Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Forum reputation = neutral

About hotbrightsky

  • Rank
    Forum newbie


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    23 Feb 2009
  1. "who goes to Google Images to buy images?" I don't really understand your scepticism Ian. Google Images is the way most people find images these days. If accurate copyright and licensing information is connected to those images this can only be a good thing. I have had several buyers find my images through Google Images and then contact me separately to licence them. My highest licence fee of nearly £3,000 resulted from this. I expect this route would result in more sales if the process were made more transparent and convenient. You're right of course that professional image buyers do not currently prefer this route. Dedicated image researchers/buyers are becoming an endangered species however!
  2. It shouldn't really matter on sites like Alamy and PhotoShelter with their own licensing platform to promote. They will do the work for us. But sites like Flickr which have no obvious licensing option, yet still enjoy relatively high search visibility, will be a headache. Not sure what IPTC if any Instagram, Twitter, Facebook etc. supports.
  3. Yes, however according to IPTC the precise fields Google demands (rather than acceptable substitutes) only became standard 2 days ago! "Web Statement of Rights (in use since 31 August 2020)" "Licensor URL (in use since 31 August 2020)" https://iptc.org/standards/photo-metadata/quick-guide-to-iptc-photo-metadata-and-google-images/ Annoying URLs beginning "www" will not be accepted, only "http://" or "https://". Which invalidates my entire image collection to date.
  4. Yes, it is in the Metadata panel for each image but it is not a Metadata Preset so it would have to be added to each image manually. I'm not sure what Craig means about modifying a template.
  5. The Google Images License specification places a lot of emphasis on 2 IPTC fields: 1. Web Statement of Rights 2. Licensor URL See https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/image-license-metadata The latter seems to rely on an obscure field which Lightroom Classic doesn't even support as a Metadata Preset option. This will not be a problem for commercial stock agencies but it seems deliberately designed to make life difficult for everyone else.
  6. Am I right in thinking that this feature has now prevented the practice of Alamy linking to other contributors' photos from individuals' Google Image search results? It used to be the case that clicking on my images took me to a much larger set of related Alamy search results where it was extremely difficult to find the image I originally clicked on. That doesn't appear to be the case any longer. Related?
  7. The anti-competitive practices of the stock photography oligopolists need a formal investigation.
  8. Buyers (and Alamy) get round this restriction by selecting the 'Presentation or newsletters' option, which funnily enough is the exact same price.
  9. A new low for me this week... Country: United KingdomUsage: EditorialMedia: Magazine - print, digital and electronicPrint run: up to 500,000Placement: InsideImage Size: 1 pageDuration: 3 months. Any placement: Inside or cover. $6.48 I received more for a "newsletter" sale! How is this possible?
  10. Indeed. And now the CEO expects us to tie ourselves to this steadily sinking ship or forfeit 20%. Forgive me for not cheering this announcement.
  11. Why? I've seen no evidence that images exclusive to Alamy command higher prices. Why would anyone willingly tie themselves in contractual knots without an incentive?
  12. "More of the same" is no incentive for non-exclusive contributors to make the switch. This might have been the perfect opportunity for James to pitch his proposal to those people like me. He didn't bother. I prefer carrots to sticks.
  13. Can someone point me to the evidence that ***exclusive*** images result in consistently higher returns on Alamy please? This should have been included in James' latest video adventure if he had any serious interest in retaining contributors.
  14. But of course it does. Schools and universities would typically source licensed images from textbooks and other materials for their students to re-use if necessary. Educational publishers would be forced to pay sensible prices to allow their customers to do that. Is Alamy now licensing our images directly to individual students for peanuts instead?
  15. You may be correct: "This is a new licence aimed specifically at students and lecturers for student resources, and can only be purchased from an academic IP address." So Alamy is effectively exploiting our images to undermine traditional educational publishers, one of the few existing markets for my photos. Nice work Alamy.
  • 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.