Jump to content

Gordon Scammell

Verified
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

112 Forum reputation = neutral

About Gordon Scammell

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={82B3C327-164E-4072-A733-7855E8F5C655}&name=Gordon+Scammell
  • Images
    37702
  • Joined Alamy
    12 Nov 2007

Recent Profile Visitors

590 profile views
  1. I don't think you really understand the difference between stock and Live News. Despite your '...very special press pass...' you are uploading via stock which means you have to wait for them to go through a process. If you apply for Live News access and get it your images will be available to potential customers within about 15 mins. If you cannot upload images to Live News within a couple of hours of making them then maybe you need to rethink your approach and workflow. It is not Alamy's fault - it is your basic misunderstanding of the process.
  2. Tenuous. I still think that is 4 separate uses. Alamy did licence an image of mine to a holiday firm 8 times for 8 holiday brochures. That seemed sensible to me but I feel licences that cover 3 or 4 separate but connected uses should not be covered by just one licence. Thanks for the reply though.
  3. 'Usage: Editorial use, One of each of the following uses: Presentation, student project, editorial website, small book (up to 1000 print run, not front cover), small magazine/newspaper (up to 1000 print run. Worldwide license. Excludes advertising and promotion.Start: 03 April 2019Duration: In perpetuity' In my view - and no doubt lots of folk will disagree - this licence is for 4 different uses. It should be 4 separate licences. But who am I to know I'm just the mug who presses the button.
  4. No criticism but why would you want to make your images exclusive to a stock company that sells images for (usually) very little? Doesn't sound like good business to me.
  5. Thanks for the report - quite useful. "Can Alamy find a way of blocking “presentation Use” like they can presently block “Personal use”? They will look at doing that if sufficient numbers of contributors request it." Can it be noted that after having three of the damned things already this month that I really, really, really want this Presentation Use licence to be quickly and quietly put to death? Please? It is so open to abuse.
  6. I had one yesterday congratulating me that my latest submission has passed QC. Unfortunately I hadn't submitted anything.
  7. They are two different images in my opinion. One customer may particularly like the colour in one of those images and not like the colour in the other. It's like standing on a hill and taking a panoramic shot of a valley in bright sunshine and a couple of hours later taking a panoramic shot of the same valley but with a stormy sky. Two different images of the same subject each with a different 'feel'. Also, my analogy of a ship sailing down the Thames. One image is of the ship approaching. The second image taken 1 minute later is of stern of the ship as it passes. Same subject but slightly different views. Are these to be classed as 'similar'? Personally, I think the whole exclusivity thing is a bit of a mess. It is open to interpretation either way. Personally I cannot give exclusivity to images on Alamy that will be sold for peanuts and also open to misuse via the presentation licence. If Alamy were prepared to pull their finger out and police the presentation licence - or actually get rid of it - then I would certainly re-consider. They won't - so I won't. Pleased that it is going to work for some contributors.
  8. So what is the point of making images exclusive if you photograph an event where there are a myriad of other photographers some of whom will be submitting similar images. I can understand making a really special niche image exclusive. However, if I took a special niche image it most certainly wouldn't be submitted to Alamy - it would be submitted elsewhere where I know it would earn more and also not at risk of being licensed for 'presentation'.
  9. I understand what you are trying to say but if the images are similar in subject content that will open up a huge can of worms. If I photograph a landmark in the rain and make it exclusive to Alamy then take the same photograph a few hours later when the rain has stopped are those image going to be classed as similar? I am just trying to point out how this exclusive lark is going to be played.
  10. Precisely. That's why I said it was farcical. Of course it isn't the idea. But If I take a photograph of a ship sailing down the Thames, wait for about 20 seconds zoom in slightly and take another one - where is the similarity? Subject matter? That won't run for a start. Nobody can tell me that they are the same image. The first one exclusive to Alamy the second one - which is slightly different - sent to my other stock libraries. How is Alamy going to police that?
  11. So in future if I photograph a scene twice - with some slight differences - I will be able to make one exclusive to Alamy and one to be submitted to other libraries. Correct? Farcical.
  12. If there is a new exclusivity 'deal' will be applied to live news images? If so, it's another reason why exclusivity is a bad choice.
×
×
  • 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.