Jump to content

Joseph Clemson

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joseph Clemson

  1. What gets transferred to Alamy seems to be pot luck and the contributor has no control over it, although I'm sure there must be some underlying selection formula. I've found clips of mine which are both editorial and non-editorial, exclusive and non-exclusive.
  2. You could get video on Alamy by submitting through Pond5. Be aware though that this looks like a distributor deal (Global Partner Partnership in Pond5 terms) so Alamy will take a cut before Pond5 pays you your 40% (if non-exclusive) of whatever is left. Pond5 haven't said anything about the Alamy deal specifically so I've no certainty about what proportion of any portfoilo will be available through Alamy. Submitting video through Pond5 has its own ups and downs, not least that it is a USA based agency and (as I've recently discovered) UK based Professional Indemnity insurance may not cover ima
  3. This connection between Pond5 and Alamy is brand new and I for one have seen no detailed announcement from either company. From what I can deduce, Alamy has become a distributor of Pond5 video clips. I can't see any way Alamy would have purchased Pond5
  4. I've done a timelapse of paint stripper causing paint to bubble and peel. Not quite paint drying but not far off 🙂. Can't show it here as it's not one which has transferred to Alamy.
  5. There are definitely some of my exclusive collection showing up on Alamy, but by no means all. I now notice that Pond5 is credited as the contributor on all these new videos with no mention of the original creator (my claim to fame will have to wait a little longer). The jury is out on whether we will be able to contribute video directly through Alamy, but my betting is Not.
  6. I'm not sure they are going to make video upload available to ordinary Alamy contributors. The video collection on the Alamy homepage is just part of Pond5's vast video library. If you change the search terms you will find other Pond5 footage. Search for 'Bolton' and you'll find some of mine (not all my best work 😟). I think Alamy are acting as a Pond5 distributor in order to extend their video offering. This is all guessing at the moment as I've still seen nothing to announce this from Pond5 or Alamy. ETA. Clearly not all the Pond5 library is available through Alamy at this moment
  7. Thank you for highlighting this. I hadn't seen the Alamy home page. I can confirm that my Pond5 non-exclusive video portfolio is now available through Alamy. The price per clip is considerably higher than I have set on Pond5. What I don't know is whether any sale will accrue to my Alamy acount, or will be treated as a Pond5 distributor sale where whey will take a cut before giving my my Pond5 commission. Only my non-exclusive portfolio is available at Alamy. I also have an exclusive set of clips at Pond5 which garner 60% for direct sales, but they are not found in the Alamy search
  8. Said place is probably the best of the microstock video sites, since the previous best place 'did an Alamy' last year (only 10 times worse than Alamy). Having said that, my own thought about this email (which I've yet to see, incidently) is that the 'fresh' video will come from PA's own sources and ordinary Alamy contributors will remain frozen out. I still have bated breath though.
  9. I wish it were the case we would be allowed to submit videos to Alamy. One of the issues which has been highlighted by this benighted new contract is that I really need professional indemnity insurance to guard against the (however unlikely) cost of any legal action. All my video portfolio is licenced through microstock agencies based in the USA or Canada. Getting professional indemnity insurance which covers contracts in those countries costs about four times what it does for UK based agencies, simply because of the greater risk of legal action and higher costs in the USA. If Alamy accepted m
  10. For future reference, you can add caption and keyword information befoe you upload images, if you are using an image editing programme which allows you to enter metadata. Lightroom is a popular program, but not the only one an probably an expensive option if you are only dabbling.
  11. Take the time to look at how existing photographers have depicted, captioned and keyworded their images of the subjects you intend to portray. Historically, many of Alamy's contributors have been long established professional photographers, a significant number of whom specialise in plants and wildlife so you will face stiff competition. If you are visiting formal gardens and suchlike to take pictures, check their terms of entry don't prohibit taking photos for commercial gain. Enjoy working with Alamy, it can be fun but it's not a quick way to make money nowadays.
  12. I'm fairly sure you're correct, Martin. However, I look forward to useful conversations round at your place when you are no longer here.
  13. You need to email contributors@alamy.com. You might have to wait a short while as they seem to be rather busy just at the moment 🙂
  14. The point about QC not rejecting for trademarks etc is that the contributor, not Alamy, very firmly accepts responsibility for any potential copyright or IP infringements in images they submit (unlike most microstock agencies where they inspect for content as well as technical quality and reject potential IP infringements etc). I'm not sure all contributors (especially those who cut their teeth in microstock) have taken this very important point on board and are just pleased they can get their images through QC so easily. I'm not aiming these comments spcifically at you, Ian, bu
  15. If you wanted to make the image available for commercial use (advertising etc.), you would need to remove all branding and make sure iconic designs were not the focus of the image. You would also need to get model releeases from all people in the image and a property release for the premises. I would also recommend a strong drink and a close examination of the contributor contract to make sure you are familiar with the terms you have signed up to. Most people here would not contemplate doing any of the above. The usual pattern is to submit such images for editorial use
  16. I think I'll make a point of viewing the event, I'm always interested in learning more about what I should have been doing in my last ten years at Alamy. I'll also be interested to hear what they have to say to these budding contributors about the reducing commision, increasing costs, potential costs and risks involved in becoming a stock photographer. I'm sure they will be fully open and forthcoming on all aspects of contributing to Alamy. P.S. I have a lot of time for James Allsworth who has always done what he can for us. It seems though that much greater powers are
  17. I'm not a lawyer and this is not any kind of legal advice. However, it has guided me in what I have shot and submitted in recent years. Alamy introduced a specific clause to the contributor contract 15th June 2016. 4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas. This will include most zoos and wildlife parks as their terms and conditions for entry explititly forbid photography for commercial gain. This clause is renumbered 4.1
  18. I don't think you've missed anything, John. Remaining with Alamy increasingly looks like an impossibility for small contributors unless one is going to rely on crossing one's fingers and whistling in the dark. I was greatly struck by what formerlysnaponcalifornia posted when another contributor posted a request for clarity last night: "Your income is being cut by 20% minimum. If Alamy get sued for any reason by ANYONE because of one of your images you must pay the legal fees. If Alamy loses the case YOU must pay the damages. Got it?" That seems to put it in a nutshell, and a scary nu
  19. You are so right about this. The issue about these legal requirements being imposed on us is not whether we may win or lose in a court of law, but that this contract renders us more at risk of having to defend ourselves in court. It is no comfort to know that the party taking action against us has no legitimate case or the contract is unfairly written if we are stuck with the grief and cost of defending the action. It is this that frighten the life out of me and I am frantically trying to identify an affordable combination of insurance, professional association membership and setting of restri
  20. I'm sure that is the right approach and I have always been careful with what I upload and with captions. However I'm still concern that clauses 2.5 (ii) and 4.1.6 leaves an open door to interpretations of what is offensive, vulgar etc etc by goodness knows who from goodness knows where. If something can be deemed to be one or more of these things, I would like to know who has the power to do the deeming, espcially when I have to carry the can for it.
  21. For me the mental yoga is essential to how I approach the future. I only do stock photography and I'm of an age and personal nature that other commercial photographic routes do not appeal to me. If I can't stay with Alamy because the contract loads too much, unfair and uncontrollable risk on my shoulders, then I will have to give up commercial photography. And if I have to give up at Alamy, then I have to question whether I can continue selling video imagery at other agencies, given that their contracts have similar (though not identical) indemnification clauses to Alamy. I enjoy stock photogr
  22. John, I've looked at the contracts of some of the microstock site where I have video content. In broad terms (and I am NOT a lawyer) they look quite similar to what Alamy are presenting to us. One notable difference though is I can't see that other places have clauses quite like 2.5 (ii) and 4.1.6. 2.5. You will not to use the System for the purposes of uploading, posting, making available or in any other way processing Content or any information related to the Content: (i) in breach of any applicable law; (ii) in a way that may or may be deemed to constitute incitement to racial
  23. The passage you quote is actually much more recent than 1998. I originally posted the above replies which I had received in December 2018 from CR. I was corresponding with them on the diference between RM and RF and use of the Editorial Only box in 2019. On the basis of those replies I then felt comfortable with all my images as RM with just a few with the Editorial only box ticked. Now, having had full light shone upon the Contract, existing and revised, I feel much less easy of mind about it all and am still undecided what to do. I do know that I can't carry on as before and chan
  24. Had a quick scan of your portfolio and I felt overall the images look a little dark, leaning towards under-exposed. I know some of them are shot in the shadows but I think your main subjects would benefit from more colour, vibrancy and contrast. If you are able to it might be worth checking the calibration of your monitor.
  25. Many microstock photographers have thrown their images on Alamy without looking to see what Alamy really does, which is primarily editorial. Many new contributors have had the same experience as you relate. Some give up on Alamy and go back to selling on microstock, some readjust their sights and produce the kind of work Alamy excels in to see if it will work for them. You may well eventually sell some of the images you have uploaded to date, and probably get a better price than you would on microstock, but you need to adjust your expectations on the numbers you will sell. A good
×
×
  • 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.