Jump to content

Sheila Smart

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sheila Smart

  1. dov makabaw, on 08 Nov 2013 - 19:53, said:

    I have managed to incorporate my cover into my household insurance. Each element, ie lens and body, has been listed seperately to keep the perceived value down. I have not had a claim so have not been able to test the reaction if I lost several bodies or lenses but my brokers is confident that it will not be a problem.



    For years, my camera gear was part of a portable effects policy (attached to my home insurance) until I sent them an email requesting them to add a lens and they saw my links to my portfolio website on the bottom of my email. They they advised me that they did not cover cameras as I was a professional photographer. I have since taken out insurance with a company specialising in cameras for pros also adding liability insurance. I would not wait, Dov, until you have a claim. It could be an expensive proposition.
  2. And there goes "rights managed"! How can Alamy ever control how a rights managed image is going to be used by parties which are not known to them and have not signed any sort of agreement of use. Also, has Alamy entered into a different agreement with the purchasers because according to the clause Grant of rights and restrictions it states:


    "The Image(s) may not be sublicensed, resold or otherwise made available for use or distribution separately or detached from a product or web page. For example, the Image(s) may be used as an integral part of a web page design, but may not be made available for downloading separately or in a format designed or intended for permanent storage or re-use by website users. Similarly, your customers may be provided with copies of the Image(s) as an integral part of work product, but may not be provided with the Image(s) or permitted to use the Image(s) separately."


    I think its time that Alan Capel put in his two cents on this one! Sheila

    • Upvote 5
    • Downvote 1
  3. I had a nice license today - not Alamy or any other stock library. Received a call on my mobile and the new client was requesting a quote for a six images for a local real estate brochure plus web use for three months. We settled on $900 (no commission too!) and I uploaded the images. It took just 30 minutes (after searching my hard drives for the images)and sending them via You Send It. According to my StatCounter, they found my site via Googling the beach suburb of Sydney they were interested in and found my website. I do have a high ranking Google having 12 million hits in ten years and hopefully this will lead to more work (one lives in hope).



    • Upvote 1


    Ed Rooney: "I did drop out of the Novel Scheme when they sold one image (large on a prestigious site) for $1.00 "


    That's interesting. I have always rationalised my use of the NU scheme with the assertion by Alamy that the sales were to markets that would not undermine their other business. I would be very interested to hear where this NU image was used!


    Phil, I've posted the name of the buyer on that $1.00 sale somewhere on here in the past. It is/was the Telegraph of London, on their Website. I can't believe that anybody who has spent thousands on gear would be happy with a $1.00 gross sale. I would just consider that bad judgement and shake my head in wonderment.


    In film days, I carried most of my technique around in my head. With digital, most of the tech is carried around in the camera or on the computer. The switch to digital was indeed a steep learning curve, but now that I'm comfortable with digital, I find it lots easier. I still carry much of my old hard-learned film-shooting knowledge with me, for example . . . I almost never look at a histogram. A histogram is just a graphic representation of a scene; I can read the scene itself. I can also tell you the exposure of a scene without a light meter. Mind you, I was not over confidant and did not flaunt this ability, in fact I carried two incident Gossen meters with me, one in my pocket, another in my bag. 


    From watching people shooting on the street, I found that very few have good hand-holding technique—they just don't get the obvious. 


    I'm sorry, Sheila. I seem to have gotten way off topic here.





    No worries, Ed!
    • Upvote 1
  5. My approach is to ask for a low fee (say $50.00) but if it becomes a commercial product, they would have to contact me to obtain a license which would reflect 10% of profits. In relation to those "painters" using photographs (not their own) as derivatives and without the permission of the photographer is endemic on the Net. I belong to a Copyright Infringement Group of painters and photographers on Facebook. One of the members found that a certain US "painter", based in Florida, selling prints on Fine Art America, ImageKind and RedBubble was using photographs he found on Google and placing a Photoshop filter on them and passing them off as "acrylic on canvas" or "oils on canvas" where it was patently obvious that they were actually photographs and not paintings at all. He stated that the "original painting" was not available for sale. Of course, it was not available as it only exists on his hard drive. When I pointed out to FAA, Imagekind and RB what he was actually doing, and that they were risking their safe harbor protection by publishing his "work", FAA took his site down. Imagekind and RB are still thinking about it. He even used a photograph of a National Geographic photographer and was selling it as prints. None of the photographers I contacted were aware of this infringement of their work and many were furious. I also found yet another "painter", also based in Florida, doing exactly the same thing. He even had the same image that the other "painter" was selling, using the same filters. So it would appear that nicking photographs and putting a few "watercolour" filters on them and flogging them off as paintings is probably endemic on print on demand sites. Sheila

  6. If its a commercial blog, I would pursue it.  It goes without saying that they used your image for commercial gain and that you should be compensated for the unlicensed use.  Also point out to them that Google is just a conduit to where the image was on the Net and its not a requirement of photographers to watermark images or have copyright notices next to the image.  You have probably already done this! And in response to CandyApple, when I found one of my images on a UK police website and also found it was on a front cover of their brochure, they eventually agreed to settle with me for at least ten times what they would have paid had they legitimately licensed the image so 4 - 5 times for a blog seems about right.



    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  7. I learned the hard way when restarting photography way back when I bought cheap lenses and, of course, eventually they all ended up on eBay etc.  If you buy cheap, you end up buying twice.  With the exception of my Canon 100 macro, all of my lenses are L lenses and they have long outlasted my camera bodies.  And when friends and acquaintances comment on my photographs with "you must have a good camera", I respond "And Michelangelo must have had a good set of brushes". 



    • Upvote 2
  8. If the infringing company has a lawyer, I would suggest that they get advice - unless of course the advice is coming from a UK lawyer who does not know copyright from his elbow! If you need a good UK lawyer (and its worth pursuing), please let me know and I will give you contact details of a UK firm specialising in intellectual property. As you are probably aware, pursuing litigation in the UK is an expensive exercise and one not to be taken lightly.


  • 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.