Reciprocity Images

In my experience, Pixsy and Copytrack (although they have managed some small recoveries for me) are very nearly not worth using. I use them to track, but very seldom submit cases through them (only those cases ImageRights will not pursue). They are certainly much more lenient as to which cases they will take, but the tradeoff is spending a lot of time/effort on cases with very little chance of recovery and/or recovering relatively small amount of damages. I have been with ImageRights since they started and am overall very satisfied with the level of service and success of cases. They are very good at picking out cases with a high chance of recovery. They have partner attorneys throughout the US and most of EU. The downside is their higher-tier plans are paid, however I find the value worthwhile for my business, considering it includes a few free copyright registrations and generally the difference in commission structure pays my yearly plan after a singe decent recovery. You'll have to decide if it's worth it based on how many cases you'd plan to submit and if the copyright registrations provide additional value to you. If the case is regarding a US-based company it's highly recommended to get the opinion of a IP attorney before passing it on to a recovery service. If the case has merit, an attorney will likely take it on contingency (ie., they only get paid if they recover), and you save the recovery service commission which is generally around 30-50% of NET recoveries (after the lawyer already took their cut). So you stand to pocket a much higher percentage of the overall recovery when dealing direct with an attorney.

Try opening Lightroom holding ALT/OPTION. This will check integrity of catalog at startup and possibly repair any issues. If you have a backup, you can also unzip the backup file and open that .lrcat catalog file directly. You would lose any changes since the most recent backup.

If only RH could actually report more than 75% of sales they might be on to something. 🙄 Their accounting/sales department leaves a LOT to desired... Also as @geogphotos mentioned, 95% of sales are via distributors- not direct, and generally very low priced at that (compounded by low royalty %). Back to the OP, yes the concept is novel. However RH has made promises in the past regarding 'new and better' licensing models and has not delivered. Likely not the player best poised to make any significant impact... and judging by the proposed pricing for this new model, will not be boosting photographers' income either.

50 MB 5125 x 3417 pixels Image Size: Any size Start: 11 December 2019 Duration: In perpetuity Licensed for $0.99 gross. Thanks, Alamy 🙄 "Usage: Student Projects, For non-commercial use in projects such as dissertations, presentations or essays." ...which coincidentally (or not!) is exactly the type of license once described as Novel Use which I have always opted out of! So opt-out or not, Alamy will still sell your full size images for pennies anyway? Don't have a problem with the specific use per-se, but I do have a problem with Alamy once again giving away full res images very nearly for free! Just the same as "Personal" and "Presentation" uses, these ultra low-cost licenses should be SIZE LIMITED and contributors should be able to CHOOSE whether or not to have their images included!

My payment also late this time around. Typically hits my acct consistently on 5th/6th of each month. Seems to be only U.S. accounts affected?

Re: Distribution OUT: Bosnia-Herzegovina* Bulgaria* Czech Republic* Hungary* Macedonia* Slovakia* Slovenia* Yugoslavia (assuming this includes Serbia-Montenegro and Kosovo?)* - Estonia Latvia Lithuania Turkey *Note: AFIAK these are PROFIMEDIA countries. The worst distributor out there; I wish Alamy would drop them completely and I would consider keeping a few of those countries.

Am extremely lucky to have had one of the same (Mine sold via Vida Press to http://reisile.postimees.ee/). With the distributor commission, it ranks amoung my lowest (NET) value sales here (though a few to Italy actually have it beat!). Alamy's answer would be that these terribly low value distributor sales "[...] are customers we wouldn’t normally reach as it’s a sale through our Distribution scheme." However, in my case, the image was promptly copied to two additional websites, so for the price I am not sure the additional exposure is worth it. It may be worth taking note, and opting out of distribution to relevant territories when the time comes (in April). HOWEVER, my highest sale on Alamy also came from another territory where we are used to seeing these incredibly poor fees, so I am somewhat reluctant to do so. Unfortunately when you opt in to the distributor scheme, you are stuck taking the disappointing sales along with the... occasionally slightly better ones. -Jason

Thanks for reporting and especially for taking the time to look up the lowly photographer's name, I wouldn't have found it otherwise! -Jason

Meant to add: Above post is referring to sales listed as “United Kingdom ; Usage: Editorial ; Media: Newspaper” Sales listed as “United Kingdom ; Usage: Editorial ; Media: Editorial website” don’t seem to be affected by NP scheme; they are painfully low across the board (with one or two exceptions) all the way back to 2010.

I had been previously opted OUT until Jul 7 last year when I opted in as a test. I decided I would give it one year to gauge results... So it's now just about one week short of a year opted-in: 07/07/2016-YTD (Opted in) : 8 sales, avg. ≈ $13 Three years previous July 2013-July 2016 (Opted Out): 2-3 sales/year Highest $123, lowest $39 2015-2016 avg. ≈ $68 2014-2015 avg. ≈ $57 2013-2014 avg. ≈ $68 So in summary, newspaper scheme means: >volume, but <prices. Each of the three previous years (opted out), volume was lower, but I netted roughly the same (or more) $ from just one or two newspaper sales, as I did from my six newspaper scheme sales in the last twelve months... In my case, volume does not make up for lower prices, and newspaper sales are not a very large part of my bottom line in either case. YMMV. Conclusion: Will be opting OUT again. -Jason Edit: Updated numbers. Two more (very low) newspaper scheme sales just dropped in.

Bill them what you feel is fair. If there was no pricing discussion beforehand and they have already used the image, they are basically at your mercy... IMO $600 would be at the rather low end of the spectrum for front cover use, obviously depending on distribution, but this could be quite higher. -Jason

07/04/16 - In Paris, The Lost Generation’s Lost Bookstore http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/04/in-paris-the-lost-generation-s-lost-bookstore.html Shakespeare and Company bookstore, Paris, France Image ID: EJHR0A Contributor: Garden Photo World Young woman sitting in a book stone in front of shelves full of old books. Shakespeare & Company, Paris, France. Image ID: BKEYG3 Contributor: Jason Langley (My image was zoomed last month, license showed up today)

If you look around online you can find some RAW samples taken with these cameras. I have played around with some of these files, and while they are fairly decent considering, depending on your needs and skill level you may have some problems getting consistently clean and sharp files. Noise becomes an issue already at relatively low ISO. Also, if you plan to correct for the rather heavy lens distortion, you will lose additional resolution. Still, I would imagine a decent percentage of shots would be 'usable' especially when taken in good light and sized down to Alamy's 17MB minimum (or even 24MB). I did some research a few months back and concluded that while prices have gone down and quality has definitely gone up with each iteration, I wasn't convinced that it was quite good enough for my interests- maybe next round? Still, they offer something unique and at a relatively low entry price, they are definitely capable of making images that stand out. There are a handful of images already on Alamy from the Phantom 4, as well as the similar GoPros, so it is possible to pass QC with one. -Jason

Not specifically, but generally, these kinds of images are made using: a. ND filter? b. multiple exposures as flattened layers? c. both (a) & ( b ) d. neither (a) nor ( b ) but: _____ Just hazarding a guess (perhaps Amril will share his technique), but shooting at dusk, you would most likely not need an ND filter to get a long enough exposure for the light trails (though it's certainly an option if you want to increase them, or if the exposure is too short otherwise). Don't see any reason for multiple exposures in this case. My guess: just a well composed, well shot, but more or less straightforward image. =) -Jason

NUJ urges all photographer members to activate Alamy's opt-out clause: https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/photographers-urged-to-activate-alamys-opt-out-clause/