Jump to content

Keith Douglas

Verified
  • Content Count

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keith Douglas

  1. Mick - you're correct but way over the head of this contributor, I think. They need to improve their knowledge and understanding of some digital photography fundamentals, and get to work on correcting their wonky horizons!
  2. There can be laws or bylaws that restrict the taking of photographs in some places. What the reasoning is behind those laws or bylaws is not too relevant. What is relevant is the potential penalties for breaking them! Are those people required to apply for a permit that allows them to be there with 'professional' equipment? Or does the permit allow them to use the images or film that they take commercially? It's probably both, but if you don't have a permit and you take a photo with your smartphone or camera then that won't remove the need to have a permit to sell the image commercially. If someone is taking a photograph to sell for editorial stock is that commercial? It depends on the definition of commercial, which probably depends on the context and who you ask!
  3. I consider it in two parts: 1. Taking the photo 2. Selling the photo The first is getting increasingly difficult to enforce, unless there is a blanket ban on any photography whatsoever. Have you seen all those smart phones at concerts where photography is prohibited? Just don't turn up with a 'professional' camera and draw attention (unless you are good at blagging) On the second, in my view it comes down to whether there is some law in place (Royal Parks, Trafalgar Square etc) or whether you have entered into a contract on entry to the venue (National Trust, most sporting venues, most concerts). I think, as photographers, we need to be prepared to defend our rights to take and sell photos, and ask the question "what specifically allows you to prevent me from doing that?"
  4. You could try making your own: https://www.wikihow.com/Create-an-Inexpensive-Photography-Lightbox I bought a couple of desk lamps from Wilko (£5 each) plus LED bulbs for the lighting.
  5. Looking just at the distribution of an individual contributors sales by letters can be misleading because of the increasing rate of additions to the Alamy library over recent years. In the days of C and D, Alamy got through each letter in about 12 to 15 months. G, H and J have had a life of only 5 to 6 months. If you are contributing at a steady rate then would expect to have far more C images than J images. Therefore, if Alamy sales were evenly distributed across all letters, an individual contributor would see more C sales than J sales. But it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that the older images are doing better. I plotted Update to Invoice time against Date of Invoice for all my sales. I couldn't see any obvious pattern that would suggest that older images were doing better than newer images, or vice versa. Conclusion: keep the dust gatherers as they are just as likely to sell as the shiny new images! But I'm gradually revisiting earlier images to update keywording, captioning and licencing types.
  6. 14 sales for $314 gross. Best month this year!
  7. Sunday Telegraph print edition, P6. Cumbrian Express steam train on the Settle to Carlisle Line. Large, full page width image, but cropped top and bottom from original Alamy Live News image. KEFC3Y, by John Bentley Sorry, I don't know how to include the image.
  8. That assumes that the amount actually paid bears some resemblance to the pricing!
  9. I thought I'd have a dabble with RF to see how it goes, so I've now got about 7% of my portfolio available as RF. I can see why image buyers might prefer to pay more for the RF licence (rather than the RM licence) where they expect to use the image multiple times. But if it's for a one off use why would the buyer pay the HIGHER cost for an RF licence? Well that's how I understood the RF licence would work - higher licence fee than RM for unlimited uses ........ Maybe mine was an exception? Will be keeping a close eye on how my pilot progresses before jumping in much deeper with RF.
  10. Thanks for that Claire. A lovely station, well worth a visit (Grange over Sands)
  11. 8 sales for $143 gross. Slightly below average for me, but an improvement over last month.
  12. Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with the terms at other agencies, but I accept that some may impose restrictions on images that are sold elsewhere. In fact Alamy themselves require that images are sold as either RF or RM but not both at the same time. My question is why do agencies impose these restrictions? Is it to simplify things? Is it because they want to position themselves in a particular way? Are there some more fundamental legal issues? I'm relatively new to the stock industry so I didn't see the development of the RF model of selling images. However, it seemed to me that the separation into RM and RF mixed up two things : I) The payment terms for a licence and ii) The status, or requirement for property or model releases. At least as far as Alamy is concerned, it appears to me that we are now seeing a disentanglement of these two.
  13. Just out of interest, what is the reason behind not selling an image both RF and RM at the same time? There appears to be no restriction anymore at Alamy on selling an image RM this week and RF next week or vice versa. Indeed, Alamy appear to be actively encouraging contributors to change images from RM to RF.
  14. I think it's inevitable that some agencies will command higher prices for the news images that they licence. The buyers are not just paying for the images, they are paying for the news image service - the reliability that they will be able to access images for most stories that break. Whereas I might get lucky occasionally and get some unique images, those agencies will make sure that they get photographers on site to cover a developing story. If you are a consumer of news images on a continual basis, sticking with and supporting the agencies that are geared up to deliver across the news spectrum is understandable. If you go with a lower cost option you might save a few quid this time, but next time you might not get the pictures!
  15. If you are an organisation that needs to have up to date images of sporting events then you're going to use a source that you know will deliver the images that you need. If they've got multiple photographers working there then they're pretty much guaranteed to deliver the right images. I've no doubt that your images were at least as good as what the other agency provided, but I don't think that that is what matters, as good images are pretty much guaranteed. But it goes beyond that one event. The buyers of those images will also be buyers of images from many, many other events, both sporting and other. They know that that agency will have coverage and will provide them with images, so that's who they use. I wouldn't even think about competing head on with the big guys unless I could become one of them. However, one of my biggest successes was at a relatively small sporting event (Sheffield Half Marathon) where something went wrong. The event wasn't of interest to the big guys, and I just got lucky and was in the right place at the right time.
  16. 10 sales for a total of $295 gross, so a good month for me. Nine of the ten sales were for images taken and put on sale over two years ago.
  17. Sales numbers flat. Gross revenue down 25% However, last year (and the 2 years before) I had some success in getting a few LiveNews images into newspapers and that pulled up the revenue average quite nicely. Moving home to a new location has stalled that temporarily as I familiarise myself with the local area! Hoping for a pickup later in the year.
  18. That is really the only clause (2.2) in the contract now restricting the type of licences that can be specified. Up until a couple of years ago the application of licence types was much more restrictive - it would have prevented the type of switching that I described. I think that the recent changes that were made to the contracts, and Alamy indicating in the Image Manager that RF is preferred, are the strongest indicators of where the market is heading. Yes, there will still be niches where RM is more appropriate, both for the customer and the photographers. For most of what I have it probably isn't, so I think I'll give RF a go across some of my portfolio.
  19. Why not? (Other than if the agency stipulate that in their contract). It seems to me that Alamy have finally taken out a lot of the confusion about RF/RM that was tied in with Releases and the workflow within the previous Image Manager. Now the photographer can decide on an image by image basis whether they want payment for each use (RM) or a one off payment for any use (RF). There's nothing to stop me offering an image RM this week, RF next week, and back to RM the following week. And why shouldn't I? It's only at the point of sale that the customer is locked in to the licence type that applied at the time, and presumably something that they are willing to go with. What if the customer likes my image this week, would really like to buy it RF, but can only buy it RM - then they find out that next week it's available RF? Is that any different to me going into a store and buying a product only to find that if I'd waited a week I could have got it cheaper/with extra loyalty points/ with free insurance etc. ? And then I wait another week and find that the offers have gone.
  20. 2 sales for $162 gross revenue. Revenue total saved by a single $149 sale early in the month. I still find it puzzling why my sales numbers are so variable. For the last 6 months they've been 7,7,1,11,12,2. Or is this a common experience for other contributors?
×
×
  • 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.