Jump to content

Mike@Meonshore

Verified
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Forum reputation = neutral

About Mike@Meonshore

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.meonshorestudios.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Fareham

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={909A78CD-DF58-4C96-9348-128EE03FB265}&name=Mike+French
  • Images
    1581
  • Joined Alamy
    01 Mar 2004

Recent Profile Visitors

597 profile views
  1. Thanks Mark. I did that, it was escalated to the account handler for the purchaser, and still no joy. Just a more detailed description of what they were prepared to accept under "Single placement and design".
  2. I'll have to have a read of that. Would love to see that stand up in court though, especially if the image has been online elsewhere - for example many of my breaches have been directly removed from my blog, or were stolen from the online site that had licenced the image (without their knowledge) and the perpetrator had no knowledge of Alamy.
  3. My policy is that if I identify a stolen image then I get someone else (usually the company that helped me find it) go after them. I'm not getting pocket change for an unauthorised use, and that position pays off - I have made more from identified unauthorised usage than the total of all of my Alamy sales. Clearly in this respect Alamy needed to check as the initial sale was through them. I'm going to have to stand down my image rights company on this one.
  4. Hi All I have an image which was sold back in 2018 for a 5 year period, "Single placement and design". Obviously I don't know who that sale was to. One of my image tracking service providers has just matched the image to an online company which matches the licence details and is likely the purchaser of the licence above. However, they are using the image multiple times across their website, and on the various country variants .es, .co.uk, .jp etc. Can you advise who in Alamy, or how I should make contact to raise this issue and have them resolve the licence
  5. Whilst I'm now a Nikon shooter, I have owned much of this kit on Canon, and have in my time had all of them on Nikon. It really depends on your budget. The 50mm is a cheap option, sharp on the 1.8-1.2 versions and realistically under controlled studio conditions and assuming you are not shooting at wider than f1.8 then you'll see little difference between the £80 version and the £1000 version. Bokeh on the f1.4 and f1.2 is smoother due to an increased number of aperture blades. Contrast straight out of camera is better on the f1.2L but given you are in studio conditions and will post-p
  6. What you actually need is the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/patents-court/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-guide.pdf Set up specifically to handle claims of this nature. Small claims court in the UK didn't have specialist IP/copyright experience and is more for pursuing unpaid bills and reparation for poorly executed work etc... There is a small claims track with limited costs. The guide is pretty good, and as Dov stated in his post - no legal representation required.
  7. No problem. I guess it depends what you need from the system. If you need to hold licence details, durations, exclusivity details etc then it isn't ideal but for that I think you'd need a more specific stock photo management solution. The alternative if you are on a Mac is Daylite which I stopped using when I took on Light Blue. You can customise that completely yourself (or pay someone to do it) to absolutely meet your specific needs.
  8. Matt, I use Light Blue. Co-written by a photographer, and with a lot of input form other photographers it is probably more aligned to wedding and portrait shooters although easily services commercial photography, and fine art sales to end consumers. Under continued development and with good support. Hope that helps...
  9. Happy New Year everyone. Here is to a productive, rewarding, and more importantly healthy 2015.
  10. I had this happen a few years back, I went from Cheque to BACS but they had recorded my account details incorrectly and it got paid in a the sweep up tranche in late Jan/Feb, after I checked in with them and corrected it. Might be worth popping an email in, although as we are very close to Christmas it might be worth trying again from 5th Jan. If you successfully claimed then you will get paid. If you didn't hit submit then you'll have to wait until next year now as the money will already have been allocated. You should have an email confirmation from them if your claim was received.
  11. Phillipe, Hopefully by now you'll realise from losdemas' post that this has nothing to do with the number of images you hold in the library. Nor is it explicitly linked to the number of images sold. The categories and bands are critical in determining your payout, and as Regen states the amount per band fluctuates each year depending on the amount of the total pot, expenses of DACS, and most importantly the number of claimants. With each qualifying claimant receiving a minimum of £25 you can easily see that a huge influx of claimants with only 1-2 sales is going to significantly reduce the
  12. Mine was in on the 4th as well, though that is of course old news now ! Down 10% - was in the same bands as last year. Either a smaller pot, or the impact of all the additional claims.
  13. It has to be standardising keyword entry with IPTC fields. Far easier for us to keyword once in Photo-mechanic or Adobe products PRIOR to upload. Pend or truncate those images with keywords greater than maximum field length.
×
×
  • 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.