Jump to content

Joseph Clemson

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,025
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joseph Clemson

  1. I think the first question which comes to mind is what is the piurpose of the site? You don't seem to have any way of your images being licenced or available for print. There are no links to any stock agency? If you are just using it as a way of displaying your photos, in what way does having your own website have an advantage over any of the photo sharing sites, where they are far more likely to get found and viewed? The other question which comes to mind is whether having a gallery of cockfighting pictures is a good idea. Cockfighting is illegal in the UK and in most civilised countries around the world. Whether or not it is legal wherever these pictures originate, I don't think I would want to be interacting (as a buyer or an artist) a website where what I view as an abhorrent practice is being prominantly displayed. Other questions about the design and viewability of the website are subsumed in significant by my inital impressions above. The website may have potential, but at the moment I'm not sure what it is intended to do
  2. I don't know if it's customary, but certainly Measures is not responding at the moment.
  3. A while ago Alamy gave me this answer to that question: With RM, the customer has to declare details of the use before a license is issued i.e. what the use is, what size they need, how long the image will be used for etc. With RF the customer simply has to pick a size they want, and they can use that however, wherever and whenever. Both license types can be used for editorial or commercial, but RF is often more associated with commercial as they are usually released images, and the customer doesn’t have to declare all the details of the use. This is why we have always advised that images that contain unreleased people and property should be RM, as this reduces the risk of the image being used commercially. When we introduced RF-Editorial, you could have annotated the unreleased images as RM or RF-Ed. So long as you have annotated that the image contains people/property, and that there are no releases, the onus will be on the customer to clear the image for commercial use if that was what they wanted to use it for.
  4. I like the image. There's a bus every 10 minutes from Liverpool One to Menlove Avenue, the location of John Lennon's childhood home. From there is it 10 minutes walk to Strawberry Field and a further 20 minute walk, circling back, to Eleanor Rigby's grave. Another 15 minutes walk will take you through some interesting architecture through Allerton and back full circle to Menlove Avenue. If you were adventureous, another 20 minute walk would take you to Paul McCartney's childhood home. As a bonus the 76 bus goes past Penny Lane and the 'shelter in the middle of the roundabout'. The only reason not to do this is, unless you are a big fan of the Beatles, is that the subjects are already very well covered on Alamy. On the other hand you have the fitness benefits of all that walking .
  5. I have no wish to seem unhelpful or negative in any way, but it is certainly the case that Alamy normally remove references to any competitor stock library quoted in a discussion. In extreme cases they will delete the entire thread. this has happened many times. I make the point again because if the discussion continues in this way, an otherwise helpful thread woudl be in danger of disappearing altogether. Alamy moderators work UK business hours, so nothing will happen until tomorrow morning (about 12 hours from now). The guideline may not be explicit, but the policy is covered in the guideline point We’ll remove any posts that contain shameless self-promotion or advertising. Kind of goes without saying but we would also expect you to not promote or link to other photography forums.
  6. We need to be clear here. Discussing other stock sites is strictly against Alamy's rules for this forum. It is a surefire way to get an entire thread deleted. There are other forums which discuss microstock in general, but this is not one of them.
  7. I'm wondering why they are showcasing an image which is widely available at multiple microstock sites at a fraction of the cost of Alamy's offering, and is easily discoverable as such. I can't help but think there may be many worthy images here which showcase Alamy as a different kind of image library. I don't say all showcase images ought to be exclusive here, but it would be nice to see that loyalty to Alamy is promoted.
  8. It's difficult, almost impossible, to make any meaningful comment on an image which has failed QC unless we can see some or all of the original submision at 100%. It is possible to do this by hosting the (prudently watermarked) at a web location which allows a 100% view without further processing. At this point I am unable to advise further because I've never done it and I don't know which image website(s) is best place for this facility - perhaps someone with relevant expereince can add further enlightenment?
  9. The caption is absolutely key to your images being discovered by buyers. It needs to be literal and descriptive. Add evocative and emotional words only if the image strongly conveys those things, Alamy is not a place for cute titles. The keywords (tags) are equally important. Put in the things which are in the picture and leave out those things which are not in the picture. Again, emotions and moods should be included if the picture genuinely conveys them. Your pictures have promise, but are unlikely ever to sell as you presently describe them.
  10. The Bolton Food Festival this last weekend was festooned with signs advising the public that filming and photography would be taking place and that official photographers wearing ID could be approached and asked not to film/photograph them. No mention was made of non-official photographers, nor that the whole event was taking place on public highways. It is a slightly worrying development for the stock photographer that people in public places may be encouraged to think that they can approach a photographer and tell them not to go about their legitimate business.
  11. Difficult to say for sure without the box they came in. Do you have a location, just in case they are a local speciality?
  12. Not quite the Law of the Sod. I've noticed previously that Friday updates can sometimes be a little later in the morning than the rest of the week. I kind of imagine the person who pushes the 'Update' button having a weekly meeting (on sales?) each Friday morning, taking ten minutes for a cuppa to recover from the trauma and then, and only then, reaching for the update button. Except today isn't Friday, of course.
  13. The dashboard updates daily, weekdays only, around the start of the UK business day (say 9am GMT or BST depending on the time of year). You can see near-instantaneous records of sales made on your account by clicking on 'Download Sales Report'. This gives you the 'Net Revenue Sales Report' which has a multitude of parameters. Set the date range to end at the current day and the dropdown tab to 'date of Invoice'. If you then refresh the report you will see any sales appear as the sale is made. I have this report permanently open and refresh it (in hope exceeding expectation) every hour or two when I'm at my desk.
  14. I use the Collections feature in Lightroom. I have a collection set 'Alamy' and inside that set, sub-collections '1. Processed', '2. Submitted' and '3. Accepted'. The RAW images are imported into Lightroom and the ones I choose to process are dragged into those collections in succession, deleting them from the prior collection as they move through the process. The RAW file itself never moves on the disk (I import into named folders by year and month taken). As I work in batches of about 10-20 images at a time, it is very easy to select the batch and drag them all to the relevant collection and delete the whole batch from the prior collection at the same time. The finished JPEG is not indexed in Lightroom. I simply export it from Lightroom, initially to an 'Alamy submissions' folder and then, when QC is complete and I have completed the metadata in AIM, move it to an 'Alamy Accepted' folder. The JPEG file name describes the image and includes the original RAW file number.
  15. For Alamy, the question of people is easy. If a person or any part of a person (however little) appear in an image, you must obtain a signed release if you want to sell the image for commercial purposes. This includes distant people who may seem unrecognisable. Other agencies operate different policies but at least with Alamy, you know where you stand. The verbal consent you mention for some magazine presumably is in the context of an editorial use of an image, for which no release would be required. If the use were commercial it would be dodgy to rely on verbal consent as such consent could always be denied later on if some dispute arose.
  16. Looking at your images, you seem to be leaning towards the commercial use of your pictures rather than editorial, which is fine. In your situation I would get property releases signed for anything which might be viewed as property. I can see a woven design which may be an original design by someone you know, or may be a copy of something else. A buyer of a commercial photo would be reassured that no copyright issues might arise down the line if you were able to supply a property release. Same with the wooden bowl. Having properly obtained and signed property releases for commercial images maximises the chance of the image selling. I can't see any branding on the spade, but examine things like that carefully in case there are small ID or branding marks in the image. If you are aiming for commercial use, you an always clone out such branding, except where the overall design may be recognisable and copyright. If the location used is private property and recognisable from the image (none of your current images come in this category) then I would get a property release form for it signed. If the property were ever sold to another person, the property release would remain valid (though strictly speaking you should probably tell a prospective buyer about their existence). It's not likely to ever become an issue, but it is the safest way. My other piece of advice would be to get model and property releases signed immediately and kept safe, even if Alamy doesn't need to see them straightaway. Other agencies, if you choose to upload to them, will require a copy of the release, not just a tick in a box. More importantly, you can't always be sure of getting a release some years down the line if one is requested. People move on, relationships change, contacts are lost. If you have the release now, it remains valid even if personal situations change. If you include yourself (or even part of yourself) in an image, sign and retain a model release.
  17. Nowadays I usually shoot video if the light is flat and rather poor for still imagery. The lower light levels enable me to get a 1/50 shutter speed without having to reach for the variable ND filter. Brightish flat light under a thin grey cloud is good though when shooting stills in the city streets, avoiding the harsh contrast between shadows cast by tall buildings and pools of bright sun.
  18. Basically, unless your are primarily a live new photographer, Alamy don't want to know any more, as far as live news access goes. They will allow occasional live news type pictures from non-live news contributors through the Reportage route (search forum for recent discussion on the subject if you want to know more). Reportage doesn't appear in the live news stream but it does appear in the library within 24 hours.
  19. The perception purely from the picture alone is that the photographer is close to the horse and, therefore, probably on private property. There is no wider context to indicate otherwise. If the picture is editorial use then it is not greatly relevant whether the image was taken from a public highway, or from private land where the photographer was working with the tacit permission of the owner. However, if I were a buyer looking for a commercial use, I would want to be sure that there was no possibility that the property owner (location and horse) would not object. Therefore, in the light of my perception of the image and not being cognisant of it being taken from a public highway, I would look for a property release for the location itself as well as the horse.
  20. It looks like the image is taken on a piece of private property, someones farm or stable. Therefore, if you were wanting to sell this picture for commercial use you would need a property release for the site itself. The horse is also property and a further release would be needed for commercial use. If it were me I would be looking simply to sell the photo for editorial use, I would have satisified myself beforehand that there were no explicit restrictions on photography for 'commercial purposes', i'e. photographs intended for sale. I would also try to make sure the horse was not particularly significant (not a Derby winner and not therefore recognisable to hundreds of racegoers!). In those circumstances I would leave the property and model release boxes unticked so the buyer can decide. If the horse was significant and well known, I would also tick the Editorial Only box as an additional safeguard. If I wanted to use the photo commercially I would ask the stable owner for the two property releases.
  21. I use standalone Lightroom 4.4 and add all my captions and keywords there before uploading to Alamy. I've never had any problem with either captions or keywords when uploading images, and certainly nothing like the problem you describe. I usually surround multi-word phrases with double quotes, as well as separating each phrase or word with commas. The only time I have an issue is when I leave out one of a pair of double quotes and it misleads the import engine into dividing the phrases incorrectly. If multi word tags are being divided into individual words it suggests some form of punctuation or tab (possibly invisible) is being placed between the words. However, I have no idea what would cause keywords to be duplicated in the way you describe. The only solution I can think of is to contact Contributor Relations, attach an image which has misbehaved in this way, and ask them to look at the embedded data in the images and see if they can identify what is causing this phenomenon.
  22. Alamy have said that they are not planning to accept new contributors for video submissions, even from those of us who are long-standing stills contributors. They have focussed their resources on the current stills library and their iphone stock app which cannot be discussed in this forum, by decree of Alamy. Alamy also forbid naming of competitor agencies, so we can't really discuss much. However, the one you mention hardly ever sells any still images anyway. The four big microstock agencies all do video and they are your best bet if you are a generic photographer/videographer (except one big G which I wouldn't touch with a bargepole).
  23. As far as I know you cannot use a photograph or part of a photograph taken by another photographer and then submit the combined photo to Alamy as your own work. it doesn't matter whether it is RF or not, the issue is that another photographer owns the copyright on the photo you may plan to use, and they alone retain the right to licence it. If an end user chooses to licence both photos and combine them in a layout of their own choosing, they are may be at liberty to do that, but we as contributors cannot take another photographer's copyright work, in whole or in part, and then submit it to Alamy in our own name. If you need to improve an image in the way you describe, the only options are to re-shoot the image in more favourable conditions, or shoot another image yourself which gives you he background you desire, enabling you to produce a composite image of which you own the copyright of all the elements in the image..
  24. You have to own the copyright of any image you submit to Alamy. If you use a part of someone else's image then the image is no longer entirely your own. There's nothing to stop you using elements of other images of your own to change skies or backgrounds - I know other contributors here have mentioned doing it. However, you should be wary of doing it on editorial images, which are supposed to be submitted with minimal editing.
  25. I'm all for competitors culling their portfolios, especially where they have images which compete directly with mine. In all honesty, apart from removing similars which pull down one's CTR, I can't see any downside in a competent photographer retaining images which may eventually sell. There is no obvious cost to doing so.
×
×
  • 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.