Jump to content

Cryptoprocta

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. Tell you better than that: One of my sold pics was noted in the 'found' thread - but the licence said "Print only". So I questioned this with Support, and apparently 'Print only' includes online pdfs of a print publication - a totally new definition of 'print only'. (As an aside, it was also used in a different issue of their magazine, and I had to chase the second use up via support.)
  2. 4 RM sales; $77.16 net, CTR down to 0.33. Jeff, I also wonder why you don't report your below average months?
  3. How do you get on with pursuihng infringements in e.g. China and other Far Eastern countries, where many infringements occur (copying articles in UK newspapers in which photos feature)?
  4. 4 sales (RM) for $84.97 net. 3 to the same buyer on the 10th, 1 on the 11th, and nothing since.
  5. Oh, I should have looked here first. I have the same issue and I contacted Member services. Relieved to know it's not just me, and it's not a 'blonde moment'.
  6. I had three sales with exactly the same rights and $$: "Country: Worldwide Usage: Non-Editorial Electronic and web uses Media: Corporate website, single design Industry sector: General business services Image Size: Any size Start: 01 August 2013 End: 01 August 2016 5 years multiple web use incl. personal screensaver use" Two were the same file, and one was different. I'm expecting a refund too, although they might need two licences if they wanted to use the same image on two different web pages. Also, a bit concerned about 'non-editorial', as both files are marked (I checked!) 'need pro
  7. It's bound to depend on the type of images you shoot. If you shoot commercial images, that's your market. If you shoot editorial, your market is newspapers, magazines and non-fiction books.
  8. Oh ~ this might not be good news. Any time I get something printed in the Guardian or the Telegraph, they inevitably get 'lifted'. As said above, best to check with MS first, just in case they're a genuine buyer. If they're not, you're on your own to chase them up. At least best beach is in the English language, so it's a bit easier to chase up than those in Asian scripts.
  9. Because people told me my AR would do down if I had too many 'similars', if there's anything I have many photos of, I put them into a pseudo. For example, I photographed many vintage tractors on a Road Run (i.e. many "vintage tractor"s, but all different models and makes) and put them into one pseudo. Although I try to analyse why those of my photos which have sold, sold, I can't come to any conclusion other than they were what the buyer needed at the time. There seems to be no pattern as to subject, location and certainly no correlation with 'artistic merit'.
  10. Maybe there could be a 'reserve' which photographers could put on their rarer photos, i.e. 'this photo can not be sold below $xx'. At the moment, even if you had a genuinely one-off photo (and had chosen to put it on Alamy), it is not the rarity, or even the quality of the photos which determines the price, but the negotiating clout of the buyer. Negotiating clout might be all right for generic images, as said above, but not for rare content, where they have no oe very little choice here or elsewhere.
  11. It's a 'key client'. http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/783-loadsa-refunds
  12. ...or nothing. I just did a Google image search for the chocolate cake image by 'Google' on HuffPost and found it (among other places) here: http://www.clker.com/clipart-chocolate-cake-slice.html Clker's T&Cs page says: "Clker.com is an online sharing service where users share free public domain vector cliparts, or share public domain photos and derive vector cliparts from those photos using clker's online tracer." Users of the site supposedly upload their images to Clker and thereby release them into the public domain. Are all images uploaded the property of those who upload
  13. I just had that exact change too (though on just the one file). Almost negated a welcome Aug 1st sale. :-(
  14. Why not ask Alamy directly? I had a 50% refund in May from a sale made about ten months previously. I asked, and was told that they had decided not to use the image; it was unusual to allow a refund after such a long time (the payment had gone through last August), but it was a key customer.
  15. Oh, that's a departure in genre. No doubt his intern "didn't fully absorb" Alamy's T&C. or it was 'one of his distrbutors'. That's his style. When he made his big announcement about being iS/getty exclusive and was asked why he still had many thousands of photos on Dreamstime, he answered, "I don't know, actually, I'll need to reference my staff tomorrow" and didn't report back.
  16. Thank you, I found it and he does indeed have over 100k pics here, all of his signature smiley, happy, good-looking people genre. I clicked on a random 8-10 images on each of four pages and they were all model released. However, that leaves a lot not checked; but if there are any marked as no MR, probably he'd tell us 'one of his staff screwed up' and forgot to tick the MR box. There are many people selling the same micro RF images here on Alamy - Alamy allows that so long as they don't sell RF elsewhere as RM here. However, not many blatantly sell images RF here while loudly announcing th
  17. He is not a prodigal son. He started as a microstocker and still is one. That self-promoting puff is full of lies. He is by no means 'exclusive to Getty'. He still has his own agency PeopleImages, which doesn't indicate on the site that they are Getty Partners, and where his images sell for much less than most of them do on iStock (where he his photofactory has at least two accounts) He has 45,702 RF images on SuperStock: http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197 He has 24,210 images on Thinkstock, iStock's low-subs 'partner', whereas as an
  18. He started in micro as a total beginner, so would never have got into the macros.
  19. He is not a prodigal son. He started as a microstocker and still is one. That self-promoting puff is full of lies. He is by no means 'exclusive to Getty'. He still has his own agency PeopleImages, which doesn't indicate on the site that they are Getty Partners, and where his images sell for much less than most of them do on iStock (where he his photofactory has at least two accounts) He has 45,702 RF images on SuperStock: http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_4197 He has 24,210 images on Thinkstock, iStock's low-subs 'partner', whereas as an
  20. 9 sales, highest ever in a month; but only c$150 net.
  21. I do that, but I had Alamy change at least one pic with blurry people to fewer than I had indicated, and were in the photo, though fairly indistinct (enough to see they were people, not enough that they were recognisable). I think there should be some distinction between, "there are n small and very blurry 'pixel groups' in the background which are probably people, and I'd better cover myself by saying they're there and I don't have releases" and the number of people which is indicated to buyers, who if they select a number of people they want in an image presumably actually want to be abl
  22. Did you check with Google Image Search? I've found that anything I've had sold to the Telegraph has been on countless blogs, mostly from the Far East, within hours.
×
×
  • 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.