CarloBo

I haven't said it's healthy indeed, sure it is not for the photographer but it is for these MS sites. S****K revenue is up every quarter, while Alamy had to cut our commissions..

Do not forget what have been the latest changes at Alamy, they first allowed RF editorial and then cut our commissions by 20%. Now look at their main competitor (S****K), they have 290M of RF photos both editorial and creative available at subscription rates and pay photogrphers 25 cent a download. Can you see a pattern there? Yeah you can still hit some decent sales here, i also had a 9k sale few months ago on G, but I believe RM is dead.

It's just language barriers, people are vey friendly with newbies here But the second you mention microstock some experience a sudden involuntary contraction of muscles, some start playing (red) darts. I believe your work here is salable, i would just pay attention to some keywords. You have some selfies with keywords more suitable to a couple having cyber-sex? (Trying to help not to attack) Good luck!

I accuse no one of anything . . . but I do express an opinion . . . I'll repeat it, verbatim: "It's probably just me, but I reckon identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form". All I feel inclined to add is this: . . . the phrase "stones in glass houses" returns just 5 images. There's obviously an opportunity there . . . dd I have a good understanding of the English language, you, au contraire, have a bad understanding of poor forms...I do express an opinion too. I've given a couple of (what I believe) helpful advices based on my experiences and on Alamy guidelines (if some content is not suitable there's a good chance it doesn't sell, right?) Your only contribution was to express your obsession with bad forms. Bye again!

It's probably just me, but I reckong identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form. I mean, it's not like someone couldn't post an image of . . . just plucking this out of the air mind you . . . say a young woman, head and shoulders . . . with cut-and-past keywords indicating she's standing near a fence . . . but . . . ummmm . . . she's not, but the keywords were obviously copied from other images where she WAS standing by a fence . . . hey, it happens eh? :-) EDIT: Totally irrelevant to the main point of my post, but . . . who said glamour shots are very poor sellers? I know one contributor from a little while ago now who apparently did rather well from glamour . . . dd Thanks for the red arrow mate, I was just trying to be helpful. Alamy consider glamour as unsuitable material, not me. Cheers. You also need to be mindful that it's also very poor form to make accusations, even if it's just about the coward arrows. I do not dish out red arrows. Alamy see who do, and I can assure you, they don't see me doing it. EDIT: and just for accuracy sake . . . you didn't say glamour was unsuitable, you said it was a very poor seller here . . . again, who said it's a very poor seller? dd Sorry I might have seen wrong with red arrows but you are accusing others of using poor forms just because they are direct. Shall we make a poll and see how many time we have sold glamour shots and how many times street signs? Bye!

It's probably just me, but I reckong identifying an image then criticising that exact image in public (here) is very, very poor form. I mean, it's not like someone couldn't post an image of . . . just plucking this out of the air mind you . . . say a young woman, head and shoulders . . . with cut-and-past keywords indicating she's standing near a fence . . . but . . . ummmm . . . she's not, but the keywords were obviously copied from other images where she WAS standing by a fence . . . hey, it happens eh? :-) EDIT: Totally irrelevant to the main point of my post, but . . . who said glamour shots are very poor sellers? I know one contributor from a little while ago now who apparently did rather well from glamour . . . dd Thanks for the red arrow mate, I was just trying to be helpful. Alamy consider glamour as unsuitable material, not me. Cheers.

Image FJK0NB: Nature, Jumping, Sitting, Happy...really?? Glamour images are very poor sellers here, you might want to give them a chance as RF...but even in that case I believe you're wasting your time. Kids playing outdoors will do much better. Cheers Ca

The title of the thread was somehow provocatory but..strictly speaking any photo taken in France featuring people who did not give consent is a breach of copyright. As for my Alamy collection, I'm not particularly bothered as I don't make much money here, I see it as one more reason to do commercial photography only.

"In the absence of a precise legal definition of "private life" the notion has been spelled out by the courts, which have held that a person’s private life includes his or her love life, friendships, family circumstances, leisure activities.." and "It should be borne in mind that the protection of privacy afforded by article 9 of the Civil Code is quite wide, since it operates both in a public and in a private place, unlike certain provisions of criminal law." Alamy is not able to give any legal adivce, they know it's a public place. Do I have time to read the French law code and understand its possible even remote implications? Nope, it's not worth my time for one photo only.

I have no idea, pretty much unknown I'd say.

Thanks for your replies, i've used a precautionary and time saving approach and told Alamy they can remove the photo. But I'm disappointed it's not the first time Alamy deletes some photos of mine due to potential copyright problems, last time it was a Moulin Rouge photo. Now they have 1500.

I received this today from Alamy: Dear Carlo, We’ve received an email from the artist in your image XXXXX that was submitted by you to Alamy. He said that he did not give any permission to take and publish this picture. He has asked us to delete this image. Before taking a photo of someone you are required by French law to ask the individual’s permission. If you want to publish it in any way you have to ask their permission for each specific usage. Any object that is created by or is the copyright of an artist, or designer must have permissions to be published in specific contexts. Would you like us to delete this or would you like us to speak to the artist directly to resolve this? Please let us know as soon as you can. ************* It's a photo of a man painting some graffiti during a public performance. According to this: http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article640 I should probably delete all photos I've taken in France. Any thoughts?

Forget about RM-E...it's anyway an act of masochism trying to improve your income by starting today editorial stock photography...I'd rather look for a job.

It's no problem to snap one or two pics of the Sistine Chapel, everyone does but maybe things have changed in the last year. Galleria Borghese and some catacombs can't be photographed. Careful when taking pics of gladiators around the Colosseum and the Pantheon. You will encounter in Rome the same problems you encounter in all major European cities, pickpockets, ridiculous high prices in bars close to main landmarks, dodgy areas around main train stations etc...maybe a little bit more in Rome, because there are more tourists...because it's more beautiful

I received lots of negative feedbacks when I bought a 70-200, few months later I realized the mistake and sold it, I bought three prime lenses, they are lighter, cheaper, of better quality. My wife has never been happier.