Jump to content

Cryptoprocta

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. 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 that they are exclusive elsewhere.

  2.  

     

     

    The Prodigal Son,

    ​Might he be welcome back to the sanity and the togs community!

    Welcome, Jacob.

    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 alleged 'exclusive', he could have all his image removed from there if he wished.

    He has 35017 images on Dreamstime, and indeed was featured in their August Trends newsletter: http://www.dreamstime.com/newsletter-trends.

    He has 59,261 images on pixmac whose tagline on a Google search is, "Download cheap microstock photos for you advertisement!" (sic).

    Rumour has it he still has images on several other small micros, but I can't be bothered checking them all out.

    Bottom line is that, as always, he has swung a special deal with Getty, which allows him to sell their new photos there at a premium price (their existing photos have a different deal, but are still being sold as 'only on iStock'), but he can also sell cheaper on his own site, and whatever other sites he likes, other than Shutterstock or Fotolia, where he seems to have closed his account, at least on his usual name.

     

    So, save the cheering for someone who deserves it.

    - and a simple search shows he has 100,856  images on Alamy.

     

     

     

    He has indeed . . . took a deep breath and had a quick look at a couple of random pages . . . ummmm . . . what's the rule re: unreleased photos of indentifiable people offered as RF on Alamy?

     

    dd

    Very strange. I searched Yuri Arcurs and got seven images only, all credited to someone else. Searched on his real name, nothing. Tried Yuri_Arcurs, nothing. Tried "Yuri Arcurs" Alamy on Google, and got a video, but the presumed link to his portfolio didn't work. So my powers of detection have let me down, but I was interested in what DD wrote, because Yuri shoots virtually exclusively in a studio or in very set up outdoor settings, and real editorial photos are certainly not his 'known' genre.

  3. He complains about the falling prices within microstock and as a result leaving them, but didn't he support low pricing (although a little higher than they pay now) in direct competition with higher payers so I think its a little rich complaining now. If the microstock agencies had not succeeded then perhaps we wouldnot be where we are now

     

    Kevin

    He started in micro as a total beginner, so would never have got into the macros.

  4. The Prodigal Son,

    ​Might he be welcome back to the sanity and the togs community!

    Welcome, Jacob.

    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 alleged 'exclusive', he could have all his image removed from there if he wished.

    He has 35017 images on Dreamstime, and indeed was featured in their August Trends newsletter: http://www.dreamstime.com/newsletter-trends.

    He has 59,261 images on pixmac whose tagline on a Google search is, "Download cheap microstock photos for you advertisement!" (sic).

    Rumour has it he still has images on several other small micros, but I can't be bothered checking them all out.

    Bottom line is that, as always, he has swung a special deal with Getty, which allows him to sell their new photos there at a premium price (their existing photos have a different deal, but are still being sold as 'only on iStock'), but he can also sell cheaper on his own site, and whatever other sites he likes, other than Shutterstock or Fotolia, where he seems to have closed his account, at least on his usual name.

     

    So, save the cheering for someone who deserves it.

    • Upvote 2
  5.  Likewise,  I always try to be as accurate as possible and count 'parts' of people as well - eg where most of the person is hidden but hand/foot can be seen.  

    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 able to see the people distinctly.

  6. Putting the words together in quotes will help when that is implemented. There was also something in James West's video about disambiguation being worked on, but at the moment, no, you can't stop it.

    Thanks, that's what I thought :-(. I'm not convinced the quotes will ever be implemented, that's been 'on the cards' since I started here.

    I wonder how they'll get the long-standing contributers here to go back over their old files to disambiguate them (the only way I can think of is to give search positioning preference to disambiguated files).

    Still, neither quotes in keywords not disambiguation would help with the caption.

  7. I found I had some pictures show up in a search for White Tiger, and when I looked they were photos I uploaded on Sunday, with no white tigers. But I can see where the problem has arisen.

    They went up in the News Feed.

    Caption:

    "Members of the Royal Signals Motorcycle Display Team, known as the White Helmets, performing at the Glasgow Show 2013 on Glasgow Green. The team started in 1927; members of the team are all serving soldiers in the Royal Signals who perform on their 1970s 750cc Millennium Triumph TR7V Tiger motorcycles around the UK between April and September."

     

    'White Helmets' is also in the Esskeys, but the two I checked don't have Tiger in any keyword field, and I think I just copied and pasted.

     

    I usually go back into News Feed images and move some of the Caption info into the description field, to avoid this sort of issue, but in this case, I think I need to keep the model of motorcycle in the caption, as it's possible a buyer may be wanting that particular model, and I'd be inclined on reflection to put the make into the MainKeys also.

     

    Any suggestions to avoid 'white tiger' searches, or it it just tough on searchers? (I know I can salvage my CTR by putting this batch into a pseudo.)

     

    TIA

    • Upvote 1
  8.  

    I dont seem to take a long time or put an hour into it like some. Most of my stock seems to be pretty obvious, and only a few keywords seem to apply.

     

    That might be because you've uploaded so many similars: 70 pix of the same owl, for example. It will kill your ranking...

    And some seem to be virtually identical, e.g. four pics of a lady washing clothes in a river etc etc etc.

  9.  

     

    I've run across these images via the Alamy facebook page and many seem to be post-processed with clear colour alterations and so on, yet any I've clicked on say NO to being digitally altered.  So I'm finding this a bit confusing.

     

    http://www.alamy.com/lightbox/viewlightbox.aspx?LB=1139910

    You'll also find here on Alamy images with hundreds of people, performers and audience, at large outdoor events, with YES for model releases. Could be a genuine error, but when it happens several times ...

  10. It's a pity if buyers who perhaps have an ongoing need for images in certain subjects deliberately search for New files and get presented with a lot of irrelevant files.

     

    I've given up trying to guess why certain files are deemed to be more creative than others; certain buyers may find it useful, who knows? But certainly we're not serving buyers with an ongoing need for fresh images.

  11.  

     

    I must be doing something wrong . . . I get nothing but photos of grey whales under "new" . . .

     

    dd

     

    There is one sketch of a whale in grey/gray at the top, then 135 archival shots from Baja California with AFAICS, not one whale in the lot,

     

    Still not with you on this . . . I search for "grey whale" and filter to New and I get nothing but photos of grey whales, a full page of photos of grey whales to be exact, minus a handful of the bloke whose boat was sunk by a whale. What am I doing wrong?

     

    dd

    Did you notice I said I'd made a mistake and reported in my OP that I'd searched on Grey Whale (UK English spelling) and when I saw your reply I checked again and discovered my orginal search was using the American spelling "Gray Whale" with an a in Gray, and that's where the problem lies. I suspect that these images have something like "The seas off Baja California are known for their populations of Gray and Blue Whales" in the caption, and the search is picking this up, even though there are no whales in the 135 images.

    Like I said, because of their location off the west coast of the Americas, most buyers will use the American spelling.

    Added: this is what I see, and under this, the rest of the 135.

    http://www.lizworld.com/GrayW.jpg

  12. I do understand the legal need for releases or indication that none is available.

    What I'm concerned about again is from the buyer's point of view.

    If they do a search specifying e.g. 2 people, they are surely expecting the two people to be pretty prominent in the image. They don't expect to see a photo which apparently has no people, but we had to indicate had two people because they are little pixel blurs somewhere in the background. That must be extremely annoying, not to mention adverserly affecting out CTR.

     

    Can anyone from Alamy inform me as a statistical fact whether I'll lose more potential sales though cloining the blurs out and indicating that the photo has been altered (thus losing possible sales to buyers who want unaltered images) or keeping them in and hacking off buyers who actually wanted to see people.

    Often that sort of editorial photo often also has unreleased property, but I still think that if a buyer indicates a specific number of people, s/he wants to be able to see the people clearly.

     

    Added: for goodness sake. I tried to post this and got an error message: "Your post contains the following suspected spam word, T*E*L", which might be a typo but the only one 'find' can find is in the word 't-e-l-l- which I changed to 'inform' in the paragraph above.

     

    Finally, the one time Alamy changed the number of people indicated on my files, they made the number lower than the guidelines I followed would suggest.

     

    At the same time, there are images from e.g. outdoor performances with hundreds of people in the performance and audience, many recogniseable, being sold as RF with model releases indicated as available and I'd bet my bottom dollar that they're NOT available, and even in the impossible event they were, that the tog can match them up with the individual who say, "I'm in the photo, I'll sue".

  13. I must be doing something wrong . . . I get nothing but photos of grey whales under "new" . . .

     

    dd

    Whoops, sorry, the search I did was the American spelling, Gray whale. There is one sketch of a whale in grey/gray at the top, then 135 archival shots from Baja California with AFAICS, not one whale in the lot, though they're clogging up the Gray Whale and Blue Whale searches. Luckily they didn't also use the alterative spelling, though I suspect most buyers will use the US spelling.

    Relevant for Grey is pretty much 'relevant', creative has a more 'creative' interpretation of the term.

    Blue Whale isn't great on 'creative' due to the various whales and whale sharks in blue water (e.g. five of the top ten aren't Blue Whales).

     

    Since Alamy always says they are focussed on buyers, and these sort of search results come up very often due to the 'system', I'm astonished if buyers don't always complain about it. I'm often frustrated by the weird combination of words from all sorts of fields which come up in my measures almost daily.

  14. What can retrospectively be done about poor keywording, spam and poor search results?

    E.g. do a search on Grey Whale sorted by 'new'. See any Grey Whales?

    Similarly 'Blue Whale' - not one actual 'Blue Whale' in the most recent 200 uploads.

    A huge amount of overlap and nary a whale in the overlapped material.

    Surely buyers are really put off by this sort of thing.

    (I could give plenty more examples).

     

    Or is the idea that if you choose 'new' rather than 'relevant', your search result doesn't actually have to relate at all to the search term?

  15. May was very disappointing for me. Down from 4-7 monthly sales which I'd been managing for a while now right down to 2, and one of these was $6.05 gross: "Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article."

  16. Hello, total newbie here, just got my first 4 images approved.   Your discussion of RM vs RF is very informative, thanks.  Quick question - if you have assigned an image RM here, can you also license it RM at another stock agency?  

     

    I ran across a discussion about RM vs RF on a website for purchasers, and they were suggesting RM was better to purchase for advertising because you were less likely to end up with a competitor using the same photo.  That made it seem like the same image couldn't be RM at more than one agency.  

    Yes, as Ed says.

    It is relatively unusual to get requests for unique use of your image, but it's more money if you get one.

    If you submit the same/similars elsewhere, it's up to you to keep track of where each has sold.

    RM sales may not be reported for weeks or months, e.g. here on Alamy, so if you were ever asked for an exclusive use of an image, you'd have to contact the agency concerned in case there's a sale you didn't know about.

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • 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.