Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Forum reputation = neutral

About patstubbs

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lincoln, UK
  • Interests
    Guitar, growing food, lots of photography, as much travelling as possible


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    25 Aug 2004

Recent Profile Visitors

227 profile views
  1. Definitely, and the section I posted earlier seems pretty clear to me. No stills or film for commercial purposes unless you have a permit.
  2. I’ve checked the Kruger/Sanparks rules and they basically say you need a permit if you are taking photos for any commercial gain. ‘In terms of Regualtion 20(1)(h), the making of a cinematographic film or the taking of photographs in a national park for a commercial purpose - either directly or indirectly - is unlawful unless a filming permit has been obtained. The procedure for obtaining a filming permit is contained in the SANParks Filming Policy, which can be viewed on our website at www.sanparks.org. Special filming privileges are also subject to the policy.’ There are loads of photos taken in Kruger for sale on Alamy and other sites and I can’t believe every photographer is compliant. So, if I follow their rules, I basically shouldn’t be trying to sell anything taken in the park. Any Kruger photographers like to comment?
  3. So that means pretty much any scene in the UK should have a property release?! Following that, I therefore should post everything RM or RF with editorial use only. What about the ‘don’t sell for advertising and promotion’ and ‘don’t sell for consumer goods’ boxes...should I tick those as well?
  4. I've read a lot on the forum and I'm clear about model releases. A bit more confused re: property releases though and I would really appreciate any thoughts. I get it that if there is any 'property' within the image, it should have a release (or be RM/editorial only), but what would the case be if there is no property in the image itself, but I am taking the photo within a 'property'? For example, if I take a photo of a lion in Kruger National Park in South Africa, then there is no 'property'. But, the Park itself is owned by Sanparks, part of the South African Government, so I am within the 'property'. So I either need a release or sell RM / editorial. Or am I overthinking it all? Thanks
  5. Hello to all! I posted my first image to Alamy in 2004, the same year I started my photography business. The business got busy (phew!) and I ended up posting a handful of photos to Alamy, and managed to sell a few. I'd like to devote some more time to stock/Alamy now, so hopefully that tiny portfolio will start to grow. Currently going through the portfolio and updating/amending captions and tags, having finally read lots of info in this forum. Cheers! Patrick
  6. Eight days for my most recent - has just passed QC and was submitted on 24th November. But, I haven't submitted anything for a while.
  7. I have read everything I can find about when a release is needed. Model releases are OK, and pretty straightforward. But property releases seem a bit more of a grey area. For example, if I take a photo of Lincoln Cathedral from the pavement (so not on private land), would I need a property release? The person who owns the property hasn't given me permission so presumably it would need a property release, or else be sold for editorial use only? Also, would this be classed as private or public property? Alamy gives the example of a government building being public property and therefore not requiring a release. Should I always submit images of buildings and landmarks as 'yes' to requiring a release?
  8. Thanks to the poster who mentioned how to use Google images for searching for usage of photos - I did a search for the first time and have found various images of mine that were not purchased via Alamy. I have a question - I have searched the forum, but can't see the answer, so apologies if I've missed anything. An example is an image that has been sold twice, but when I searched for it, there are several publications who have used it... - I think I can work out who were the genuine ones who purchased via Alamy, and who are the ones that nicked it. One of them is in the Guardian and is credited to Alamy so that's obvious. None of the others are credited. Here is the Guardian link http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2012/may/05/art-rides-water-rail-way-lincoln - There was also a sale for "Corporate Package Use - Internal and External non advertising use" and there is a publication that has used the image - see here: http://www.opm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/3103_Empowering_leadership_broch_2012.pdf. So I think this looks like the actual buyer. - The Guardian article has been reposted by a couple of websites. They've used the Guardian article and have simply copied and pasted with no credit to me, Alamy or the Guardian. I'm assuming they have no right to do this? Here is the link - scroll to the bottom http://www.coolcountrynews.com/page/57/ also http://www.nbtamirpoint.com/the-water-rail-way-lincoln-to-woodhall-spa/ and http://www.uship-online.com/?p=447 and http://www.sigmacourier.com/the-water-rail-way-lincoln-to-woodhall-spa/ These websites appear to be the ones who have used without purchasing. Can they legally rehash / repost articles and if not, do you think it's worth the effort to contact them. This is the first search I did, so very pleased that you are able to search for photos this way!
  • 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.