Jump to content

hotbrightsky

Verified
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hotbrightsky

  1. Buyers (and Alamy) get round this restriction by selecting the 'Presentation or newsletters' option, which funnily enough is the exact same price.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. "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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. And...? It sounds like the Fischer Family Trust and it's associated organisations advances the professional interests of its owner. As such it may not be entirely altruistic. 'Charitable' status can often be used to gain an unfair advantage over commercial competitors. I question whether yet more quantitative targets in education are really what kids and teachers need. Nor are these services provided freely. The "generous benefits" available to FFT employees include a non-contributory pension scheme and private health insurance. These are not options easily available to Alamy contributors on our pathetic earnings.
  10. Restrictions are listed under the Optional tab in Image Manager. You can select the 500 most recently uploaded images using the check box at the top. The rest you will have to batch select by clicking first image, holding shift key, scrolling down and selecting last image. Restrictions can only apply to rights-managed images obviously. Took me 10 mins for 2K images.
  11. We're only permitted to select 3 restrictions. I chose to leave the option least likely to sell.
  12. I don't allow any personal use licensing so this must be an institution or a publisher. It's not just one dissertation but potentially thousands. Sometimes I suspect that Alamy staff must have a discretionary budget purely for the purposes of antagonising contributors.
  13. Dear Alamy, Regarding your proposed changes to the terms of my contract... I await your further response. Yours, A.N. Contributor
  14. Wow. This is a new low for me: Country: Worldwide Usage: Student Projects, For non-commercial use in projects such as dissertations, presentations or essays. Industry sector: Education Image Size: Any size Start: 10 December 2018 Duration: In perpetuity Price: $1.02 Can somebody explain how this rights-managed usage on those terms is allowed at this price, and who the likely customer is? Thanks.
  15. Wow. This is a new low for me: Country: Worldwide Usage: Student Projects, For non-commercial use in projects such as dissertations, presentations or essays. Industry sector: Education Image Size: Any size Start: 10 December 2018 Duration: In perpetuity Price: $1.02 Can somebody explain how this rights-managed usage on those terms is allowed at this price, and who the likely customer is? Thanks.
  16. Agreed. Deleting images should be a last resort and the effect is delayed. Adding usage restrictions to the point that images become virtually unsaleable might be a more proportionate response. I'm withdrawing (the products of) my labour, not resigning at this point.
  17. I believe Restriction changes should kick in each time the search engine is re-indexed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see any reason why changes can't be reversed. There is no warning to this effect. The chances of being prosecuted by the US government are minimal I suggest.
  18. Better to restrict every use except 'Consumer goods' I suggest, since we all know the problems associated with 'Personal use'. If Alamy ever licenses my images for consumer goods they're welcome to share in the vast riches! Won't happen. There really shouldn't be too much work involved in re-uploading your collection to Alamy, or any other agency, unless you've done all your keywording online...
  19. To protest Alamy's decision I suggest we each: Select all images in Image Manager. Set all Restrictions under Optional menu. And if that sounds too dramatic, simply use the 'Newest 500 passed' selection filter. As soon as Alamy reverses their position, or somehow manages to justify it, I'll be happy to revert these changes. Until then let's hope that potential buyers find themselves just as frustrated as we are.
  20. I don't think it's a "search engine thing". I think Alamy is deliberately gaming the system at individual photographers' expense. If people click on my image in search results I expect them to land on my image page with my attribution shown. This is an important image security feature which prevents images from becoming 'orphaned'. Alamy is undermining our collective copyright.
  21. Self-reporting of editorial image use is abysmal. I've made considerably more money pursuing unreported/illegal editorial pics myself than I ever have through legitimate agency sales.
  22. I've noticed that Alamy's profile on Google Image Search has improved in recent years, but why when I click on thumbnails showing my own stock images am I directed to a generic Alamy search results page where the corresponding image is not visible? Essentially our work is being used to sell other people's photos. Why?
  23. So I received an email this morning telling me that Alamy would automatically opt me back IN to the UK Newspaper Scheme unless I replied to their email with the correct magic phrase. This despite me having deliberately opted OUT of this scheme previously. The email subject line encourages contributors to "increase your sales by opting-in". Anyone who has no interest in joining this scheme may not have proceeded to read the full contents of the email which explains that Alamy intends to do it for you! This is the same stunt they tried with DACS payments and I also have experience of Alamy staff changing my opt-out dates from other schemes in order to facilitate unreported image sales. Does anyone else agree with me that this is a fundamentally bad business practice?
  24. "Jaguar Land Rover and Getty Images want a more realistic portrayal of women in engineering" Well they'll have to pay for it! No way stock photographers can afford to finance that sort of project at today's prices I would think.
×
×
  • 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.