Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by imageplotter

  1. It would also be good to get a view from the NUJ (a lot of us are members), and others.
  2. I know I should be outraged that this is possible (I probably am), but you've also just confirmed that I am clearly OCD. I look at the page with multiples of that garden plan, and all I see is a document that hasn't been scanned/cropped to be properly levelled and upright. And it drives me mad. Help!
  3. I agree completely. Hope my smiley wasn't misunderstood, it was just an expression of my disgust with Alamy's disregard for their contributors. I expect a minimum of fair play in any business relationship I have. I feel these changes indicate that there is none. Alamy is now a business I cannot trust. They may not care about me, but how long until their clients feel the same?
  4. Sadly, I really don't think they're too concerned about individual contributors. A fair number of agencies contribute and file vast numbers of images each month. My impression is the threshold serves to keep them sweet and attract further. Last week, the Alamy blog announced that they had secured exclusive distribution of The Independent image archive with 70k images. Not a huge collection, but a unique and presumably potentially very profitable one. Agree with geophotos - it feels like a huge betrayal.
  5. Of course. But - as with so many of the clauses in this new contract - that isn't specifically mentioned in the text of that clause. Surely doesn't really reassure me. If going exclusive, it surely should also be ok to still sell direct via one's own website without Alamy then chasing my own clients for illegal use. But does it say so in the text?
  6. Well, given the frequency of changes within the current British government, I very much doubt that I'll bother trying to ensure that image captions for several thousand images from i.e. Downing Street remain 'accurate and factually correct'. I'd be making changes to job titles and positions on a daily basis! 😉
  7. I fully agree with previous comments. The commission changes are a clear betrayal of last year's reassurances, but can at least be seen as perhaps a ruthless commercial decision to survive. Perhaps. But... It's the changes and amendments to contract clauses that make me re-think my relationship with Alamy. If the risk - which will rise through Alamy possibly making images available for uses previously restricted by the photographer - is transferred to the photographer, then I'm out. If images might suddenly be used commercially but were marked editorial, or
  8. I think Glen is trying to file images from his Sony full frame mirrorless camera via the mobile phone and ftp set up on it. It's a route lots of wire agency togs utilise to quickly ftp unedited images to their agencies (who will then edit/caption properly before they go to the client). For stock (and anything other than breaking news), the images should obviously not be filed straight out of camera, but should be cropped, corrected, edited and captioned/titled first. So assuming that was done on laptop or PC, it looks like a tech issue with the ftp. I've had issues plenty of times
  9. Worse could actually happen. I've worked with one news-only agency who actually charge to remove images from their site! Here's to hoping that isn't their next idea. (the photographer has no access to their images after the upload, so can't amend heading, keywords or delete and image). Thankfully I had a very small port with them, just the occasional surplus news set that went to them, and luckily, nearly all were exclusive. I tend to not file the same images, but of course they are likely to be similar if it's a news event, and occasional accidents do happen with duplicates going
  10. That would be fair enough. If image quality was truly the main factor why certain images sell and others don't. But for a lot of common, often searched subjects, placement is key. And the algorithm for page 1 placement does not necessarily appear to rely on image quality as the main factor. Previous sale is rightly a factor, but often that means page 1 brings up images that are not only a bit dated, but also may not be of fantastic quality, they've sold before and are there, and so they will sell again, and so they will remain on page 1...at least that's what it looks like when I s
  11. The look and feel of this is more like cheap non-recyclable plastic.
  12. Yep, exactly. And I have the same bad feeling re. rushing into non-exclusivity, as far as their next move is concerned. If, however, this contract remains the way it is, I think that may be the only viable option. Which then simultaneously constitutes an open invitation for infringers (if they know the image is non-exclusive on alamy, they know they're unlikely to be chased).
  13. I wonder if that number includes the constant double and occasional triple uploads for the exact same sets (often large) from Zuma, Zuma Wire, SOPA etc. and other cheapo wires which clog the newsfeed throughout evenings, nights and much of the morning.
  14. Don't forget average sale price per image is also declining rapidly for many of us, as is overall income (even without the new changes applied). I very much doubt that dropping the threshold to $15k would result in 'a majority' being happy again.
  15. Let's be absolutely clear: This is a kick in the stomach of contributors. And an even worse kick in the stomach for all those who have - after the last set of changes, which favoured exclusive content - obediently changed many or most of their images to be exclusive to alamy. Sorry, alamy. You've completely lost my trust now, and you've lost whatever credibility you may have had left pretending to be a 'high quality' 'editorial' agency, rather than microstock. Cheap as chips.
  16. ...and then there's Sopa/Zuma sending through 2 identical sets of almost everything (as SOPA, SOPA Images, Contributor/SOPA, SOPA via Zuma Wire, Contributor/SOPA/Zuma Wire or any other possible combination of those) almost every day. I assume these are eventually sorted and reduced to one? But they linger on the feed for a long time. Similars are sometimes inevitable with news uploads (I know I've inadvertently done it plenty of times, especially with people at events/Downing Street etc), so I'm not criticising the photographer, but why do these agencies get to send them through twice, it must
  17. Yes, it also worked fine yesterday. The issue was Dec 14th circa 6pm to 8am or thereabouts.
  18. Live news also had problems 2 days ago (Dec 14th) where almost nothing went through from about 6pm onwards until the next morning, not even the usually plentiful Sopa/ZumaWire etc overnight sets. The images finally got to my aim the next morning and logged as Dec 15th, I assume this was similar for a lot of people. I don't think the issue is anything to do with the news team, it seems very much IT related. In my case, these were not urgent pics at all (and luckily I wasn't sitting on a street curb in the freezing cold with a laptop as you often do with news uploads), bu
  19. It does seem to have occasional glitches where one or a few images in a batch are duplicated during the upload, especially when the batch is somehow split during the process. (despite only uploading one batch from my side)
  • 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.