Jump to content

Steve Valentia

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve Valentia

  1. I would take it from that, Keith is exempt at least. His was the first name that came to my mind when I assumed some would be "exempt". I've held an NUJ Press Card since 1981 and my "license to news" was revoked, too. I sometimes liken Alamy management to the current Government (re: Brexit). You assume they know what they're doing, because they are in charge. But sometimes, their actions would say differently.
  2. I know what you meant. What I meant is that not everyone might know how old (or out of copyright) they are.
  3. I have many photos in old books. They are not in the public domain. Risky indeed (I've been known to sue before now)!
  4. Ye Gods. It's the end of the world (of photography) as we know it. And I feel fine. (Not really).
  5. The check box in AIM is called 'Image sourced from public domain' (not..image is in Public Domain). When you click the ? window, it says..."Public Domain images are free of restrictions under applicable copyright laws. They can include content where the copyright has expired, been forfeited or is not applicable." While this may apply to images taken by the contributor in question, it seems unlikely to me and more likely that these are images which have been taken by others and "found" by the contributor.
  6. I have to say I'm feeling quite puzzled (and perhaps a bit naive) about this Kieth. Is it the case that anyone can procure images in the "Public Domain", claim them as their own and send them to a picture agency / library for sale? Or, that the library can "harvest" them directly? One likely consequence is that snappers (even Red ones) could sell their cameras and make a living trawling the internet and public libraries for their sales.
  7. I've just noticed the checkbox for images sourced from the public domain, in AIM (Optional). Almost immediately, I saw this report in my news feed: https://www.dpreview.com/news/3907450005/getty-images-sued-over-allegedly-licensing-public-domain-images-again It had struck me as being a bit "risky" to say the least and I'm puzzled why Alamy are considering it as an upload option.
  8. Just to clarify; I think he suspects that he would have sold at least 20% less images had he taken the Exclusive option. But, who knows. I sold one on the first day of the month, which is unusual, and mine are exclusive.
  9. Fibonacci's Sequence. It's also great for dispelling forum trolls.
  10. I taught Mental Health / Psychology subjects at universities for many years. Without wishing to pry into specifics of your situation, I would say that it's possible to set your sights higher and aim for what you really want. You just have to learn to live with disappointment. I was once asked what encouraged me. I said...people who try to discourage me.
  11. A friend and colleague of mine (an extremely experienced photographer and Photo-press leading-light) tells me that he didn't opt for the Exclusive Alamy "deal" to retain the 50-50% commission rate. Since the changeover, his sales volume has increased. He has had 22 sales including 2 over $170, which makes up for the loss of commission. I asked if he thought it was a coincidence and he expressed suspicion, saying that it's entirely possible that Alamy could change the search algorithm in favour of images that would provide them with the best commission rates. What do you think?
  12. CR tell me that because my image was set to RF, it's not possible to restrict it against Personal Use sales. I've replied to say that I can remember a time when I’ve sold RF images for over $300. For that kind of money I'd be happy for them all to sell for PU.
  13. I have already emailed them, thanks. The image is definitely checked for "not for Personal Use".
  14. You do seem to take pride in getting your name in the forum. Many of us have got things backwards - we're trying to look smug by selling enough images to join the 100K club!
  15. My first April sale, but it's a bit confusing. It's marked "not for Personal use". But it's sold for Personal Use - but for $20 and not the usual $10. Thoughts welcome please. Country: Worldwide Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale. Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use 51 MB 5151 x 3434 pixels 1 MB compressed Start: 01 April 2019 End: 01 April 2024
  16. When I got there, the Leprechaun had already grabbed it and was doing a runner! It was the only day that week I'd left my camera at home, too!"
  17. 4 sales today, this was the biggest, high $$. The best bit was that I only had to go into my front garden to get it!
  18. Believe it or not, I also feel quite shy about photographing people (even though I've done it for 40 years now). I was once told by a picture editor that I was..."too nice to be a press photographer", which I took as a compliment (but it wasn't meant as one). I have carried a press card since 1981, which I sometimes "flash", and have even been known to wear it on a lanyard around my neck, which helps with my incredible insecurity issues (to quote Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull). This - and a big camera - helps with situations like marches (image 1 below). Where possible, I also ask permission to take photos, and then stand back for a while to let the subject forget I'm there (as with image 2).
  19. You're really getting "in there", with your images and finding shots that grab the eye Andy. So much better than the ports I see of building exteriors and shop front signs! (I'll forgive your Paddy Power shot, as gambling is in the news in Ireland). Great work.
  20. Thanks Colin, I'll double check and then see if works for the batch, but to be honest, the exclusive setting is applied when I open the settings. But it's just not happening in the images (in optional).
  21. I set it over a week ago and had a new submission pass this evening. It wasn't applied to it.
  22. I'm having trouble getting the "exclusive to Alamy" setting to apply to new submissions. I've got it checked under the "gear" settings in AIM, but it doesn't seem to be automatically applying itself to new submissions.
  23. ...Distributor commission. Just made a sale for $60. Minus 30% "Alamy Distribution Commission", which left $42. Minus 40% "Distributor Commission", which leaves me with $18. A 70% total commission "take". I give up.
  24. I would echo your first paragraph, to some extent. Last year was my best ever with Alamy (in 14 years), with my highest number of image sales and my highest total revenue. Not "fantastic" - I've just bought an old Honda 50 as a treat, and not paid for a house as one member did - but encouraging. So far, this year, I've had 3 sales, totalling $48, 2 for $5 each (UK newspapers with 2M+ print runs, on the newspaper "discount scheme") and one for $38, for a German travel brochure. A generally bad start, reflecting some of the years when I sold 15 or 20 images in 12 months. I may have had more sales, but I've opted out of PU some time ago. Like you, I have no idea why anyone would buy some top class images I've sold for next-to-nothing, and which cost a lot to get, for personal use. Then, again, I probably do. Why Alamy charge some peanuts and others a much higher fee for the same image is only a question they can answer. The question of why they are not being fairer to contributors with consistently higher rates is another.
  • 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.