Martyn

One in July ( sort of ), three in August, nothing so far this month, all very odd. The July "sale" was originally licenced in June for $218.08, refunded in July and then licenced again for $12.27 ... way to go PAlamy ....

I guess it's a possibility that the optional tabs will become mandatory, maybe more information regarding this will be forthcoming. I have always filled them in although I have yet to start going through my older images in bulk and tidying up the old system key wording, sigh !

I'm personally probably a bit too harsh on myself when it comes to property releases as I mark anything that could be classed as property as being property / no release, whether it be a distant building or an item of clothing a person is wearing ... it has probably cost me sales but in a complex world of varying laws, at least I know I've covered my back ... if a potential client decides that an image of mine doesn't actually need a PR, then that's on them, not me. I'm still not sure why Alamy are trying to fix something that wasn't broken, at least as far as it goes for those of us that filled out the MR / PR optional tabs ... no PR / MR = editorial automatically and again, down to the potential client to decide if the image is suitable for the use they have in mind. I guess though that for those who haven't filled out the optional tabs, it will be a different story and they may have no choice but to now fill them out or select them all as editorial only and go through their images and deselect those images that do have releases ...

Again, I fully agree with what you are stating. We have seen the ever growing list of subjects that are verboten, National Trust, Network Rail, Graffiti, Passport covers etc etc, all banned to "protect us" but oddly, none of Alamy's competitors seem to have this concern and these image subjects appear regularly in newspapers, magazines, calendars etc. Now we have this to contend with ... I would put it to Alamy that the vast majority of clients know exactly what they want to use the image for, they can see whether it contains people or property and they know whether it requires releases for their intended use ... more onus needs to be placed on the clients, not us contributors who are doing the best we can.

Absolutely. I've just had a nosey in AIM at some of my very early images submitted and those are images I've never gone back to and revised after the change from the old system to the new AIM, despite the change being a complete dogs breakfast ... and I see that all of those early submissions have the optional fields completed as well ... do I really want to spend forever going through each and every one of those images ticking the editorial only box ... nah ...

I understand what you are saying but ... for those of us that have filled out the release boxes, yes or no, then if either of those releases have been marked as no, then they should automatically be editorial use only anyway ... I really hope that you don't expect us to go through all of our images, 13000 + in my case, just to tick the editorial only box ?

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here ( which wouldn't surprise me ! ) but if those of us that have filled in the non obligatory section in AIM with no to either or both model release / property release but not ticked the box saying editorial only, surely it can't be too difficult to sweep the system and mark those that have one or neither releases as editorial only ?

Pretty much my take as well ... the actual poster and the design of it is property ... the photo of the person is a person ! Had the poster not been a prominent part of the image, then I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

I've decided that for now, it's better to err on the cautious side ... there is property, the actual poster and its design along with the houses behind so that's marked as property yes, releases, no. I've also marked it as having two people, myself and the face of the politician on the poster, partly due to the privacy laws where the images were taken and partly because of the Alamy stance on fingers / partial people and even silhouettes being counted as a person ... if they are counted as a person, I have a feeling that the image of a face on a poster may also be ! I have, however, stated that the model release for me is available ... at least this way I'm pretty well covered !

Yes, that's what I've done as there are also out of focus houses in the background so best to play safe !

I recently borrowed a Nikon DF from a neighbour and did some self portraits to see how the camera performed ( I'm very impressed with the results ! ) and the self portraits were myself standing next to and looking at an election candidates poster on a lamp post ... I've just annotated these and for the question regarding having a model release, I've answered no as I'm assuming that the face on the poster counts as a person ? I've added in the information box that there is a release for me but not the person on the poster ... I presume that a model release would be required for the person on the poster ? !

I can't help thinking that wherever our 60% commission charge is going, the IT department isn't seeing much of it !!

Strange things going on for sure ... uploaded a batch of 34 yesterday, passed immediately but didn't keyword anything, left it until this morning ... according to my dashboard, I had no images not on sale. In image manager, images of the same subject taken at the same time showed "multiple values" in every field in the non mandatory section despite me not having annotated anything on them. I've left some of them for now until I can see that those I have annotated today do actually go on sale ...

Country: Australia, New Zealand and Oceania Usage: Magazine, Editorial print and digital use. Repeat use. Industry sector: Media, design & publishing Start: 11 June 2024 End: 11 June 2026 Lower $$ nearly empty vodka bottle in a filthy flat left by vacating tenants