Jump to content

Panthera tigris

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Forum reputation = neutral

About Panthera tigris

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    01 Sep 2005

Recent Profile Visitors

580 profile views
  1. I just see this as natural progression to a simpler licensing model. I think RM has been a complication for both customers and agencies for a while and Getty have made a bold move. A move I don't agree with to be honest but as I no longer am with them I am not enraged at this point. It will no doubt have an effect on the marketplace as Bill has mentioned. These days I get confused what is RM and what is RF, I understand the difference perfectly but agencies are using some more liberal interpretations such as (these examples are from my Alamy sales for this last couple of months) a) RF but with a one time usage stipulation added b) RM in perpetuity for Single company - multiple educational editorial use. I think the danger to other agencies is will the "one model" (RF) appeal more to new image users and their accountants enough to affect the rest of the market in the mid/long term. More "interesting times" to come.
  2. I like the idea but.......alternatively, once you have paid a peanut for something it could be argued that one would expect it to continue to have a value of a peanut/peanuts in the future. I suppose I would just like out of any of my photos being sold for these values.
  3. I had my first "student project" license recently, $0.99. I had opted out of EVERYTHING (newspaper scheme, novel use, distribution) to attempt to avoid low prices and it seemed to be working OK for me (volume down but prices I can live with, without selling out to the non-ethical industry wide low prices). I was surprised to see this one on an RM image and I was musing to myself ... does one think "student projects" should be covered under novel use or a new opt in/opt out category OR should they be a license type? I am OK in doing my bit for education but it seems its another "option" to source images cheaper than normal that would need careful oversight to avoid abuse, anyone know if any oversight is provided in these license types? Country: WorldwideUsage: Student Projects, For non-commercial use in projects such as dissertations, presentations or essays.Industry sector: EducationImage Size: Any sizeStart: 29 October 2019Duration: In perpetuity
  4. I find this subject very interesting. But I don't know enough to pass any judgment on a legal basis (rather than ethical or indeed moral). Not that I want to pass judgement, just to understand the limits of these sort of things legally regards copyright (UK). With all the complications we have seen on the international scene with "derivative works" and some huge payouts for using another person's base image to create one's own image I am not sure on this one but would assume the inclusion of text makes it legally OK for editorial? BUT what if the picture was the main subject, with no text included and perhaps part of the black background included . How would this be legal (sincere question not rhetorical)?
  5. Someone gave me a red down vote for that? What has this place become? I am also surprised by the amount of people who think the photo itself maybe "fake". To me its quite clearly a "moment in time" something that all wildlife photographers attempt the accident of every time they press they press the Shutter button.
  6. Definitely unethical. Quite immoral IMHO as well. I recall when I visited the last exhibition (entrance is by fee payment and ticket only unless u are a member of NHM) had a no photos sign - wonder if its on the ticket as well.
  7. Interesting, then to stay relevant, or lets just say to stand still in terms of a percentage of the total collection an individual photographer would need to be increasing their overall collection size, at this moment in time, by 1.82% a month Or for every 1000 images in your collection you need to be adding 18 new images. a month. Not so difficult really as many seem to be adding a lot more. For me the big issue is what is the collection becoming in order that togs sustain themselves. On a collection of say 5000, then 5 x 18 is 90 new pics a month BUT theres a big difference between 90 pics and 90 good quality images. I think this is Alamy's main issue now, overall collection quality - their costs will go up year on year but their collection quality may not, leading to an inevitable conclusion - maybe. PS check my math as I often have "senior moments"
  8. I have been with them since the start (as well as their failed stock attempt), I use them for a very specialized collection of images that is my main passion (stock and stock images are not). I have reported a number of issues to them over the last couple of years, they always respond very politely and positively (fantastic customer services team) but I always get the impression they are just locked into a system that they do not have the resources (my opinion) to reprogram and I end up with lots of "tea and sympathy". In March they took in 8M$ from a VC which they said would help with new offices in NYC, collaboration improvements, more staff and new templates. I have not hidden my disappointment with their lack of ongoing development over the past years, they were miles ahead of the competition before (as you know their backend system and capabilities are a joy to use) but now the market has changed IMO and the are not setting themselves apart. Their 10% sales fee would be a potential issue for me but I had not sold anything for years with them so I turned off the online sales hoping to see some emails of interest from agents/viewers but that has not been the case either. Like has been said/inferred in some previous posts, if I could find a suitable cheaper alternative (PS is a minimum of 30/month for enough storage to operate IMHO) I would probably move but am waiting to see if the 8M$ brings any improvements for me at my level of usage. I suppose I WANT to stay with them but need them to start improving to give me confidence, I was shocked how quickly and ruthlessly they dumped the stock agency all those years ago when the sales numbers were not immediately met. For SEO I don't seem to have any issues, but have not done anything special and I don't have gallery descriptions (although I will now start adding them if it will improve further ;+)
  9. My experience has been the opposite as well. So much so I pulled out of distribution and have gone Alamy only (plus Japan in distribution because of language) on the thought that if they wanted the image enough they would have to go to Alamy themselves - so far this is has not been the case though they simply don't buy (or have not yet).. hoping for a change ;+)
  10. The ruling aside... He charges $16,000 to licence one of his images. Wow. He has found his niche ;+)
  11. And there it is, I agree wholeheartedly with you. The writing has been on the wall for the last 10 years with threads like this one cropping up every month or so. Its a slow death but the ability of the "industry" to pay the crowdsource (us) any meaningful return going forward to warrant investmnent from a purely financial sense is long gone for 95% of us. Even if some industry players could, they dont have to anymore. I like Alamy, they are the only people I have a residual collection with. But the party is long over in stock town..
  12. I agree, its been a marathon we are now in the last home stretch. Secondary editorial an Industry that only requires one to buy a camera (or phone in some cases) to take part - so its doom has always been inevitable. On another subject I wonder if the true artists (digital artists) are faring, any better than camera owner/operators. I suspect a little better but doomed ultimately also as software becomes more powerful and affordable.
  • 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.