Jump to content

imageplotter

Verified
  • Content Count

    415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by imageplotter

  1. So they do, and so do I, despite not being a surgeon. I have worn ffp2 masks for many hours on end most days this year and last. More of an effort from the organisers! The event was not one where masks for invited guests would have worked (there was as sit down dinner, drinks etc), but there are many other measures that can be taken to make an event more covid safe. I have shot other events where this was the case and have been to events where that was the case also. Why do you always have to get so aggressive?
  2. I don´t mind wearing the mask for that length of time (surgeons do it all the time), ffp2 are quite comfortable, I wear them regularly for a few hours at client bookings, but yes with glasses it would be annoying, agree. I wouldn´t expect guests to be masked up, of course, but they could have overall made more of an effort, the venue just seemed very disinterested. Temp readings were correctly applied lots of times elsewhere in the last few months when I had it taken, this one was a case of nobody having explained to the young staffer how to take the temperature, and only providing one device
  3. Funny, my trade/pro pass came through via email even though I didn´t even apply for one this year. Looks like they might really need visitors. It doesn´t surprise me, that the covid measures are applied so half-heartedly. Shot a client event this week and I was one of only a few people in mask for 6 hours, members of the venue staff were (nose hanging out most of the time), none of the 300+ guests were, of course. The event was advertised as covid safe, with 'temperature checks at the entrance'. In reality, a young staffer tried to take temperatures at one of 4 entrances for about ten minutes,
  4. Dunno. 🙂 Sorry for the whining tone, I was just quite upset when I saw that one appear on the sales history. They same publisher bought a few more at the same price and same time, but the others are all older, expired live news pics (also of cabinet members), so that part I can accept as the new reality for stock pics. But for news images which are less than 24 hrs old, it is a bit of a kick in the stomach at a time where we all struggle to still earn money with these images. My only joy is that corporate photography work, events and client portraiture are finally getting going again and
  5. Dear Alamy, Shouldn´t these stock clients on bulk and discounted deals have to at least wait for images to be stock, though, not live news, too?? This morning, I have a sale logged on my sales history of a live news image from yesterday afternoon, Boris Johnson departing for PMQ´s. Value of the sale: (gross) $4.58 (of which I then get...less than $2! Yay. The travel card was around $15) I stood in cold, shady Downing Street for 6.5 hrs yesterday on my little step ladder, from and hour before PMQ departures, all through the cabinet re-shuffle which finally finished
  6. Make mine a nice 400 f2.8, have needed that for ages (but didn´t have the budget). Cheers, PA.
  7. Thanks for checking! Interesting, must be a bug with the German site. Weird, as sales to German buyers do occur (and I have a fair few German travel pics also), so the images themselves are there, but just 13 come up under that pseudo. The translation thing is funny, although I wonder...perhaps I should do more searches under 'Imagetraceur' and its German/Spanish/Italian/Chinese variations, to find unreported uses. 😁
  8. On a separate, but possibly related note - that German .de version is flawed it seems. If I type in 'imageplotter' , only 13 rather boring, bland former news images of a 2016 Tower Bridge closure show up. In total. 13. In the .com version, 28,845 images show up, all those that have either imageplotter in the credit line or in the tags, minus any pseudos I have that have neither. Plus not only are the translated headings abysmal (leading to inaccuracies, which makes that whole issue around misleading captions/tags regarding our worries over certain clauses in the new contract all t
  9. Good point. Image numbers won't go down significantly, as expected, because it will have been individual contributors who have pulled their images, and compared to the big contributing agencies, any individual contributors are small fry, even those with large collections. Agencies like Sopa and Zuma dump hundreds of images on alamy every single day. Some good quality (depending on subject, togs covering high profile events with limited press pass availability are rarely twice-per-week hobby shooters), many very mediocre to poor quality. But the sheer volume of images will carry sal
  10. Looks to me like that is from the same shoot as other pics by the photographer Maurice Rougemont. He may have originally sent these to a French agency (Gamma-Rapho?) and they, or the tog, then also distributed to Getty, where there are also some from what looks like the same shoot, Alamy etc. Not sure how Reuters fits into it, possibly just a case of it being mis-credited, couldn't see that particular shot on Alamy or Getty, nor Reuters.
  11. Wishing all of you the best of luck where ever you may go with your images from here. I see the Contract Changes thread is now closed and I suppose there will be little further chance to discuss or comment on the issues involved for photographers here. Grateful for the opportunity to still have a convo with a few of you elsewhere. Alas, I've not decided on the long term regarding my Alamy portfolio, short term, I'm staying, most likely non exclusive (simply because it has taken so much work to get the portfolio up and running and I feel transferring the entire lot of n
  12. Yes, it probably does. Here's where it gets a bit murky though. I, together with many others (sometimes up to 40 press photographers, freelance, wire agency and the few remaining staffers, plus camera crews) often attend zoo press photo calls, at London Zoo, Whipsnade etc. ZSL want us to take those images (and whilst they also mail out freebies by their own tog to the editors, these are often not as nice and tend to be for online use or smaller publications who rely on freebies), and they keenly want to get coverage. So far so good. If we were to all have these images available for the live ne
  13. Ok. Once again, just in case - I have not given you or the other people you mention red arrows. Is that clear now? Sigh.
  14. I've not given you any red arrows. An am generally not too bothered about these gimmicky tools (which attempt to polarise opinion) and tend to use mostly just likes/positive arrows if any at all. Anyway. Back to the alamy contract, which is sadly not a gimmick.
  15. Vaccines are very important, but this thread is perhaps too important to too many contributors to dilute the subject now? Just a thought. Question - are any further/final updates still due from Alamy, or is this it now, in terms of the contract in its final form?
  16. "Also, Alamy is probably sitting on a good chunk of cash from accounts that have not reached payment threshold or erven have become completely orphaned with no bank account or other details; not making much from it with the current low interest rates though." Indeed. And now giving these contributors just 20%, it'll be come even more likely that they'll file a few hundred, not see returns, give up filing, leave the account dormant, not reach payment threshold and thereby increase the chunk of cash sitting around. Hmm.
  17. A tiny number. I'd hazard a guess that they're unlikely to be Alamy exclusive. If your stock images have the potential to earn $25k with one agency, why would you want to sell them exclusively through one agent. It's too high an amount to be a hobby-only collection, or even a sideline of a pro-tog earning a living with other photography, but as you say, also too low to be a decent wage after the % cut, so if it's to be a serious income source, spreading it would almost guaranteed optimise its earnings potential.
  18. There is little incentive for alamy to 'please the active contributors', and no evidence whatsoever that they 'probably have the best images' either, sadly. A tiny number of contributors are active on this forum. By comparison, the large agencies have far greater numbers of images available on alamy. (Just as an example, WENN Rights, 5 million + images, and I'm sure Zuma etc. have higher numbers still). Even a contributor with a large individual collection of 70-100k images is peanuts against that. Many of the large accounts who are not agencies never venture on this forum and may or may not h
  19. That was my conclusion, too, that they'd probably outsource it to a 3rd party provider. It could well be a bulk operation. I must admit that I'd have little faith in any of that developing into an actual advantage/revenue opportunity for the contributor, there'll be little left of the fees down the line. It's also worrying because control over that process would then be removed from alamy and with that control of timelines, quality of the process, etc. I would not want to risk p*ssing any clients of mine off. It's hard enough to earn a living in photography these days.
  20. Yes, and that is a problem for people with direct image clients. I do not want an agency hassling people who have paid for images or image licenses directly with me. It would be a huge no-no. Together with the liability issues discussed here at length (for which we are awaiting Alamy's response), those two points would mean the risk of losing revenue elsewhere or being involved in legal disputes would outweigh the forever shrinking income from Alamy.
  21. Ditto. I have a much smaller port, but feel equally trapped. A lot of work went into it. And with a lot of mine being 'people' images (up to last year, at least...due to covid it's all wildlife for almost all of 2020/21😁), and many London event news images, including lots of photo calls, festivals, protests etc, quite a chunk of mine is likely to be in the 'risky' category you describe. Ditto a lot of my travel imagery depends on people content. They're all marked as editorial only, but I feel exposed and vulnerable with insurers not wanting to cover the risks pushed onto photographers now in
  22. Thanks for checking with them! To be honest, I wouldn't have expected them to cover that clause. Doesn't look good then.
  23. Absolutely. I am not prepared to pay an additional fee to make Alamy more revenue, that way, it would simply turn into a money spinning exercise.
  24. Thanks for the info re. Simply Business. I'm with Photoguard also, but was also looking to tag on PI with them and couldn't get an all-in quote. May go to SB then for it.
  25. Happy to contact them, but I'm a small fish. Perhaps a letter signed by lots of contributors who are NUJ members would work? They did take an interest last time Alamy changed the commission model.
×
×
  • 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.