Jump to content

giphotostock

Verified
  • Content Count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by giphotostock

  1. Not at all. Alamy is protected by the user agreement. What it tells you about licence type and releases isn't legally watertight permission to submit images containing IP you don't own. You don't own the copyright in the Star Wars or Batman images and you don't have permission from those who do. You therefore run a risk, at best of Alamy being asked to remove them, which it will, and at worst of legal action. Or as Martin says Alamy will take them down proactively to protect itself. I ask that because everybody here says me there is a risk while Alamy says me its safe as they have a
  2. Not at all. Alamy is protected by the user agreement. What it tells you about licence type and releases isn't legally watertight permission to submit images containing IP you don't own. You don't own the copyright in the Star Wars or Batman images and you don't have permission from those who do. You therefore run a risk, at best of Alamy being asked to remove them, which it will, and at worst of legal action. Or as Martin says Alamy will take them down proactively to protect itself. I ask that because everybody here says me there is a risk while Alamy says me its safe as they have a
  3. Not at all. Alamy is protected by the user agreement. What it tells you about licence type and releases isn't legally watertight permission to submit images containing IP you don't own. You don't own the copyright in the Star Wars or Batman images and you don't have permission from those who do. You therefore run a risk, at best of Alamy being asked to remove them, which it will, and at worst of legal action. Or as Martin says Alamy will take them down proactively to protect itself. I ask that because everybody here says me there is a risk while Alamy says me its safe as they have a
  4. Not at all. Alamy is protected by the user agreement. What it tells you about licence type and releases isn't legally watertight permission to submit images containing IP you don't own. You don't own the copyright in the Star Wars or Batman images and you don't have permission from those who do. You therefore run a risk, at best of Alamy being asked to remove them, which it will, and at worst of legal action. Or as Martin says Alamy will take them down proactively to protect itself. I ask that because everybody here says me there is a risk while Alamy says me its safe as they have a
  5. I already sold many times the batman logo and Darth Vader illustrations with RM licence, so it means its possible. I actually just got a reply from Alamy member service: "However, we don’t expect all images to have releases, but we do expect all images to be accurately annotated. If an image contains people then it needs to say that. If you don’t have releases then you can still sell through Alamy as Rights Managed (RM). Images without releases may also be fine for a commercial customer to use (dependant on their end use), but RM gives us an opportunity to flag the lack of release to
  6. My (not an attorney) understanding that in the US, Federal Government can not sue States. Therefore you can not go after state agencies for copyright infringement (federal law). Something like that. Could there be a similar situation with City infringement and copyright (federal) law? ImageRights would know, me thinks. GI
  7. Agree with Geoff. Alamy is in the middle. Where Alamy gets $180 from US textbook publishers, specialists routinely get $250-550 (gross). On the other hand, subscription deals that UK media gets from majors routinely bring 0.20 - 0.30 GPB to the contributor. GI
  8. I'm with several nature specialist agencies in France, the UK (very well known one with a high reputation) and the Netherlands. And the pro and semi-pro photographers at my little agency submit their images also to different specialists. Those specialists ALL have a very hard time, prices have plummeted there as well since 2008 and by far most sales are done via subagencies leaving very little for the photographer. I'm not traveling anymore to Costa Rica or risk my life being eaten by a bear in Alaska. I not even spend a day - two miles from my home - in a hide waiting for a bird that probabl
  9. How to win Alamy (specifically) game? I am not sure there's an actionable recipe that many can follow. I've decided many years ago NOT to quite play it, but play elsewhere with non-Alamy images. If you want to play non-Alamy game, spend time on Geoff's links (as part of a bigger market study), choose a well-paying market segment and specialize. Non-Alamy images pay so much better than Alamy images. Moreover, non-Alamy images net 40x on G. than they net on Alamy (personal data - same set of images). The answer is clear to this contributor. Your mileage may vary. GI
  10. Cut outs is mostly a domain of microstock these days. High key, with light and somewhat graduated background is currently a preferred commerical style. GI
  11. That's true. Another definition: one that will, in the future, meet the needs of clients. Ten years ago that might be CGI imagery of DNA, twenty years ago, GM issues, thirty years ago, environmental science. Do any of these now and the work has to be exceptionally good and/or original. It is very difficult to make right predictions, particularly about the future. ) GI
  12. My goal for the next year is to increase the net income by 20%. GI
  13. Almost by definition, a repeat seller meets the needs of several clients, ie it is something that is generally often needed out there. When shooting, the mentality should be NOT "is there a client that would want that image?" but "do I see a lot of people needing this image?" GI
  14. Without doing actual statistics, I'd say 10-30% are repeat sellers in editorial (10% at Alamy, 30% elsewhere), and maybe 50% commercial. I see the same pattern as Robert noticed above, there seems to be "polular" images that sell several times each months after they hit the commercial distribution network, but often not for decent amounts per sale. That trend starts to trail off after some months. Then there are repeat sellers that sell monthly, for decent amounts and for several years. Overall, noticeably more than 50% of net income comes from images that sold more than once. Bott
  15. If you have not already, talk to your surgeon about corneal cross-linking and the work that Avedra is doing. Could be better than a transplant even when it is done with a laser (ie IEK, etc). GI
  16. Should be of interest to most lay readers, but it is fairy basic introduction for those the skilled in the art. There are a couple of minor inaccuracies, including may favorite pet peeve, photo of glasses and an eye chart: what's shown is physically impossible. That becomes very obvious to anyone who has a pair of glasses and a spare minute. ) GI
  17. I am NOT a good stock photographer. Receiving general (trends, styling) and specific (subject matter) help/advice from agencies had been of tremendous help. My accountant can attest to that. GI
  18. Add salable to your list, and that will point you in the right direction to succeed in stock. GI
  19. AlamyPro group still exists, even though it has been largerly inactive for a while (I think ever since Alamy introduced its own foum). Requires a Yahoo account as opposed to F..B. GI
  20. Nothing beats a meaningful conversation with an editor. However, it is not how Alamy is set up. GI
  21. And how (ie style), particularly for commercial.. GI
  22. Then you can't do a takedown. I believe we give the rights to share our images on social media. Jill It may or may not be the case. Just because msn.com had a pinterest share button over a licensed image, it does not mean the license terms allowed them to do that. GI
  23. Doesn't business model of some social media sites implicitely relies on users not honoring copyrights? That is, if the users suddenly stopped using copyrighted images, they'd have no business? GI
  24. Commerical libraries seem to have different guideslines for objects: generic mass-produced objects not protected by trademark or copyright do not require a release. "Recognizability" by the manufacturer is generally not a consideration. Think about it: all man-made objects are made by somebody, so that somebody could recognize "their" object. How many generic still lifes with property releases you'd see on a G or C sites in their commercial collections? GI
×
×
  • 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.