Jump to content

Kukkudrill

Verified
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kukkudrill

  1. My point is that commercial use of an image featuring a trademarked object is by no means automatically a trademark infringement. Just like I said in my post Meaning you might be foregoing perfectly legitimate sales if you restrict every such image you have to editorial use only. You need to use your judgement. If commercial use of an image featuring a trademarked object were automatically a trademark infringement, then this image could not have been used in this advert. Unless, of course, the photographer got a property release from the trademark owner, but we both know that's extre
  2. I'm no lawyer but my impression is that the definition of what constitutes a trademark infringement is pretty narrow, even in the US. Commercial use of an image featuring a trademarked object is by no means automatically a trademark infringement. If it were, an advert like this - published in Aviation Week, a US-based magazine - wouldn't be possible. In spite of the Pinocchio nose the aircraft in the advert is very recognisably a Boeing 737 and, to drive the point home, it even features the word "Max" - a reference to the 737 MAX, the current generation of the 737. Sou
  3. Commercial use is a broad term covering a multitude of uses, some of which might be permissible even if there are people or property in an image. For instance, the owner of the property might want to use your photo for advertising purposes. Somewhere on this forum a while ago I read about Alamy contacting a photographer to remove an editorial use only restriction from a particular image to enable a commercial sale which Alamy themselves were obviously happy with. So I only rarely mark images as editorial use only, even though most of mine have identifiable property in them. As vpics says I usu
  4. Interesting that a news photographer at a public event should object to becoming the subject of a photo. What was the reason you got told off?
  5. A lot of them - well, some of them, given high rejection rates - end up on a couple of well known aviation enthusiast websites where the photo screening is far more stringent than Alamy. One of these sites has 2.9 million photos, the other has 3.6 million. Indeed lots of aviation enthusiasts out there
  6. Who would buy that brick wall photo? A specialist architectural textbook publisher perhaps - not a market that will generate a lot of sales. I specialise in aviation and I like to think I can offer that sort of knowledge in my field. But as far as I can tell I haven't sold any photos to specialist aviation publishers through Alamy. There is a specialised aviation stock photo agency (can't mention its name here of course) that I'm not part of and that seems to monopolise image sales to aviation magazines in the UK. No questioning the talent and the expertise at the disposal of this
  7. Depends on what suits the buyer most, which I suspect depends most of all on the cost. I did an experiment using the Alamy price calculator. Front cover for a book, circulation 25,000 world English language for five years, comes to €580. RF large size (24.8 x 16.5 cm, big enough for a book cover) comes to €450. Whether RM or RF wins out depends on the specific use. In this case, if I were a publisher paying calculator prices and I had a choice of RF and RM images, I would go with the RF. Of course the question is how many publishers actually pay these prices. But another question h
  8. They might be after a very specific type of image and it happens to be available only on Alamy. Or they might be used to dealing with Alamy, perhaps for editorial images, so when the need for a generic RF image comes up they don't bother looking elsewhere. Or perhaps they believe they can get better quality images from Alamy. Or maybe they want images that are less likely to have been widely used before and they're willing to pay extra for this. This is all speculation, of course. If only we could get feedback from buyers.
  9. Unless the phone, tablet or laptop has a very distinctive design, and as long as the logo is not visible or has been edited out, I wouldn't think a property release is necessary. By way of comparison, I do a lot of aviation photography and there are loads of unreleased RF images on Alamy of aircraft with no airline logo or registration visible but in which the aircraft type is easily identifiable.
  10. This rerank seems to have been heavily influenced by performance in the last few weeks. One of my pseudonyms has been going through a fallow period and its CTR has fallen drastically. The fate it has suffered brings to mind this scene ...
  11. I suggest we leave off the insults, hurried or otherwise, and stick to facts. I'm not a fan of RM. It's overcomplicated and open to manipulation. But what counts for me is what buyers want - particularly editorial buyers since I shoot mostly editorial. And I have yet to be convinced that buyers want RF. Now I have had some sales like this, which is effectively disguised RF: Country: Worldwide Usage: Single company - multiple use editorial only Industry sector: Media, design & publishing Start: 21 September 2017 End: 21 September 3017 But most of
  12. I do occasionally include incorrectly spelled variations of keywords when tagging images. And it's paid off in that I've seen my images appear in searches using wrongly spelled keywords. So I'll take my chances with the superintelligent Alamy search engine of the future. Wonder if it will be named Hal?
  13. I shoot mostly editorial and I still upload as RM, with only the occasional exception. My impression is that the average editorial buyer is not normally interested in multiple use. If you're a newspaper or magazine editor and you regularly publish stories on the same subject, would you want to use the same image every time? Didn't think so ... I wouldn't either. In which case surely the editorial buyer would prefer RM because it works out cheaper.
  14. 3 minutes per photo sounds right for me, but like Bryan I refine my keywords over time. Then there's the time I've spent going over legacy images. This all adds up. If photography weren't already a hobby, stock wouldn't be worthwhile for me.
  15. Agreed. I shoot aviation with a 100-400mm and I wouldn't go anywhere near full zoom when shooting large aircraft on warm days because the distance involved is sure to lead to loss of fine detail and distortion. With large aircraft you can get away with some lack of sharpness in the fine detail, but the smaller the subject the more that lack of sharpness becomes obvious. I wouldn't even try shooting a bird at 5000ft (that's 1.5km), no matter the temperature and no matter how good my lens.
  16. Maybe there's been a software upgrade in which they forgot to cater for unlimited duration, so they're using 1000-year licences as a workaround
  17. I've had one of those too. I too thought it was a typo at first but then I figured it's just a way of representing an unlimited term licence.
  18. This suggests that even experienced buyers are having a hard time with RM. And it must put a huge burden on Alamy. I got the impression from another thread that Alamy is pushing RF. No wonder, if it's true.
  19. Mistakes in RM restrictions: It’s not just that mistakes can happen, it’s that the RM licensing options can be confusing. If you’re publishing an English-language book for sale worldwide, should you pick “worldwide” or “world English language” as your territory option? They’re not the same and they make a difference to the licence fee. Then there’s duration. The sole option for magazines is five years. What does this mean? Can you use the same image in different issues of the magazine during the five-year period? And what does duration mean where books are concerned? Does it cover
  20. Personally, I wouldn't say RM and RF editorial are equally prone to misuse. I would say RM is more prone to misuse. As I see it (maybe I'm missing something?), the question of what constitutes editorial use can come up with both types of licence. And, in addition, look at all the variables RM involves - usage, media, print run, placement, image size, duration ... all those are potentially open to error or misuse.
×
×
  • 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.