Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. 17 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

    For me, the problem seems to be that Alamy doesn’t appear to appreciate its uniqueness, at least the great editorial content that has always been its strong point.  Instead, they are trying to compete with microstock, but with the wrong kind of library to compete. 
    Maybe we should start producing microstock-type imagery that fits with the prices we’re now getting.

    Start shooting more of those pieces of fruit, brick walls, isolated objects, folks!!

    That's old-school microstock, Betty.

    What's selling nowadays on micro is released images of multicultural groups of people doing 'real' things.

    (Note: I'm not saying it's easy [or even possible, for most people] to break even with these expensive shoots.)

  2. 5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

    It seems a bit odd that a lot of people coming here from microstock agencies think that Alamy is one as well.

    They soon learn that there isn't the same volume of sales here, as evidenced by many posts on the forum.

    (OTOH, the glory days are well over on microstock for most people now.)

    • Like 1
  3. On 21/06/2021 at 16:57, Ian Cartwright said:

    Thanks for the advice, Steve. I have model releases. I could probably get a property release but I shall not seek one out, and take onboard the advice to make the images for editorial use only.

    You're fine for editorial if you mark them as advised above.

    It's seldom the owner* of the property who could give you a release, but the manufacturer.

    For example, even if I wholly-owned a Ferrari (for example), I couldn't give you permission to use it commercially, only Ferrari could do that. Ditto a Marks and Spencer sweater, or anything which could be recognised as being by a particular brand, manufacturer or designer - it's not just brand names or logos.

    *unless s/he made it themselves, to their own design.

    • Upvote 3
  4. 1 hour ago, Phil Crean said:

    Surely if the images were made before they changed their policy you should be ok??? EXIF data will show date the images were shot.


    That's the case in e.g. Scotland (and also the rest of the UK)*, but other countries could be different.

    "Article 7 of the Human Rights Act means you cannot be charged with a criminal offence for an action that was not a crime when you committed it.

    This means that public authorities must explain clearly what counts as a criminal offence so you know when you are breaking the law.

    It is also against the law for the courts to give you a heavier punishment than was available at the time you committed an offence."

    This also seems to apply to the EU.

    • Thanks 1
  5. 18 minutes ago, Jansos said:

    Known property restrictions (UK): Does Alamy publish a list of known property restrictions in the UK? I know Adobe does but am not sure how up-to-date it is. With the new contract I'm going to mark everything as 'no property permission' just to be on the safe side, even cityscapes. Not worth the hassle of being challenged legally for a few $$. Am I overreacting? 

    I've always done that, as OldAlamy required it. But now I've gone through and ticked 'editorial use only'. Such a tedious process and I hope I haven't inadvertantly missed any.

    • Like 1
  6. On 13/06/2021 at 20:58, John Mitchell said:

    UPDATE: Whoops! I'm wrong about the biG agency. I just noticed that if you click on the "creative" tab in the search results, plenty of RF commercial images of handicrafts (and of just about everything else) come up. The "editorial" tab is selected by default, so all my searches there have been in vain. More confused than ever now... 🙁

    How do you know these don't have releases?

    Their contributers often go to great lengths to get releases, even when it might seem nigh-on impossible*.

    I once had a file rejected there as a possible IP concern. The reviewer happened to highlight the extremely tiny area of concern, which doesn't always happen.

    I easily cloned out the mark, but out of curiosity went back to the site and found there was a red mark/rough splodge, which could conceivably have been a logo or bit of artwork, but was where something had been stuck onto a grey-painted object, and pulled off revealing the red paint below.


    *I've posted this before, but clearly I'm going about it the wrong way. I've emailled various people/entities asking for releases and usually don't get replies. One said "under no circumstances" would they permit a release on the interior of the building, as they wanted to control how such images are used, wanting to maintain a high-class perception. As there were several hundred of these on Alamy then (2011), I emailled OldAlamy to tell them. They weren't interested, I got nothing back other than the auto-reply, and there are still hundreds of interior pics on Alamy. There are signs forbidding photography on prominent show, but I got permission to photograph them for a course I was doing, but not for selling as stock.


    The person who designed the interior has been dead for over 70 years, which probably makes the togs think the work is safe to upload.

    Of course, I don't know if these photos were released, the togs having contacted someone else. I'd be really miffed if so - I emailled the person indicated as the contact person for enquiries when I got permission to photograph for my course.

  7. On 08/06/2021 at 19:06, JGantar said:

    I’ve been uploading my better photographs to major stock agencies for a little over a year. I’ve had good success with Shutterstock, iStock, and Adobe Stock (more than 260 sales of so far). However, I’ve had ZERO sales from Alamy. What’s up?  I not expecting to generate a huge number of sales from Alamy, but nothing at all!  Have other contributors experienced similar results?


    I had over 800 files up on Alamy before I had my first sale, and that was over ten years ago when the collection was much smaller. (I had one sale on my micro two days after my first six files went live. Although it was a small amount, I was excitedly doing sums on the back of an envelope - ha!) You're a tiny fish in a large ocean (as am I!).

    Also in general people sell more and make more on micros. I've only ever heard two people say otherwise, one had well over 10K files here and literally <20 on one micro; the other posted on a different forum that s/he made more on Alamy than any of their micros. As they post under a pseudonym, I asked if they could share the relative numbers on each platform: that was over two weeks ago and they have chosen not to do so, which is their right, but leads me to think that possibly it's a similar situation.

  8. 1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:



    Interesting.  Do i read highlighted correct that being open to public any art that qualifies is fair, regardless how long the art was there?

    That's how I've always read it. I says "Artists may find", so referring to artists who are still alive.

    However, I mark such as 'needs release, no release', and now as 'editorial only' anyway, belt and braces.

    • Thanks 1
  9. 34 minutes ago, BobD said:

    Probably more sculptures than statues, but both, in public places. Subjects that the original creator could still be alive.

    But statues could still be a problem if they were created in recent times. I'm no expert but I would think that the creator, regardless how they were commissioned, would still hold the copyright

    This is another of these questions which has different answers across countries.

    In the UK:

    "Artists who create sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent public display or in premises which are open to the public will find that their work may be reproduced without their permission in certain formats without infringing their copyright.
    This exception is outlined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is important to stress that this exception does not extend to all forms of public art. Art forms such as original paintings (eg murals), drawings, engravings or photographs which are exhibited in public places or in premises open to the public are not included in this provision.


    The type of reproductions included in this exception:

    The Act specifies that copyright in works subject to this exception is not infringed by:

    • making a graphic work representing it (eg a drawing or painting);
    • making a photograph or film of it;
    • broadcasting or including a visual image of it in a cable programme service (eg any appearance of the work in a television programme).
    • Provided that the above reproductions have been made in the following permitted circumstances, there will be no infringement of copyright if copies are then issued to the public, broadcast or included in any cable programme service."


    • Thanks 1
  10. 1 minute ago, sb photos said:

    Re indecent it’s a good job Mary Whitehouse isn’t around. I have around 10 images from the World Naked Bike Ride as it crossed over Westminster Bridge a few years back in my port. On Alamy there is a total 5246 images from their rides. None is porn. Will the 5246 images now be deleted by their contributors? 

    It may be a 'relatively' safe bet that as it was officially allowed in London, images of it wouldn't be obscene or indecent under English Law.

    But again, I wouldn't necessarily want to be the test case.

    I note their own webpage has the hero image - but not all of those lower down - posterised.

  11. 58 minutes ago, MDM said:


    I am going to do something I very rarely do bit I am going to agree with Bob here.  The modifications to Clause 5.1 are the most important changes by far.


    The only other one that would worry me is Clause 7.1 as mentioned by Mark above which absolves Alamy of blame if an image is licensed on terms that break a contributor restriction (e.g. an editorial only image licensed for advertising). But I think that clause might well qualify as unreasonable if they do not take reasonable care - what is the definition of  reasonable I wonder. 

    Probably (IANAL, and I know diddly squat about English Law) reasonable care is that the files on the selling page are marked as being for editorial only, and/or as not having releases.

    I do think it's possible that I could be losing sales to tourist companies by marking any even munutely risky images as editorial only (e.g. city scenes), but it has to be.

    • Like 1
  12. 28 minutes ago, Steve F said:


    Yes, it did occur to me that it was unreasonable of Alamy to expect you to provide releases when you're on holiday somewhere, considering they don't allow you to upload them anymore. But my post is too long already! Perhaps 'within a reasonable time' would be better, or 'as soon as possible, subject to circumstances'.


    I think the removal of the facility to upload releases is just because of the EU data protection laws, so outside of Alamy's control.

    Hmmm, other agencies located outwith the EU require images to be uploaded with the files, so moving forward, that would be worth them considering. The thing is that buyers might require to be assured that the releases exist and are legally sound, so can't wait a week, a month or ... though what will happen is just that they'll move on and choose a file from 'wherever' which has a release immediately or readily available.

  13. 59 minutes ago, Steve F said:

    A contract clause I don't agree with (and that I don't think would be enforceable under English law) is:

    4.1.9. where you have indicated that a Release is available, you must immediately make the Release available to Alamy if so requested;

    This should say within a 'reasonable time period' and then define what reasonable is, e.g. 3 working days.


    Doesn't affect me, but they should surely require the releases to be uploaded with the photos (but enforcing that retrospectively would be a logistical nightmare).

    What if the release holder was on holiday (even if they took all their releases with them on their laptop, they could be in a place without wi-fi, as I often am) or in hospital, or deceased? (Maybe in the latter case, the clause would be unenforceable)


    That's a clause to mitigate against OldAlamy's historic incompetence and lack of forethought/imagination.


    It's almost as unreasonable as the relict clause 4.4 You  will ensure that all Metadata including, without limitation, any and all other information pertaining to the Content: (i) is and will remain accurate and factually correct.

    Hey, PA, how much would you pay per correctly-identified wrongly-tagged file? I can identify many thousands on one particular two-word search alone!

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  14. 2 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:


    Thanks for the reminders. I remember reading both of those, and they actually make sense (no legalese double-talk). It sounds as if the prudent thing to do (still) is to mark all images with people -- recognizable or unrecognizable -- in them as editorial use only. Determining what is "property" is often more problematic as the term is difficult to define. As far as RF images go, I don't see that "pure" RF ones -- e-g. nature images -- need to be marked as editorial (RF-Ed). Also, microstock agencies don't usually consider crowds of people and cityscapes as editorial (i.e. in need of releases for commercial), if that means anything.

    OldAlamy was very strict about what they considered a person or a property, so I've marked tiny clusters out-of-focus pixels, and buildings centuries out of the architect's copyright as 'needs release, no release' in the past, and now I've gone through and additionally marked them as editorial-only (all RM). Oddly, I remember them once saying a reflection didn't count as needing a release, which was very surprising to me, but I think that was in the old forum, and I wouldn't be able to find it now. That was as odd as the example someone mentioned in the last couple of pages of this thread which deemed 'exclusive' a street-scene file which was about two steps down the road from a comparison image.

    • Upvote 1
  15. 12 minutes ago, MDM said:


    Deemed by Alamy would be better but they don't examine content. It is a gigantic improvement over the May 17th version. I can't see them changing it again so if it is a deal-breaker than time to resign I guess. With my content I am not at all worried by this. 

    Hahaha, "I'm a libertarian speed fiend and I deem your photo of a  'speed limit for safety reasons' sign to be offensive."

    I'd hope the Man in the Clapham Omnibus might find in your favour, but who wants to be the test case?

    • Haha 1
  16. Just now, MDM said:


    Again I don't believe that is what Alamy intend here. Just be objective and leave the subjectivity to the publisher. As news it will be editorial only in any case.

    Does 'assumed intention' have any currency in Law?

    The wording is that the content uploaded will not be or be deemed to be ...

    Yes, it's ambiguous: it could mean that end users or even those consume the end use will not deem them to be X Y and Z, but does that clause really preclude a lawsuit?

  17. An improvement on clarity, but still:

    "4.1.6. the Content uploaded to the System will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar or violate publicity rights; "

    How can we control what any other person will 'deem to be' any of these things?

    Presumably an anti-vaxxer would deem images of anything to do with covid vaccination offensive, for example.

    Ditto any Covid imagery might be deemed offensive by covid-deniers.

    That's still not a safe clause for suppliers.

    In Victorian days, not only were ankles deemed to be indecent, but only ferns were suitable plants for young ladies to interest themselves in.

    • Upvote 4
  • 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.