Jump to content

Keith Douglas

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keith Douglas

  1. 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"
  2. 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!
  3. $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.
  4. 8 sales for $209 gross. Pretty much in line with recent months. Steady but unspectacular.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Alternative City Transport - Cambridge New York - Congested City Cambridge - Tourist City
  8. 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.
  9. 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]
  10. 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
  11. 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?
  12. 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
  13. You are doing yourself no favours by adopting this attitude. People are trying to give you sound advice and you are turning it round on them. Having gone back to your original post, I'm beginning to think that you either have no concept of the photography business and the stock business in particular, or you are just trying to wind people up!
  14. If you only have 61 images out of 3000 that will pass QC, then I suggest that you need to go back to basics! The D3200 is fine, as are the two lenses that you have already. Improve your technique or processing so that you are achieving at least a 20% success rate, rather than the 2% you have now.
  15. I had an aversion to the Adobe subscription model and used bought Lightroom and Photoshop Elements products instead for many years. Each year I'd renew one or the other when a special offer was on. At the end of last year I finally succumbed and now have the monthly subscription to Lightroom and Photoshop. It's proved to be a great move, and with the extra capabilities in Photoshop I've recovered the ongoing subscription cost many times over. I guess it depends exactly what you are using the products for though.
  16. Very good point Joseph. However, I can't think why they might be fine about an image used as editorial but not in advertising, as from their point of view money is still being made from a photo taken on their grounds. These things never seem as black and white as they should be due to poor wording of terms/contracts. Personally I wouldn't risk it at all, as I haven't in the past with shots from Network Rail (their terms specifically state not to sell photos taking on their property). Many still try, but that's up to them and not something I would risk. Geoff. Specifically in relation to Network Rail you may be aware that there was some activity earlier this year when Alamy informed contributors that they would be removing any photographs taken on Network Rail property. The decision was reversed, but in the meantime I wrote to my MP who then wrote to the Chief Executive of Network Rail Infrastructure. The reply from the Chief Executive clarified that we may continue to take and sell images taken on their property provided that it is only being used for news and editorial purposes and not for commercial purposes.
  17. From my own experience, I'm pretty certain that sales in $ plays a big part in determining the rank of each portfolio. It would make sense to me if the sales element was based on average $ sales per image in that portfolio rather than average $ per sale or just total $. This would certainly be consistent with what I've seen happen with my own ranking over the last couple of years.
  18. A small 'Personal Use' sale this morning allowed me to reach 100 all time sales on Alamy at just over $5000 gross. I started uploading in March 2012 and made my first sale in October 2013.
  19. Sorry to be blunt, but if you want to be able to submit images to Alamy that meet the required quality, then the first thing that you need to do is get a thorough understanding of how images are represented in digital form, how image compression works and what that means in terms of file sizes. Whether your images are able to meet the Alamy requirements is not something that anyone can answer without looking at each image. From what you say, you are probably way outside what is acceptable. When I submit images at just above the minimum size required, I am still submitting JPEGs that are 4 - 5 M bytes in size.
  20. It's perfectly reasonable for the photographer to put restrictions on the use of their photograph. Maybe they don't want it to be available for certain markets (perhaps it would compete with something else they are doing) or maybe they know of a restriction that would apply but is not apparent from the other information and the photograph itself. In my view though I think it is a bad move to make an Editorial only option more prominent, something special and something that has to be explicitly stated. The decision about how the photograph is used is down to the buyer. I have no idea what a buyer is going to use my photos for, and I shouldn't have to know. What I have to do is tell them, honestly, whether model and/or property releases are available. It is then for the buyer to decide. What I fear is that we could see a gradual shift away from the buyer taking responsibility for how they use the photograph towards expecting the photographer to share in that risk - "Your photo wasn't marked as Editorial only so I assumed that I could use it Commercially".
  21. Yes, I see it now Philippe. I'm sure that there will be a lot of new contributors who realise that only four are required after they have uploaded their first batch of photos.
  22. I can't see an reference to the 4 initial test images in the process defined on the Contributor page. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/best-place-to-sell-stock-images-photos/ Maybe that requirement has gone away.
  23. 6 sales for $234 gross. Best month this year so far in terms of revenue.
  24. I've just had a Personal Use sale: Country: Worldwide Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale. Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use Start: 29 March 2016 End: 29 March 2021 The image is of a sign of a UK Bank! Perhaps the buyer wants a picture at home to remind them of work? In this case I see the personal use sale as a bonus. It's not an image that I, or anyone else could exploit commercially without risking getting into trouble with the organisation who owns the logo.
  • 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.