Keith Douglas

It seems to me that the Alamy Stock business on its own is doing OK despite the pressures that we know about. Of course, with a turnover (and cost of sales) that's relatively flat and with the number of images continuing to increase that isn't great news for contributors. But it could be worse. It will be interesting to see what happens with Videoloft. Can it be turned round into a profitable business? How much more money will Alamy have to put into it, and are they prepared to do so?

I see taking photos with my phone as a complication too. Mainly because there's still no support for Android phones.

I think you need to get a pension forecast which will tell you how much you will get as a state pension at retirement age, and whether that is the maximum that you can receive. It's not just based on the number of years that you have paid NI. The maximum state pension you can receive is not the same for everyone either!

7 sales for $149 gross. About what it has been since Feb, apart from July.

But you can't simplify it with a minimum of 3000px on the long side. Some images that pass the test will (correctly) fail the Alamy criteria. And some images that fail the 3000px test would have passed the Alamy test. And we're not just talking about at the margins of a few pixels. 2450 x 2450 would pass the Alamy test. 3000 x 1500 wouldn't pass.

I don't understand why it's so problematic either. Perhaps Alamy just need to say that the image needs to have at least 6,000,000 pixels and forget about the confusing 17MB requirement. There again, it may not stop this still being the number 1 FAQ! There is no fixed relationship between image size in pixels and file size on disk for a JPEG, so anybody looking at the file size of an image they are about to submit is going to be little wiser about whether the image is big enough. On the other hand (in Windows) look at Properties -> Dimensions and it will tell you what you need to know.

Thanks for the spot!

If the size constraint is more than 6,000,000 pixels, which I believe it is, then it's 3000 x 2000 (3:2) or 2450 x 2450 (1:1) or 2829 x 2122 (4:3)

Just had one of my images used in an article in the Guardian about Lancaster (UK, in the North West, about 60 miles north of Liverpool, a port and city with a maritime and slave trade history, buildings that reflect the wealth at the time etc). Many of the issues mentioned by John covered in the article. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/sep/13/lets-move-to-lancaster-lancashire-grander-than-you-might-think

Disappointing month. 7 sales for $135 gross.

I wouldn't. They've already said that they won't permit sale of your images. They're only going to come up with some waffle if they don't have a case, and you'll have alerted them to what you want to do!

In that case I don't see how they can stop you taking photos and selling them. It's a public place. They might not like it or want you to but that doesn't give them any right to stop you. There may be issues with audio, including the audio component of any video, for copyright reasons, but I'm guessing there.

Do you have to pay to get into the festival or can anyone just turn up for free?

My recollection is that the Editorial tick box was introduced at the time that the RF option became available (about the same time as the new Image Manager perhaps?). Before that you could only arrive at RF if you said that you had no property or models in the image OR you said that you had but you uploaded releases for any property or models. Otherwise you would end up with an RM image. It was understood that RM images were Editorial only. So, are there now three cases: 1. RF where there are no releases required OR all releases are available. Customer can use these images Commercially (but subject to the context and the content of the Releases). 2. RM, which are for Editorial Only anyway. Ticking Editorial box has no additional effect. Single use of image. 3. RF Editorial, which means that the Customer can use them for Editorial purposes only but as many times as they wish for a single fee. As others have said though the photographer has no control of where and how the image is used. All the photographer can do is to provide accurate information about whether releases are available. It is up to the publisher to decide whether a particular image needs additional consents. I can , for example, envisage situations where the use of an RF image might be outside the scope of the releases that are available.

When the Tour de France visited the UK in 2014. Unfortunately, the bridge was washed away in the floods in North Yorkshire at the end of July 2019. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/localnews/2647860-grinton/5#pinnedpost_5d64cf305dff7f065f827d7e