Gordon Scammell

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Forum reputation = neutral

About Gordon Scammell

  • Rank
    Forum regular


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    12 Nov 2007

Recent Profile Visitors

544 profile views
  1. Exclusivity

    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.
  2. Exclusivity

    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'.
  3. Exclusivity

    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.
  4. Exclusivity

    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?
  5. Exclusivity

    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.
  6. Commission change - James West comments

    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.
  7. Commission change - James West comments

    I understand from another contributor that Alamy is about to announce the exclusivity deal today. To be honest I wouldn't sign up to a cynical deal that I believe was Alamy's intention all along. Announce a reduction in commission paid to contributors, sit back and wait whilst all the messages of anger come pouring in and then announce that they have listened to the complaints and have come up with a wonderful answer that will please people. Not buying it.
  8. Commission change - James West comments

    '...tracking infringements...' - really? Your ability to track infringements is as effective as a chocolate teapot. Useless. Absolutely useless.
  9. Private use

    Report it. I did with an image of the interior of a Pret a Manger licenced for PU. Alma says it will pass it on to 'the infringement team' - I don't hold out much hope but you never know, pigs may fly.
  10. Presentation / Newsletter

    Just as PU, Presentation/Newsletter licences are so easy to abuse. It is a major loophole that really should be closed. If Alamy cannot 'police' this usage effectively they should remove it. I place my work/images with Alamy in the expectation that they will be treated with a certain level of protection. Presentation/ Newsletter usage is a failure and the only losers are the contributors. If Alamy insists on continuing to allow Presentation/Newsletter licences then increase the price as some sort of recompense.
  11. PU - again

    Will do. Thanks
  12. PU - again

    Thought that might be the case but the prices are so different it doesn't actually make any sense. Wild differentiation. My cost of my latest PU licence is far more than what it should be. I just don't understand Alamy's logic - along with the thousands of other contributors. It's a mystery.
  13. PU - again

    Haven't got round to removing PU on a lot of of my images yet. Just had one pop up today. The interior of a Pret a Manger - Personal Use? Yeah - right. I have been looking at my PU sales over the past few years and have noticed that quite a lot of them have discounted prices. How come a person who wants to use one of my images for the their 'non commercial use' can negotiate a discount? Why does Alamy allow these images to be licensed for less than the stated price? I have always been led to believe that discounts are applied to 'bulk' sales. Obviously I'm wrong but would appreciate some sort of explanation from Alamy. I doubt I'll receive one but I am getting royally p****d off with being shafted.