Jump to content

Phil Robinson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Robinson

  1. No, I think you're absolutely right. And if Alamy had told us that instead of expecting us to deduce it all from the term "artwork" we wouldn't have a problem.
  2. "the exclusivity elements introduced in February 2019 are contractual terms and need to be followed by contributors" That means they need to be made very clear and understood by contributors. That has now happened - thank you. We are now in a position to comply with the terms of the contract in a way we were not before this clarification. It would make sense, and be fairer, therefore, to start the policy of recovering money for incorrectly annotated images from now or, preferably, from the date that this clause in the contract is amended to include what you seem to have accepted is a necessary legal clarification of the term "artwork" which is too vague and open to interpretation for a legally-binding contract.
  3. It is a reason to send images that are exclusive to Alamy elsewhere if it's not going to affect your commission.
  4. That's exactly it. I'm hoping this clawing back of money will be postponed until that is made clear. By the way, I'm looking forward to meeting your friend Erin Gemu one day.
  5. I don't think it's a money-making exercise, I think it's just a badly handled implementation of an unclear policy. I agree with some of it in principle - it's hard to say an image of a postage stamp or a book cover is 'exclusive' - it's about the lack of clarity and information. I do agree on the timing.
  6. I've received a list of some images which have been included. Many are stamps - not what I'd call 'artworks' but I can understand that. Also graffiti - less convinced about some, but OK. Also tiled pictures on the Paris Metro and mosaics. And, yes, stained glass.
  7. I think this a separate issue from copyright. This is about whether Alamy think they can tell their customers that this is only only place they can find a particular image. If a customer is looking for an accurate copy of the Mona Lisa or the Sgt Pepper album sleeve, that would clearly not be the case. This is about whether or not it is possible to photograph the same thing in a different way, or better, than someone else. But more than that it's about clarity.
  8. This is the problem. If I'd seen that I'd like to think I'd have shot it in pretty much the same way, resulting in a very similar image. What's the difference between that and a window? Or an Art Nouveau lamppost? Or a decorative park bench? We need CLEAR guidance.
  9. I've also had that email and am waiting for a reply to my request for clarification. I don't know which images they are referring to but I have also had recent sales of stained glass windows. The message refers back to a reminder we were sent in November and they are taking that as the point from which these sales are being judged. As far as I know, that email was the same as the one on the forum and referred only to "artworks". I quite understand that photos of a 2 dimensional painting or other work of art taken under the same lighting conditions are basically copies of someone else's work and will, if exposed correctly, be essentially the same image. My email also mentioned book covers. I can understand that as well. Stained glass windows, however, are a different matter. For one thing they are quite difficult to photograph well. Some people change the perspective to make the sides straight, some don't. Exposure and contrast vary widely. Look at pics on here of the same window and they look different. Some, quite simply, are better than others. Does this also mean statues are included? Or gargoyles? Or indeed any architectural detail or other man-made object in a public place that could be photographed by someone else from the same position? Stained glass windows are not subject to copyright (the vast majority at least) so what makes them different from a statue, a pulpit or a pillar? I would like to suggest that Alamy delay this recovering of commission from sales until we have had a MUCH CLEARER definition of what the term "artwork" is taken to mean. Does it cover statues, architectural decorations, stamps, coins, medals, banknotes... etc? It is clearly a separate issue from copyright, so we need MUCH clearer guidance than just the word "artwork". Please, before taking money back from already struggling photographers who currently cannot go out to earn a living, give us a definitive guide to what can and what can't be marked as "exclusive" whether or not it is placed with other libraries. I have over 40,000 images that I need to consider. One thing I have plenty of at the moment is time - not so money.
  10. As I have been limited to photographing wildlife for the past two weeks, on my daily walk to the quarry down the lane, it is appropriate that I came back from my daily walk to the quarry down the lane to find this sale has popped up - taken two years ago in the quarry down the lane.
  11. I haven't done much, but I would certainly agree that for closeups, moving the camera causes far fewer problems than refocusing the lens, which can change the size of the in-focus part of the subject, causing huge problems especdially when you are using more than two or three images.
  12. Not doing as well as Ian above, but after the worst two months for years (Jan and Feb) March is a lot better - below average but OK, and still a few days left.
  13. I'm not convinced that "post positive results" is the best title for this thread at the moment
  14. I had one a couple of days ago. It happens to me about one in every 20 subs - usually cleared within a couple of hours. I think it's a very good thing to still be subject to random checks. I know for a fact that my standards would start to drop if I knew everything was going to go straight through.
  15. I've always uploaded JPEGs at quality level 12 - apart from live news at 10 or 11, and then only if I'm in a cafe with slow WiFi. Seems this may have been a good idea. Back in the olden days, Alamy wanted TIFF format and I suppose I assumed that level 12 would be the best to send after they changed.
  16. On the plus side, given my (our) recent experience, the chances of them actually selling via Age are almost zero.
  17. I just got in touch with Age to cancel my contract. I stopped sending them images months ago and after regular, acceptable sales they rapidly went downhill and were zero for the last three months. Looks like I'm back with them. I can't find my images there by searching my name/pseudo, but if I search for images by keyword they show up.
  18. Other agencies I have dealt with mostly 'report' sales when the payment has cleared. That can take months. Alamy let us know when the uses have been invoiced, which is unusual, and is the reason why we sometimes see those annoying refunds. People on here complain about refunds but there would be an awful lot more disappointments if we were notified every time a potential customer downloaded something for potential use. I think Alamy have got the balance about right.
  19. I think you may have been in The Street, hoping for the exclusive.
  20. They have suddenly started coming up in large numbers in Google image searches. I was with RH years ago and left because they increased their percentage. Looks like I'm still with them - and getting even less.
  21. One week a year I become a sports photographer. I don't have the D5 and 400mm 2.8 that most of the others do so I try to take different stuff, as a change from the racket-head-on-ball shots, hoping they will sell. They rarely do. My week in Eastbourne is never very profitable, but it does make a pleasant change.
  • 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.