Jump to content

JohnB

Verified
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

74 Forum reputation = neutral

About JohnB

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://john-boud.pixels.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={F3A26ADB-DBA3-49AC-B517-4EFB474988B5}&name=John+Boud
  • Images
    1249
  • Joined Alamy
    10 Oct 2004
  1. After doing some searching I think this is a variation of "DHL delivery notification Adobe ID phishing scam".http://www.hoax-slayer.net/dhl-delivery-notification-adobe-id-phishing-scam/ Seems pretty much what I experienced (swap "DHL" for "bearkatautorepair" ). Basically they tell you they have information for you which requires you to log in to your Adobe account and then present you with a bogus Adobe login form. It also drops malware. I guess I didn't imagine it. I suppose there are a large number of people here with Adobe accounts who may like to be aware of this. I guess my details probably did not come from Adobe.
  2. Perhaps you thought you were buying a photograph...... If you've looking I have some. Quite honestly the day I've had I could have done anything. I'm feeling quite old.
  3. This one was oddly convincing. I have never had a scam mail sent to me with my correct name let alone address and phone number. They also know I buy car parts online or maybe that was a coincidence. Perhaps it is to do with a parts supplier. I actually thought I'd accidentally bought something via Amazon. Not had a very good day - was rather distracted.
  4. I really do only use my email address as contact for precisely these reasons. There is one place where it is possible to find my address but that is not photo-related or social and does not include my telephone number. I suppose a link could be made but it would take quite a bit of work. Windows defender found and removed a trojan downloader and I then ran malawarebytes which found nothing. I emailed "Adobephishing" and copied the source to them. Now I've calmed down and thinking more clearly I'm actually beginning to wonder if the email tried and failed to open an acrobat document and I was then diverted to Adobe for an update. It might be a false alarm - apart from me being daft enough to click the link. It happened rather quickly: I clicked the link; windows defender told me I had malware; I found myself at Adobe's website; I closed the page. I'm not going to try it again. Still worrying that a scammer now has all my details.
  5. you may be right but I don't think I have any such listings. I think I only ever publish my email address for contact
  6. Does anyone know if there is some sort of recent phishing scam/ hack at Adobe. This might be related to the Adobe hack of a few years back. I received an email purporting to be from bearkatautorepair telling me that my order would be packed and sent to me asap. It had my correct name, address and telephone number. There was a link supposedly telling me the progress of my order. I usually spot these scams fairly quickly but, because I've recently been searching a lot of car related sites and as it had my correct details I click it. To my surprise it linked me to a form with the adobe heading asking me for info about my CC account. Obviously I've closed the form without proceeding. Windows defender now telling me it's removed malware. The link appears to go to "winournation.com". Apart from worrying about what it might have dropped on my pc I am very concerned about how someone got hold of my name, address and telephone number and seems to know I have Adobe cc. I'm going to email Adobe .
  7. First sale of this year was on the 6th. It was a picture of a tadpole. I've had eight sales so far this year mostly relating to zooms in the last few months of last year. So far this year I've had only 1 zoom (new search engine ??). That might just be due to statistical fluctuation or the holidays. If it's down to search engine I'm wondering where future sales will come from. (not panicking yet).
  8. Perhaps they are playing with the idea of individual image rankings. This was suggested years back but is yet to be implemented.
  9. I should say that, contrary to what I was led to believe yesterday, I have now been told that there was a mistake and the front-page use will be billed separately. This means that the licence description is not as inaccurate as I believed. I don't very often physically have the newspaper in my hand so when I see a newspaper sale arrive for a tiny amount I console myself with the belief that the image has been used at thumbnail size near the bottom of page 23. This came as a bit of a shock to me. So far it's barely covered the cost in time spent emailing "customer relations", photocopying tear sheets and arguing with Niels over something we appeared to agree on.
  10. Definite big drop in prices. No bigger book sales and newspaper prices - even printed versions look like novel use. Quite depressed about it.
  11. That's fine. I think you helped me express my point more clearly. I did not write my first post very well.
  12. The image was used twice in the same printed version of the newspaper - once inside at half page and once on the front cover by the masthead. The front cover version was accompanied by text advertising the main article inside. My interpretation of the licence agreement was that I should have been paid for both uses. I'm told that both usages are covered by this licence and therefore I conclude that the licence details I have been presented with are meaningless in almost all respects. Now I understand your reference to RF. I was not suggesting that I thought the newspaper had somehow bought the right to do what they want with the image. I meant "anywhere within that edition of the newspaper" not "anywhere" per se. I have edited my original post accordingly.
  13. Not entirely sure what you mean. I expected to be paid for two uses. "One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within print and /or web versions," Does that simply mean the image can only be used once within one article or could be it interpreted to mean the image can be used as often as you like as long as it's included in different articles? (I'm joking - I hope!) . I enquired about both the double usage and size and was assured that the usage was within the terms of the licence. I will ask for confirmation about the multiple usage. Anyway this rather diverts from my main point that the image placement details, size details and ,of course, date are irrelevant and misleading.
×
×
  • 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.