M.Chapman

Also, could the customer write down the image ref, and then zoom that image at a later date using a search by image ref in order to buy it? It seems zooms from searches by image ref don't seem to be reported any more, or have I just been unlucky? Also, if if the image is zoomed in order to buy it, but the customer isn't on Alamy's "approved customer" list, the zoom won't get logged. Mark

Best to write in readable sentences, definitely not a keyword style list. NB. This field is not searchable.

If the bird is wild, and the glove can't be identified, I agree - Property No I thought I could perhaps see a ring on the birds' leg, not that this makes it owned by anyone, but if it was it could perhaps be identified, so I was being cautious. Mark

Alamy's price calculator currently offers a wide range of licence types (including commercial), even for RM images which have been marked as containing people or property and which don't have releases for either. However, ticking "Editorial only" prevents buyers being offered commercial use licences. Selecting RM alone, for images with unreleased people or property, doesn't seem to apply any specific editorial / commercial use restrictions (or have I missed something). There is however a useful clause (8.3) that appears in both Alamy's RM and RF licence terms that requires the buyer of any image to ensure they obtain suitable releases for their intended use. 8.3 You must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s) have been secured. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the Licence is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement. Given this clause, shouldn't Alamy revise the wording of statements like this that appear in their help pages for buyers. For example https://www.alamy.com/help/default.asp RF stands for royalty-free – This is the most flexible option and the most straight forward. You pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions on how you use image, how many times you use it or how long you use it for. You can use the image across multiple projects, forever. There are some restrictions on image use for * reselling’ "no restrictions" on how you use the image? Seems at odds with clause 8.3 in the RF licence. Is selecting RM as a way of providing protection against potential infringement of property or privacy rights still sensible or sufficient? If additional protection is wanted, I'd tick editorial only. All that being said, for the image in question, I'd indicate Property - Yes, People - 1, Releases - None, Licence type RM and wouldn't bother with Editorial only. Did I just contradict myself Mark

The blending in HHT does align the images before blending them and it seems to be very good at doing it. I've been very surprised at the low noise and sharpness of the end result. I'm not sure how localised the alignment is (i.e. is realignment of pixels the same over the entire frame or allows local variation). Best way to find the answer to your question (HHT vs CC2018) might be try some test shots under the sort of conditions you are targeting (ie. light level, focal length, camera holding method). Mark

Agreed. The current discoverability indicator is a waste of time. It would be better if we got a tick for each completed item.

Ian, thanks for the insight into your logic which makes good sense. It does seem that things (and hence expectations?) could be changing though. It's clear on Alamy that RF doesn't mean fully released for all commercial and editorial uses. Similarly I notice that the agency you mention now has an RF Editorial category which doesn't have releases for commercial use. So RF = released for everything is a risky assumption for a customer to make, and this applies to other agencies besides Alamy. This agency and Alamy now both offer RF Editorial, although they may have taken different routes to get there. The indemnity thing is interesting and I agree it's a huge difference. Out of curiosity I took a look at a major MS library and they also appear to offer some indemnity. Pay peanuts per image and still get indemnity. Wow. Unless I've misinterpreted the legal gobbledegook. Mark

Looks like it does. See part way down page http://docs.esupport.sony.com/dvimag/DSCRX10_guide/en/contents/TP0000226525.html Mark

"trick for eliminating noise from very high ISO images" I'm not sure if your Sony has "handheld twilight mode", but if it does I suggest you try it. On the Sony RX100 it's amazing. It takes a burst of shots with short exposure and high ISO and combines them to reduce noise. It's all done automatically. It doesn't increase resolution but it does reduce noise and blur to produce a single jpg (no RAW). I just took some handheld shots inside Cathedral Cave in English Lake District and have been impressed how well they've come out. Mark

I must be getting more confused here On Alamy price calculator it appears to make little difference to the range of image uses the customer can select irrespective of whether the image is RF or RM or has releases or not. What does make a difference to the range of image uses offered is whether the contributor has set restrictions. For example take your image R0AP85. According to the information provided it contains both unreleased people and property. So now I try purchasing it and I am offered a wide range of possible RM licences (under the more option) including commercial and advertising, consumer goods etc. Even though it is marked as having no releases... I suspect, given that this image contains recognisable people and property without releases, you want this to be editorial use only? But that's not what Alamy is offering the customer. Apologies if I've picked a bad example, or one that's slipped through the net... So to my mind, on Alamy it makes little difference to the risk whether you choose RM or RF or whether the image has releases or not. To restrict the options Alamy offers to Editorial use only the contributor has to tick the box Editorial Only box. Just selecting RM on images without releases won't achieve this. Fortunately an overriding protection mechanism comes from the licence terms 7.1 (which I quoted above) which oblige the user to ensure they have appropriate releases for their application. This obligation applies equally to RM or RF images. If contributors want additional protection by forcing editorial use only, they should tick the editorial only box. Although it's interesting what other libraries do, it's Alamy's options I'm trying to clarify. Mark

In general terms yes, but there are still limits. The contract is the legal document which the buyer is contractually bound by. Mark

At which point it's worth referring to the contract between the buyer [the licensee] and Alamy.... Even with RF licences from Alamy, buyers are contractually obliged to follow certain rules. In particular, note the following clauses in Alamy's licence agreement which apply to both RM and RF images. 7.1 You [the licensee] must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s)/Footage have been secured and are appropriate for your intended use. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the Licence is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image(s)/Footage usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement. 8. Indemnity You [the licensee] agree to indemnify and hold Alamy and its Contributors harmless against any claims, damages, losses, expenses or costs, including legal costs, arising in any manner whatsoever from your unauthorised use of any Image(s)/Footage or of the depiction of any person or thing contained in any Image(s)/Footage supplied to you by Alamy, or any other breach by you of any of your obligations under this Agreement. Obviously lawyers may argue over the legal enforceability of such clauses, but at least they provide a starting point. Mark

If I haven't misrepresented anything (I've accurately stated whether there's any people or property in the image and whether I have appropriate releases or not) then I am of the opinion that it's the publisher who is is responsible for any implications arising from their decision about how to use the image and not me. I'm also almost 100% RM too, but not for that reason. Mark

So why put this on the optional page.... if it's not "optional" In the old AIM (if I recall correctly) it asked "Does the the image contains property that requires a release". If I answered yes then RM was automatically selected. In the new AIM the question is simply "Is there any property in the image" (my underline) and so makes no distinction between property that requires a release and property that doesn't. Consider a photo of a distant village or a city skyline (a popular subject for a calendar sale). In the old AIM I would have marked it as NOT requiring a property release and left as RM with no restrictions. But, in the new AIM I feel obliged to answer YES to "Is there any property?", but I wouldn't mark it as editorial only as I know it doesn't need to be and this could potentially exclude commercial sales (for calendars etc.) I'd also be happy to sell such an image as RM or RF (although I almost always choose RM as it means I get info required for DACs claims if the image gets used) The same issue applies to Alamy's question about people. A distant shot of a beach full of holiday-makers contains lots of (unrecognisable) people, so in AIM I must put 5+ in the number of people box. But again I'd have no problems selling as RM or RF with no Editorial only restrictions as distant unrecognisable figures don't need releases . Or have I misunderstood something?? Mark

That maybe a significant factor. If the lens is anything like the Canon 18-55 MkII lens I had, it was optically pretty good, but mechanically very, very lightweight plastic construction and hence flimsy. There's no way I could have screwed a filter on without significantly disturbing the focus. Mark