Cryptoprocta

Me 3. 1 sale.

Wonder what's wrong with the 4,707 pics of Fremantle already in the collection? If you're in a city, there will be so much which would, for Alamy, require property releases that excluding people makes no logical sense. If you need one or other release (and don't have one, or many in a city) the file can't be used commercially.

Hmmm, I'm guessing Alamy wouldn't act first in requiring buyers to disable right-clicking and following up on that requirement, any more than they follow up on their requirement to attribute images, even Live News. Even if they did require attribution, it wouldn't very likely be on/in the image, so if someone screenshotted a pic, they could just crop in to the image. Then they'd have to ban legitimage buyers from allowing social media 'share' buttons. After all, if something can be shared on social media, it "strongly implies" that it can be shared in general, even to those without malicious intent, who would be surprised to know they were acting illegally. All the agencies would have to act together on these.

Not deliberate infringers, but people who just haven't thought about it, or think "Everyone's doing it, so it must be OK". Still, they'd need to know about the new ruling, and I wouldn't have known unless I'd read this thread ...

My distributor sales have dwindled so much I looked last week to see if I had opted-out then forgotten. Turns out I hadn't (i.e. I'm 'in'), but my last distributor sale was in January.

That's why it's the BHZ-game, not the BHZ-proven-science. It only shows our relevant rank for BHZ, which might be an indication of our overall rank. If most of the people above us shoot totally different subjects, we may be higher for any given search. I have searches where my highest file in the search is on the top line, and others (sadly, including in my favourite genre) where my highest-ranked file is pages down.

RM and RF are two different licence types. Both RM and RF can be sold as editorial-only or commercial. Files with all releases can also be used editorially, to illustrate articles etc. Rights managed means that a buyer purchases particular rights, to use an image for particular purposes which are stated at the time of purchase. These uses could be very narrow (e.g. UK newspaper, print only, one day), very wide, "Worldwide, print and online, duration unlimited", or anything in between. There may be some exclusivity involved in a licence, meaning no other buyer can use the image for certain purpose/s for a certain amount of time. That costs more, and is rare via Alamy. Previously on Alamy, any file which needed a release (property or model) had to be RM, but RM could also be chosen for files which had releases or didn't need releases. Royalty-free means that the buyer purchases the image then can use them in a variety of ways, which may be limited by a particular agency, or not. On Alamy, the price for an RF file varies according to the size purchased. In theory, an RF file should cost more than a non-exclusive RM licence, because of the much wider scope of uses, but in practice that seems not to be the case. Previously on Alamy, RF files had to need no releases or have all necessary releases. Relatively recently, Alamy has set up RF-editorial, whereby you can choose to sell a file RF, but indicate that the file must be used only in an editorial context. At the same time, they allowed us to choose to tick a box to indicate that a file uploaded as RM should be sold as Editorial only. But if a file has to be sold as RM, you can choose to simply indicate that release/s is/are needed (for commercial use) but not available, and it's up to the buyer to make the decision. However, legally the buck could theoretically pass to you, ultimately (see your Alamy contract). In the OP's particular example above, the hospital buildings would need a property release for non-editorial use, as well as the cars. But they can be used editorially (if OK under Australian law, which I know nothing about*; in the UK so long as they were photographed from public property, that's OK for editorial use [establishing what is public property, however, is more difficult than it seems. More and more public streets here in the UK are actually privately owned, particularly in London.]) *This may be useful as a kick-off spot: https://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

:-) Still, if you hang around long enough, the cost of time travel will come down.

Additionally, two other factors affect real searches: 1. Caption outweighs keywords in search (I've seen a file with 0 keywords at #1 of a several hundred pic result ) 2. diversity algorithm outweighs accurate keywording. This has been the case for a long time, but I've just been analysing 'leopard on road' and that clearly shows up both of the above. Alamy says (to parpahrase what they have said) that the keyword 'leopard' will show above the keyword phrase 'leopard tortoise', but in fact, as leopard tortoise is correctly in the caption, and the search algorithm isn't sophisticated enough to distinguish, then leopard tortoises are dotted through the search, along with bharals (on a snowy crag, not a road) which are the prey of snow leopards and were photographed on a 'road trip', ('snow leopard' an 'road trip' in keywords though not in images) Florida Leopard Frogs, a woman wearing a spotty blouse, cyclists from a team with Leopard in their name, a town which featured in a book about a leopard, the Leopard Inn (I suspect the new system split a lot of keywords on that file) a bus with leopard in its model name ... and two genuine pics of leopard on road are at the very bottom of the search. Must be frustrating for buyers. And also for suppliers. We know from Measures that a proportion of buyers don't look past their first page of images (often 100, which is the default). If these irrelevant files were removed, probably that particular search would be <100, so all relevant files would be seen.

Wouldn't it be nice if your name appeared in the files, because they'd copied your keywords, you had to get paid any royalties. Seems fair to me.

Ah, I just left the default settings, as although I have only RM photos here, I very seldom see [RM] specified in a search. Also, I'm searching on 100/page, which is why I see it on p10.

This has been discussed a lot (try a forum search), and the forum conclusion is that it makes absolutely no sense. Note that in Alamy's own official video tutorial to AIM, their examplar images have only sixteen (16!) keywords: https://www.dropbox.com/s/int98rsxud1usey/AlamyDiscoverability.jpg?dl=0

Just to show what I'm seeing: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1y9q1g191d1fjng/BHZ.jpg?dl=0 The pic is on the fourth line of that screenshot (page 10), circled in pink. (Creative or Relevant) Last week I found one of my files didn't show on a (small results) keyword search.

I see it right on page 10 of BHZ. I can't offer an explanation as to why you can't. Still, it's more important that it can be found via normal search.

At least two pics which caught my eye yesterday when trawling through looking for my file seem to have changed position. One was definitely about 3/4 way down a page but is now on the top line of a page. I don't know if it has gone up or down. But yes, we could indeed be at the end of BHZ supertagged images. It only shows that supertagging made a difference to our files.