Jump to content

Cryptoprocta

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

705 Forum reputation = excellent

About Cryptoprocta

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Scotland
  • Interests
    wildlife, secondary editorial/travel

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={4A1A39F1-DE7C-4E7C-BDEB-21827D77A77D}&name=Elizabeth+Leyden
  • Images
    4786
  • Joined Alamy
    14 Mar 2009

Recent Profile Visitors

4,140 profile views
  1. These are generally search bot locations. I get lots from Cupertino (AppleBot) MountainView (apparently Google) also bots are known, and I get hits from: - Kiez, Germany - Kiev, Ukraine - Beverley Hills, CA (apparently a server for a wirEless phone company) - New York, NY Some of the common 'visitors' are mobile phone hubs. It's discussed over on their forum quite regularly. (Well, it used to be. That forum was super-toxic, so I haven't been there for a while (may be better now?).
  2. You should really be doing a lot of personal research on the benefits and drawbacks of the other places. Hint: independent forums are available, some of them are totally open, some have vetted membership. Read everything with a healthy scepticism; but also be prepared to have any presuppositions rocked. The figures you quote don't suprise me at all, for example.
  3. I doubt if many of us have enough sales here to detect a pattern.
  4. Yes, indeed, I hadn't thought of that possibility, which looks like it would be covered by that licence. I was thinking only of within on institution, which is Fair Use (in the UK). I guess we just have to imagine that, as this isn't a standard licence, the uses were discussed by Alamy before purchase. Well, I'd like to imagine that, but ...
  5. I realise it might be different in your country, but I come from a country where any of these listed uses would be Fair Use, so you just have to be happy that they were paid for.
  6. Perhaps I know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, the way this forum cuts posts, the conversation wasn't recorded as a whole. You said: "Getty Editorial, which is non-exclusive, continues to be 100% RM." To which I replied: Only inasmuch as their RF Editorial, which is exclusive, is bizarrely called "Creative Unreleased". AFAIK, that does not include 'Hot News'. What you said might easily have implied that all editorials sold at Getty are RM. "Inasmuch" means I agree with you, but only to the extent that Getty disingenuously calls its RF Editorials 'Creative Unreleased' - largely the same sort of images which would be in Alamy RF Editorial, except that with G it has to be exclusive. It's semantics and a way of them paying us plebs less. I could link you to my own examples, but that would be inappropriate here, as would an exposition of the history of this collection and the bizarre name.
  7. Only inasmuch as their RF Editorial, which is exclusive, is bizarrely called "Creative Unreleased". AFAIK, that does not include 'Hot News'.
  8. Or from people next to each other on a safari vehicle, or in a wildlife hide, or well known landmarks where there are only a few, or even one, 'ideal' view/composition.
  9. Well, I didn't understand it and orginally took 'artwork' to include statues, and lost out (a very little, admittedly) because of it (licensed a statue pic, but not for much), but now I have to spend more time reclassifying them as exclusive. Ho-hum.
  10. That's the link I was trying to refind. Thanks. While posting that, I found it's the same in Canada, also architecture: 32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright ... (b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work (i) an architectural work, provided the copy is not in the nature of an architectural drawing or plan, or (ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-16.html#h-1038
  11. You'd better make sure that for every Remotistan you're photographing in, you know their rules. In at least some contexts, a litigant can, presumably with advice, choose either the legislation of the country of the subject, the country of the agency or the country of the artist in which to pursue a claim. Some agencies seek to prevent this by stating that any conflict will be resolved under the laws of X. I have no idea how this would hold up in real life, and I don't see where Alamy has stated this, if it has.
  12. So the 'artwork' rule (re Alamy-exclusivity) is about copyright? I had thought from something which was written previously that it was because you might end up with two people having largely similar photos of e.g. a public statue. Does that mean it doesn't apply if the work is out of copyright, e.g. in the UK if the artist has been dead for over 70 years? I know that flat art in the public domain cannot be marketed as 'exclusive', but I can't find such a restriction about e.g. public statues.
  13. You'd better be careful. At least one other agency would consider these very close sister shots, so you could be clear for Alamy but maybe not elsewhere. TBH, I'm surprised Alamy would consider these two acceptable to have one as exclusive and one not. But they make the rules for their own site, of course.
  14. Because then G would pay me 15% instead of 30%, file prices on new files would decrease, I'd lose all my access to direct G. sales (a complete lottery, but my best sales there have outdone my best sales here for three years in a row), not counting the tiny Connect and PA sales, and my files there would lose positioning. They are failing rapidly too (really, G mucked everything up): although relative to Alamy my earnings there are good, they are down to about 1/6th or less what they were back in the Good Old Days, when I had abut half the files there that I do now. I just made a big mistake in firstly uploading 'preferentially' to Alamy for two or three years, then exclusively to Alamy for 2.5 years. I started uploading there again in February and when I had 60 uploads there this year (more since) I earned over $56, which is really poor compared to what I'd have earned several years ago, but on Alamy hundreds of uploads and earned $0, though a $10 sale from this year popped in this week.
  15. 12 sales, $120 net, so a better month (than the last few) on here for me. My 'other place' earned me 9.5x more than here in October, and I have c10% more files here, all files unique to each. they don't report until about the 20th of the month, so I have some time to wait before I know how Nov did there. I'm now on my 'highest licences sold' year here on Alamy (in ten years), but it's my 4th lowest year for earnings. Still, three years are c$220 gross over this year so far, so it could be better by the end of the year.
×
×
  • 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.