Jump to content

Keith Douglas

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keith Douglas

  1. Yorkshire Dales and Lake District national parks extend http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36905517 I think it might be a crop of this image, and Bryan should be able to confirm Image ID: C51REX Washington Imaging
  2. The problem I see is that it's much more difficult to prove there is an infringement case when the user has purchased a licence than if they have never purchased a licence. e.g. "I bought the image for personal use and had it made into a print. When I moved 6 months ago I sold it because it didn't suit the decor in my new home"
  3. Fiddling around with different licence types isn't going to address most photographers concerns, particularly with a general downward trend on prices. All it does is create a situation where it could be even more difficult to pursue infringements. I've suggested this before, but I think the answer is for contributors to be able to specify a minimum price for a licence. The exact details of how it could work would need to be thought through, but there would seem to be two main options: 1. If the price the photographer specifies is below the 'standard' price for that type of licence then that licence option is not shown to the buyer or 2. The price for any licence is the minimum of the 'standard' price or the contributors minimum price. Minimum prices could be specified at both the Pseudonym level and the individual image level. The highest minimum value that applies would always be used. If no minimums are specified then it reverts to standard pricing/behaviour.
  4. My best month ever! $614 gross from 12 sales. It's going to be difficult to repeat that in the near future though.
  5. Probably the best way to answer the question is to look at what appears in the newspapers and on the online news sites! Yes, weather shots do sell. Earnings are pretty small for the multi-photo on-line features (e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph). The much larger returns come if your image is used in the print editions.
  6. I've had a few books done at Photobox. The quality has been excellent and the turnaround pretty quick. You need to look out for the "special offers" (although it's a bit like the endless sales at furniture stores). Use 30SAVE30 code to save 30% off orders over £30
  7. We rely on the newspaper to report it to Alamy. Which is why we need Alamy to be proactive on it.
  8. I'm still waiting for a Live News sale to be reported by a National Newspaper from November last year! And I chased it up with Alamy after 3 months. If it's not in by the end of May I'll have to follow it up again. It's a frustrating part of the Alamy operation - I think they need to be much more proactive in chasing these usages up without needing the contributors to have to keep flagging them up. Keith
  9. To be honest, if you don't have a good understanding of the technical aspects of photography and what each of the Alamy quality criteria mean then you are going to find submitting to Alamy a dispiriting and frustrating experience. My advice would be to concentrate on improving your knowledge and skills first before sending images to Alamy. Although, ultimately, producing striking and unique images is what will lead to sales, you won't even get those images through the QC gate if you don't get the technical aspects right.
  10. Porthminster Beach, Telegraph online, 19 May 2016. "Is your local beach one of England’s 68 cleanest?" Image ID: AXYBNM , Robert Harding
  11. My three entries: "Please don't go off while I'm composing my shot!" [Fairbang bird-scarer] "Furthering our Educkation" [at Kings College, Cambridge] "Conkers"
  12. I don't think blogs and Facebook are advertising vehicles any more than newspapers, magazines or TV Channels are. They all provide content for various reasons - information, education, entertainment etc. and use advertising to generate their income and pay their bills. The difference with Facebook is that they've successfully managed to shift the content generation onto their users!
  13. $14.25! And two of them. You're the lucky one. I've just had a $5.71 'Editorial Website' sale come through!! Let's hope it's not being used to create a print to hang on the wall.
  14. 8 sales for $209 gross. Pretty much in line with recent months. Steady but unspectacular.
  15. That's what I wonder too. Is it that the licence terms are not clear or are they, in fact, covered by a personal use licence for that type of usage? If I were buying a print to hang in my office, I might well take the view that it was for personal use. Maybe "Internal Business Usage" would cover it, but I could quickly convince myself that a licence costing hundreds of pounds was clearly not the right one.
  16. We may have doubts about these usages, but they could be legitimate. I've had a personal use licence for the logo of a major UK Financial Institution. Perhaps someone was leaving and they used it in a leaving card? Are Alamy following up in investigating a sample of these licences to find out, in more detail, what they are being used for? They may be legitimate use, it may be that the licence description isn't clear to the buyers or it may be that people are just taking advantage of the lowest cost licence. Any action or reassurance to contributors needs to be based on facts, not speculation, so let's hope that Alamy are actively trying to establish those facts.
  17. Alternative City Transport - Cambridge New York - Congested City Cambridge - Tourist City
  18. Now that Alamy's catalogue is in Google search images, I think you will see more and more people buying the digital image for wall prints. I just did a simple check on a 24x36 canvas print. If I order one of mine from Fine Art America, it is $227US plus shipping and then the taxes when it hits the border. If I buy the digital image from Alamy, its $15US and then I can take it to Staples and it costs me $100CDN plus taxes to get it done. And I still have the digital image if I want to use it for something else. Big big savings. Jill This cost/benefit factor now another thing to consider when deciding whether to submit if you have other channels open. I know in the past week I have not sent a number of images in because I dont want to shoot myself in the foot. BTW it has been suggested that by opting out of the low paid schemes rank will be hit due to lower number of sales. With the details of the algorythms unknown (and possibly changing) this might not be the case. Fewer higher income sales may possibly be better than lots of low paid ones. Since I opted out my rank has gone up. Although admittedly that is just my particular case and there may be other factors in play, e.g, a dramatic reduction of the number of images. There is also the psychological effect. If every time you get one of these sales one goes around kicking the furniture, then its possibly a good idea for you and the furniture not to be opted in. BTW part deux. There is an alamynopoly on "vlaams friet" However before Alamy contributors start buying transatlantic flights to get a shot of chips and mayo, its probably worth mentioning that its not exactly been a life changing Alamynopoly. I'm not sure that there is any workable strategy for avoiding personal use licenses, including not uploading certain images. Judging from posts on this thread, the types of images being chosen for personal use aren't ones that are typically associated with POD sites -- i.e.they aren't ones that immediately bring "prints, cards and gifts" to mind. It seems that anything from cans of coconut oil to walkers are fair game. Personally, I rarely kick furniture for fear of stubbing my toe. I think that the only workable strategy for contributors at the moment is to not make the digital files available for any images that you are selling on a POD site. Looking at my limited licences, and the cases where my images have been used elsewhere, the biggest problem for me appears to be leakage of images from legitimate usage - e.g. use in newspaper publications for a licence fee often less than the Personal Use fee.
  19. It seems to me that there is a legitimate concern that some buyers may be choosing the lowest cost licence and then using the image for another purpose, whether that is deliberate or not. In many cases we don't know who the buyer is and we have no way of policing how an image is actually used. Would we be concerned about "Personal Use" licences if they were more expensive than some of the other options? Surely the answer to this is for the photographer to be able to set a minimum price for a licence for their image? Any licence options that are lower than that price wouldn't be shown. Or alternatively, all the options would be visible but at least at the minimum price specified. The photographer can then make their own judgement, for each image, about how little they are prepared to sell a licence for. [i'm sure that this has been discussed/suggested many times before]
  20. Headshot in an article in the Mail Online concerning the married celebrity couple involved in the extra-marital 'threesome'. Dare I include it here? Will I be in breach of the injunction? Where are Alamy's servers located? .. .. Oh, go on then: Copyright: © Dennis Hallinan / Alamy Stock Photo http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3544236/Married-celebrity-injunction-threesome-second-affair.html
  21. And of course they were stopping all those women taking photographs in wiskerke's example, weren't they? The question is the remedy available to the venue, and also the fairness of the term. As you no doubt know unfair terms are void. As far as we know such a term has never been upheld by a court and damages awarded. The NT analogy is specious- the NT is misusing a byelaw, not merely introducing a potentially unfair term into a contract. Has the NT byelaw ever been tested in court?
  22. There's a post here: http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/5640-yesterdays-keyworded-images-not-live/ that suggests that there is a problem at Alamy with images going Live. It looks likely that you are encountering the same problem. Interesting images by the way - the four I can see, anyway. Keith
  • 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.