Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Forum reputation = neutral

About hotbrightsky

  • Rank
    Forum newbie


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    23 Feb 2009

Recent Profile Visitors

404 profile views
  1. Yes but this gives no indication when individual sales are likely to clear. It's a guessing game. Not acceptable in 2021.
  2. Of course it would be useful if contributors could tell which credit terms applied to which sales. Then we wouldn't be kept guessing what our future income might be for 90 days or more!
  3. It's an excuse for Alamy to troll contributors. Do you have anything meaningful to say about 'unlimited' licences or not? "A disclaimer is an official statement that protects your business from legal liability" It's a disclaimer. It may also be contractual.
  4. There are legal disclaimers for any eventuality I'm sure. That doesn't make the practice ethical or indeed defensible. Why does Alamy allow contributors to choose between 'royalty free' and 'rights managed' options? There is a clear expectation that different usage terms will apply. Where are these increasingly frequent 'novel use' licences documented? Alamy seems to forget that they work for us, and in return we permit them to take 50% of our earnings.
  5. No! 😄 I don't recall any 20 or 30 year licences previously either. 5 years max I think, which reasonably covers the lifetime of a single textbook. But multiple usage across different publications in perpetuity gives that publisher carte blanche to exploit my image without recourse. Perhaps they're a small company and likely use is restricted (Alamy's usual excuse) but more probably they're a large operation with increased negotiating power and publishing opportunities. We should be properly informed.
  6. Yes, of course customers will push for whatever they can get at our expense. But I see no way to license images for unlimited, multiple use through the Alamy website, so who agrees to these sales on our behalf? I have not consented to these terms so where are they documented? Transparency is also essential here. If Alamy chooses to make exceptions to the publicly stated licensing terms they should tell us who they're giving them to, so that we can decide for ourselves whether that was a profitable decision.
  7. Anyone else started seeing licence sales for both 'multiple' usage AND 'unlimited' duration? This effectively means my image will never be sold to that customer ever again. If that customer is a large publisher this could be highly detrimental to my future income. It also has the effect of devaluing this image for all my other clients. I have deliberately opted IN to 'rights-managed' and OUT of 'royalty free', but this makes a mockery of that distinction. What is a fair price to charge a client for such usage terms in your opinion? (50% of $125 is not what I had in mind perso
  8. "If you truly think that a client is acting dishonestly you have the option of not supplying that client" I thought Alamy was an agent. If they told me who their (my) clients were and gave me the option to blacklist the worst offenders I would.
  9. "'Disgusting abuse' is a pretty strong phrase" Yes it is. It's a disgustingly unethical business practice and its legality is highly questionable.
  10. The greatest advantage of joining the newspaper scheme has been that it increases the likelihood of my images being seen and stolen by other organisations. I then pursue those people for the full licence fee (set by me). Using this strategy I have made dozens of times more money than I have through legitimate Alamy image sales. What a farcical industry this is.
  11. And now Alamy is owned by a news organisation. Funny that. The regulatory authorities need to get their act together and thoroughly investigate the stock photography scam.
  12. This was a particularly disgusting abuse of Alamy's power. DACS payments are intended for creators NOT administrators. Despite repeatedly instructing Alamy not to claim on my behalf they continue to do so, thus cheating other artists out of their share. This must be subject to legal challenge I would think.
  13. "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 buy
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  • 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.