isphoto

make it payable before download and no refund. My fundamental issue with PU is that it appears to have been very poorly policed with regards to use. Even presentation use is questionable. I would much rather see a min $/£25 per use, this would negate most peoples issues with pu. I do not see why i should pay more in car parking to get a shot, than the amount that someone pays for the image, it is fundamentally wrong.

For a long time now I have not allowed PU/Novel or newspaper subs etc for any of my images, while I don't sell vast numbers, what I have seen is that my ave picture sale price is starting to rise again 2017 (€29.64) 2018 (€36.59 and so far in 2019 (€44.27) now it s a way off the ave of 2011/13 of c€85, but Alamy do seem to be able to get reasonable prices again. If you don't offer your product at basement rates, you won't get basement rates.

Thanks for sharing, It's just a shame that the judge was not as pragmatic as this guy, this ruling WILL have far reaching ramifications

To be fair to Alamy (and I've been one of the knockers in the past) this is reflective of a change in pace of the times,. With so much "subscriber" content via phones etc streaming live from an event, Live news has become just that "live". So i am guessing that to be in with a chance of selling a news image, that the one hour is actually being generous. Most of the guys I know doing what I would call "news" have their wifi enabled cameras linked to their phones for a quick edit and caption, and then away to the picture desk, they are doing it on the run now, not waiting to get back to the coffee shop to set up the laptop. Apologies if this has already been stated.

1

"As I said in a previous post, the clerkess claimed she "didn't know" about whether a website designer had designed the site, and wouldn't find out for me". Before going to the press etc etc, send a letter to the MD/Lead partner of the legal firm (requesting a response within 14 days) and an invoice , outlining that they have breached your copyright. The "Clerkess" is likely too far down the food chain to be effective. If the law firm have commissioned an external web designer then it's for them to seek redress from the web designer, you are claiming payment from the law firm as they are the ones using your image commercially.

Works for me. many thanks

So students paying thousands in fees, gets to be subsidised by Alamy ! Also if this is for a dissertation why is the licence in perpetuity? And really, the fee if correct, goes beyond a joke, it will cost more for Alamy to raise the invoice and collect. I had a tv production co onto me today for an image, they said they had no budget and wanted use for perpetuity. They got and agreed to a good three figure sum and a very limited duration license. All it takes is for someone to say no and go back with a realistic price/terms.

You could upload a copy of the image with the new ref and then delete the original. Once you have copied over the key wording etc

Not that my lowly sales will matter to Alamy, but my main reason for staying with them has been that they did not do subscriptions sales and I had the option of not par-taking in the peanuts newspaper/novel scheme etc, this contract is now looking more like a dictate than a contract. I was only looking at my average sales value per image yesterday and was smiling at how they appeared to be creeping back up and bucking the downward trend of the past few years. 30% up on this time last year.

Agree totally, if this is indeed the reasoning behind this change then it is now the final leg of the rapid race to the bottom.

This works well in a face to face retail environment where a supplier gives samples/tastings, but they will then get repeat sales for more of that product that benefits them, not a competitor supplier. Lets face it we are all competing suppliers. Once a user has used the image of a flower pot, thats it, they are not likely to use that image again and then pay for it are they? Personal use could not be policed effectively, so I guess any restrictions on use for free/sample images will likely not receive the required compliance checks and importantly follow on billing for breach of restrictions.

Now Getty is back in family hands, who knows........

If I read this correctly, by removing the clause, we are now free to chase as the first party, even if an alamy credit is present. I for one will be much happier chasing infringers down as I can prove higher sales rates in court when claiming directly. It will be interesting to understand Alamy's view on how long is acceptable to wait for a sale to show up before contributors start hounding Alamy customers for infringement (from publication/use online), one month, three months? Also will Alamy agree once notified of an infringement and that we are chasing it, that they will not retrospectively sell a license at a lower price than rate card following this notification.

So if its the same meaning, why change it?