Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Forum reputation = neutral

About Chexy

  • Rank
    Forum newbie


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    09 Sep 2007

Recent Profile Visitors

656 profile views
  1. As many have already pointed out, personal image use should of course be defined and charged according to image size in pixels. While the survey question is a step in the right direction, I will not click an option because the survey was not clearly presented. A file for small web use should not be capable of making a quality 20 x 30 inch print and the file for a quality 20 x 30 inch print should not be available for $15. I currently shoot images at 8256 x 5504 pixels but rarely upload to Alamy at over 3000 pixels long. If licence prices were scale graded according to required pix
  2. https://www.alamy.com/customer/help/affiliate-program.aspx So Alamy offers an affiliate program - "Our affiliate commission is the best in the stock photo industry..." "Some of our top affiliates earn more than $4,500 a month". AffiIiates do nothing other than supply a link and if affiliates can make that much while we the suppliers are shafted, something is not right with this picture. Is this where our proposed 20% cut is going? Do we get a percentage if someone wanders off our portfolio page and buys someone elses image via the all Alamy search box, I think not but in suc
  3. I too am very disappointed in Alamy's decision to cut our share of image licensing. I still get a 50% share through my main agency and that has always seemed fair. I have always felt that the main issue with Alamy is the lack of image curation. I realise that CTR is supposed to take care of this problem by relegating dross to the bottom of the pile but the diversity algorithm seems to counteract this to great extent. I have no problem giving everyone a chance but surely if a portfolio of images doesn't make a 'sale' in a 3 year period shouldn't the contributor be let go and their images remove
  4. https://www.alamy.com/portfolio/vancouver This would be mine.
  5. Just in case this was directed at some of my images. A local 'church' in Mission, British Columbia, is indeed called "Westminster Abbey" and so my pictures of the interior are correctly captioned and keyworded.
  6. Yes, I think the paper pie plates were added to the glasses to prevent accidental stray viewing.
  7. I got this one in Vancouver this morning.
  8. Sure to scare new and possibly old clients off. It is a pain in the ass to have to close it every time we browse Alamy.
  9. Even if your your sole purpose is to take pictures, you are free to do so in the United States as long as no one is paying you to do that at the time. It is perfectly legal to shoot as an unpaid freelancer and licence the pictures later. If asked what you do for a living you must of course declare that you are a photographer. This will not change the legality of your intention. If you were on assignment for a client or were there for the purpose of teaching photography (running a photo tour) and were being paid you would need a permit because your 'job' could conceivably be done by an American
  10. I received the same email. I have control over this through My Dashboard ( I have chosen not to be party to the Newspaper scheme) and am extremely offended at this underhanded way of trying to get us to change our decision. I learned a big lesson with Novel Use many years ago with $1.00 (gross) licences and a .49 cents (gross) licence of an award winning image. My response at the time was to remove the image and withdraw from Novel Use as soon as I could. I understand this is a competitive marketplace and that things evolve. If there is a better way, educate me. Being underhanded can only prom
  11. I received the same email this morning and I am totally pissed off. I deliberately set my preferences on My Dashboard under 'Additional Revenue Options' and I expect that to be respected. I should not have to send an email by May 19th to be opted out again as I never opted in. My Dashboard at the moment still says I am opted out. If this is not the case Alamy are indeed being unscrupulous and very disrespectful. I am not in the Distributor scheme either. Do not change this by sending me an email. No means No.
  12. There are lots of things to like about the new Image Manager but I agree that the faded (grey tags) are hard to read. I also hate to do more clicking than is necessary and find the 'Clear selection' 'x' redundant. That it is at the top of the screen while the 'Save' button is at the bottom makes it all the more infuriating. I suggest that 'Clear selection' happen automatically when we 'Save' or at least add a new button. 'Clear and Save' beside the current 'Save' one.
  13. Interesting theory, except that I have the new system and my wife doesn't! Much to her annoyance, I might add. Cheers, yes, it was just a theory and I'm with your wife on being pissed. I'll probably get it tomorrow when I'm busy with other things. I had all day to play today.
  14. Ryan Walters said "ummm.... am i missing something. nothing has changed for me " Our surnames begin with 'W'. This topic was started by Matt Ashmore. It is probably being rolled out alphabetically. A common discrimination.
  15. Yes, because they are seen and accessible via the camera. Nikon Transfer software will download them to a folder on your computer based on the parameters you set in the program. It can be a bit slow if you have a lot of files on the card but give it time and it will download all new files and open them in View NX2.. If your images are on the card in slot 2 you have to use a drop down menu to select that card. Alternatively with a Nikon camera connected to a pc via an appropriate usb cable, the camera will be seen as an attached drive and you can also then copy files where you want them. I have
  • 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.