Christopher Holt

Bill, many thanks for that reply - sounds like a true digital replacement for my Ricoh GR1 at last! Will have to try it myself. John, personally, I would still run them through Lightroom to get the preprocessing advantages. Chris

Bill, I assume you've gained a weight/hassle advantage, but are the images comparable? Which model have you chosen? Chris

apparently, based on this email; it belongs to them (Photoshot Holdings Ltd) Scary, very Scary. Time to find me that tinfoil hat, again. The Copyright belongs to the photographer and the photoshot contract (as it is right now) is non-exclusive. That's my understanding of the oontract too. In fact, I haven't actually signed a contract with Photoshot. I placed images with Construction Photography.com, who photoshot took over.

For those that have their images with stock photography providers OTHER than Alamy, this might be of interest. Photoshot have acquired a few other libraries of late and have subsequently instructed Imageprotect.com to trawl the web and find infringements. So imagine my surprise when I received a somewhat "un-delightful" series of emails from Imageprotect of all people, threatening to sue the pants off of me for using my own images on my own website. To be clear, this wasn't a polite cease & desist type email. It came across more that they actually wanted £1000 per image and then have a chat. The worrying side of this is that if you license your own work to clients whilst also submitting images to a library that employs a company such as Imageprotect (as Alamy have said they could well do) and they do this to one of your respected clients on your behalf at some stage, you could well be "missing" future sales. C. Email included below: ***************** From: ImageProtect [mailto:DMCA@imageprotect.com] Subject: Re: Unauthorized Use of Copyrights Owned Exclusively by Photoshot Holdings Ltd. FIRST ATTEMPT Dear Sir or Madam Copyright Infringement by Photoshot Holdings Ltd. Letter Before Claim ImageProtect is a third-party corporation that monitors and detects images for the purpose of copyright enforcement. We write to you in regard to your unauthorised use of the image (the "Image") (a copy of which is enclosed) as stated below. The author and copyright owner of the Image, Photoshot Holdings Ltd., has directed us to pursue this claim on their behalf on the basis of a Licence Recovery agreement. The Image was discovered on your website and on your server. We enclose for your reference copies/screen captures of the webpages where the Image appears and the following information: Timestamp: Infringers IP Address: Infringers Hosting Company: Listing of infringement(s): This appears to be an unlicensed use of the Image. As the copyright owner, Photoshot Holdings Ltd. has exclusive rights pursuant to the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (the "CDPA") to license acts restricted by the copyright, including issuing copies of the work to the public without his/her consent. The CDPA does not require any kind of intent or knowledge on the part of the infringer that their use infringed another party's copyright. Therefore, it is no defence to say that you did not know the Image was protected by copyright. If you did not have a valid licence to use the Image you are liable to pay damages to Photoshot Holdings Ltd. for the unauthorised use. We hereby demand that you comply with the following: 1. If a valid licence was purchased prior to the use of the Image, please provide us with a copy of the sales order, invoice, or other licence information. If the image was licensed under an alternative company name or in the name of a third party, such as an advertising agency, please provide that company name and phone number. We will review that information and respond to you as quickly as possible. 2. If a valid licence does not exist for the identified usage and you do not plan to use the Image in the future, you must immediately cease and desist use of the Image and remove it from your website. In addition, in consideration of our client refraining from bringing legal proceedings against you, a payment of £1000.00 for the use of the Image must be received within 14 days of the date of this notice. ImageProtect treats copyright infringement as a serious matter. If you are interested in resolving this matter prior to litigation, we expect full compliance with the above demands. Image Protect operates an online settlement portal which automates the processing of damages payments. You can access the portal by copying and pasting the URL below into a browser. Follow the instructions to pay damages of £1000.00 or provide valid licence details. Alternatively, please contact the undersigned within the next 14 days in order to clarify if a valid licence exists or to discuss payment of damages for past use. If possible, we can discuss the continued use of the Image once the damages have been paid and if there is no conflict with any current licensed user. If we do not hear from you Photoshot Holdings Ltd. reserves the right to take any action they deem necessary, including but not limited to the issue of legal proceedings against you without further notice. In such event, Photoshot Holdings Ltd. will seek all remedies available under the CDPA. For the avoidance of doubt, any claim against you will be commenced by the copyright owner. This letter complies with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. You have an obligation to comply with the Practice Direction which can be found at the following web address: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct. Please note in particular paragraph 4 which sets out the sanctions the Court may impose should you fail to do so. Ignoring this letter may lead to proceedings and an increase in the amount of your liability. At this stage we are not aware that you have any grounds to dispute this claim. Once we receive your response to this letter we will be in a better position to consider if any alternative dispute resolution method is appropriate to any issue you raise. This letter is in attempt to settle a claim. Photoshot Holdings Ltd. reserves all its rights and remedies whether legal or equitable while awaiting your full response. Yours faithfully Jonathan Thomas CEO Clear Arts Inc dba ImageProtect 1401 N El Camino Real, Ste 203 San Clemente, CA 92672 +1 949 361 3959 For any correspondence regarding this case, please send your emails to DMCA@ImageProtect.com and refer to Notice ID. If you need immediate assistance or if you have general questions please call the number listed above. *****************

One thing I've notcied more recently than ever, is how shooting at anywhere near f16 creates really soft images. I was shooting with the 24-105mm Canon L lens. Great at f8, and f11, but shockingly soft at 100% using f16. Something to note for future shoots.

I think it's worth noting that there are a variety of sharpening modes these days, whereas there really used to be only one in previous years. 1. Capture sharpening can be done in camera, but IMO is actually best performed in Lightroom: Mask, Detail, Radius, Amount in that order, using the ALT ket to preview whilst at 100%. Assuming your images are practically spot-on in the first place, this can really bring them up to scratch for Alamy or anyone else for that matter. Older RAW images benefit from this too. http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1951754&seqNum=4 2. Print sharpening was pretty much the only thing you could do in previous years, and it was easy to overdo. Martin Evening et al used to recommend multiple passes to maintain the subtleties in your image. It's probably in every photo book since the late nineties. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone submitting images to a library these days. Equipment can also be a nightmare too though. Even some new L-lenses can be soft at 100% around the edges(although many used to be accetable years ago - 1990s). I've used certain cameras from the Canon lending library only to find they are a bit messy to say the least. Best to experiment with your own lenses and camera bodies, especially before any big shoot on another continent. If in doubt, shoot at higher ISO, faster shutter speeds etc. HTH.

Thanks John! Gives us a ball park figure to hope for! :-)

This thread seems to be missing the actual data: Just what is the CTR value that Alamy reckon is in the top 10%? If this isn't stated or clear, what's your best CTR is the past few months perhaps? (Purely on a need to know basis )

I think this is key to sales and interest in your collection. One ot two images of this and another of that seems to serve best. This is probably because picture editors eventually view your collection because of your style/subject area and might find the variety more appealing.

Wimbledon Common has similar byelaws. I agree with Spacecadet though. The fine was probably put on expenses, and anyway the fee for the story effectively makes it a win. Utterly ridiculous situation though: It's fine to swear and threaten someone, but tripod users are the truer evil. Makes our fair isle look progressively backward.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11452004/British-productivity-is-a-national-disgrace.html Can I just say that I think these images (by PSL images) are pretty fantastic! :=)

Personally, assuming you're selling RM, I don't think you absolutely need a MR unless it's going to be used in advertising. Making portraits for editorial might sway the position somewhat, but I'm no lawyer in that regard. I'm sure there are a few grey areas.

I would say that once you have "cracked" the algorithm (searching amongst your own images for prime keyword patterns should help there) then the most important thing would be to keep adding to your library. I've come to the conclusion that your oldest images are pushed to the back of results if you don't submit regularly. Ie: your RPI of fresh and archived material will be less if you don't keep adding. Sounds like a pyramid scheme of sorts.

Zero sales here too. I decided to improve the keywording of many of the images in my collection this month though, and having done this last year also I noticed that the CTR, zooms and sales all hit zero. Maybe all these images all get sent to the bottom of the results? Who knows.

Quality of photography versus your ability to fully comprehend the Alamy keyword gaming system is another thing. Alamy should give more information in this regard so that the quality of photography is what defines it's collection. As it is, I often wonder if I'm better served spending more time on their algorithms than my output! Ridiculous maybe, but more often than not true.