy site?

And your fees are not in decline? Well done for bucking the trend.

And I think you are being ridiculous to accuse me of undercutting your income by allowing children to use my images to further their education. I will not click on the link you sent because I don't know what it wants me to agree to. But please do explain to me your argument. If I accept the logic of it, if you persuade me, I will agree to immediately add watermarks to my images. Is that fair? Over to you.

Thanks. Exactly, I can't see what the problem is. I allow educators too have small low res images to use in their teaching. The resolution is about the same as any other web use such as on newspaper sites. As well as being helpful it has some positive effect for me by making the site more popular, therefore, hopefully better placed by Google. For example, it is something I can post about on Facebook groups for teachers, and who knows perhaps gets publicity in teaching circles including those teachers who create commercial resources and buy images. I can't see why what I do makes any difference to anybody else - perhaps Jeff could explain how it affects him. I can't see where the 'legless street beggars' come in. www.geographyphotos.com

Don't worry about them Bill. But it is reasonable to worry about Novel Use for a high circulation magazine.

Cool. Thanks so much

That's a shocker. Please let us know Alamy's response.

4 years ago probably doesn't show the full picture. In 2003 my mean gross fee was $140 greater than for 2018, 2007 was $100 greater, 2012 was $20 greater, 2014 was only $15 greater, 2015 only $7 greater, 2016 only $2 greater than 2018. We also used to get a better commission split 65% for direct sales and was it 45% for distributors.

Why stop there? One Alamy contributor has over 2 million public domain images on sale!

Old gold mine buildings, Rodalquilar, Cabo de Gata natural park, Almeria, Spain No did not go into any tunnels, have gone in a tunnel at Rio Tinto but that was a tourist trip. Rodalquilar looks scary enough from a distance!

This is another good wildflower site. You can send in a low res pic and ask for identification. http://wildflowerfinder.org.uk

I am not expecting to prevail. I am enjoying myself. At the moment all I have to hand ( and to choose from for my blog) are a few hundred fairly ordinary images. Ones that cost nothing except time and effort. I am using this as a way of providing personal motivation.

I am not arguing. I have been saying for ages that Alamy would benefit from getting rid of these outdated licences and simply offering buyers the licence that they need/want.

I consider myself as a positive person but the facts seem unavoidable. It is going to get worse! We are 'the crowd'. The crowd gets squeezed until there is nothing left to squeeze. I have stopped uploading except to my own website. So far I am feeling good https://blog.geographyphotos.com/2018/07/09/early-days-but-it-feels-good/

Interesting. Is this primarily a shift of already existing images which you have changed from RM to RF ie) is it a direct comparison of the same images under both RF and RM?

It's one of my niches

How does Alamy get to be the biggest, best, most profitable, most desirable, most powerful - and still photographer friendly - stock agency in the entire WORLD? How do we/they get to be NUMBER ONE?

Thanks for this. It is very helpful because it does the obvious thing to help amateurs and arranges the plants by flower colour. Just found: Prickly oxtongue, Helminthotheca echoes, Picris echiodes,

As I would expect them to be since Alamy treat photographers far better than the typical micro-stock site - commission, fees, responses, general attitude of fairness, willing to host microstock duplicates. Perhaps if anything Alamy has been too willing to accept microstock images non-exclusively. After all any image that is RF could be available at MS. I'm not trying to start another pointless argument about micro but I really can't see that Alamy would become 'world number one' by copying too much of that business model. Actually, I'd suggest more going about things in the opposite way would be better for attracting buyers willing to pay more.

Interesting costumes those photographers wear

I want to add some new keywords to some old images. Each one has over 50 tags many of them words that have been duplicated from the old system. When I select each individual image I can see all the tags, as soon as I select two or more I can only see a smaller number of the tags - even though that image actually have the same tags. This means that i can't edit the images together but only one at a time. I want to reduce the duplication to take the total below 5O to enable me to add the new ones. Any ideas?