Cryptoprocta

I'd think only CR can tell you that.

A LOT of what seems to be public space in London is actually privately owned. I don't know about where you were (and the site which looked as though it might have that info wanted me to unblock my adblocker), but the amount of privately owned space is surprising.

One reason for the price difference could be that PU prices are very different, when converted, in different countries. However, that may not apply in your case. You could contact support, but you'd likely get a 'causes more questions' answer.

If it had been personal use, it would say personal use. The low price is due to a negotiated discount.

Fair enough - I suffer from the same affliction.

What makes you 'sure' and 'confident'? They may not, but they are certainly opening up that sort of possibility.

Don't know how you missed the thread in August. Here's a screenshot, these are gross prices of which I got 30% (so not two for 66c, sorry: it was 3 x 98c and 1x63c) https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7042hzp3n0ikv2/AlamyLowPrices.jpg?dl=0 NB: these were NOT novel use.

Not necessarily subscriptions as such, but certainly bulk discounts. It has been mentioned in the forum several times in the past that the UKNS is, effectively, a subscription scheme, but of course we're not privy to the exact details.

I and many others netted under $1 on a bulk discount distributor sale in August (I had four, two netting 66c).

Because of my experience at my 'other place', I tend to worry when contracts change and get fuzzier. It leaves a lot of leeway on 'their' side to do things we probably wouldn't like, but which aren't spelled out.

I'm doing better with zooms, but converting them to sales ... not so much. Still my 3 sales this month make a total better than 6 in September, so it's not all bad.

It may mean 'absolutely nothing' to you, and 'not a lot' to me, but in some circumstances (e.g. selling physical prints, needing tearsheets, etc) it can be very important. I was interested to note that on one occasion a magazine used two of my pics via Alamy and one purchased directly from me via Flickr, but only the direct sale was credited to me, the other two were credited Alamy only. (That annoyed my Dad no end, as it was a quite upmarket mag and he wanted bragging rights!)

It's pretty common for images to be credited to Alamy but not the photographer. It's also increasingly common for publications to credit unpaid-for (donated) images, but not paid-for images.

Here are two 'things'. 1. If I were searching Geneva and got pics of Geneva-on-the-Lake, I'd be annoyed, but then I'd search for Geneva Switzerland. If I did that, the revised search wouldn't show in your stats. 2. Searching for Geneva-on-the-lake throws up a lot of pics of Geneva and Lake Geneva, because the search engine just sees Geneva and Lake. Searching for "Geneva on the Lake" seems to show mostly (only?) the American one. Why don't searchers think to do that more often, as searching using quotation marks is common in other places? But also Alamy could educate buyers in using quotation marks to get a cleaner result.

Looking at Creative search results and where my images place in them, that definition doesn't seem to apply to Alamy. A 'creative' search can have all files needing, but not having, releases. I've never been able to work out why some of my own series rank higher in Creative than others (but then, the same could be said about why some files rank higher in Relevant!). Also ATM for some searches, the Creative search results and the Relevant search results are the same (e.g. 'Glasgow'). (Other searches are different, e.g. London Bridge, but the top 'Creative' images need, but don't have, releases).