Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Forum reputation = neutral

About photogearch

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Wallisellen, Switzerland


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    23 Nov 2012
  1. In the meantime the image in question has finally disappeared from Alamy. Before that I had already contacted Alamy's support, whether these facts are related or not. On the microstock market there is no RM, I believe. If something does not fit RF - it usually can be offered as "Editorial". Prices for buyers and author's revenues are the same, but obviously, possibilities of usage of an editorial image by the buyer are quite limited by its nature. Sales of editorial cityscapes on the microstock market are quite rare: if buyers there want cityscapes at all - they want RF cityscapes. In
  2. Thank you for pointing. I did not manage to find the information which specifies from which moment 180-day term starts: from the moment of passing QC, from the moment of saving the attribution and also about a day for deletion available after that moment X. "Manage your files" simply mentions deletion possibility. The contract mentions 180 days but with no further specifications, if I am not mistaken. The image passed QC on 24th Apr. It was not attributed untill 2nd May. Deletion followed incorrect attribution immediately, without even closing the editor. The image is not present in the "a
  3. Somewhat unrelated question: while learning the attribution and the rules I made improper attribution of one of my images and saved it. The improper license type setting appeared to be irreversible. As a workaround I simply deleted that image and it immediately disappeared from my "on sale" images list. It is also not in the "awaiting deletion" list. However it still can be found on Alamy and is present in my portfolio accessible from the public interface. For now it is about 23 hours since the improper attribution with subsequent deletion took place. Should I do something about it or it is j
  4. I have an image of such kind among my first four ones, marked it as digitally altered and wrote "... with signage removed" in the description for now, going to delete it and replace with the unmodified version. Which seems to be also the solution for the potential etiquette problem mentioned in the post above.
  5. Thanks to everyone. Actually, I also came to the decision that one should not use RF for cityscapes with unrecognizable people - as the ruses say, despite the confusing factor mentioned. There was a slight hope that there might be some addition to the rules not reflected in that popup help or something like that. A related question: I have an archive of cityscapes made to be RF in microstock - with signage, etc. removed. I suppose that as long as they still cannot be offered as RF if the image shows people then it makes no sense to upload images modified in this way to Alamy and unmodified
  6. Hi, I am new to Alamy and confused by the following matter: My photographs are mostly cityscapes, which frequently include people. However, in many cases those people are perfectly unrecognizable and I used to submit such images to microstocks as Royalty Free, providing they do not show any copyrighted content, etc. I have an archive of such images with already remowed signage, etc. When attributing such images I must specify "how many people are in this image" and the according explanation, which pops up if clicking the "people" link looks to be extremely strict and states that one shoul
  • 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.