KFisher

Yep... Started off at .50 cents, minus the .35 deduction - a big .15 cents to me.

Having a good month on a few of the other sites but I'm dead over here. Two small sales and one teeny tiny .15 cent sale today. I didn't even know that was possible.

Not too bad - 5 sales $385.49 gross including one under $5.00 sale (lowest ever I think), and one $225 sale (on the higher side).

Nice little run at the end of the month with one tiny, one decent and one good sale. Royalty-free 5 MB 1566 x 1044 pixels Hungary, Web, One month, Bulk Discount, Flat Rate $ - tiny amount - ended up under a dollar... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editorial royalty-free Usage: Single company - multiple educational editorial use only $$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Editorial royalty-free 39 MB 4496 x 3000 pixels 4 MB compressed Image use: Editorial Details of use: Travel guides -print and/or e-book Image Size: 1 page Print run: up to 10,000 Placement: Front cover Duration: 3 years Country: World English Language $$$ - nice sale on a photo I was going to replace with an improved version...

No mention of location sold, so worldwide I assume. High $$ (if that means under $100 and over $10, but closer to the high side...) Royalty-free Usage: RF 56 MB 5440 x 3627 pixels 2 MB compressed

Royalty-free 5 MB 1688 x 1125 pixels 616KB compressed Brazil, Book, Bulk Discount, Flat Rate $$ - a lot less after 70% is taken out, but better than nothing.

Poor month here and at other sites. Only 3 alamy sales for about $86. Started off well and then. just. stopped...

The difference for me is that google photo search works when you're online. Google checks for that photo and brings back online results that match. I use google lens for photos that aren't online - for instance just in my photo gallery on my desktop or other application. I open my photo on the computer, take a pic with google lens with my phone, and it pulls up information based on the images which usually tells you what the photo is based on similarities with online photos. It's helped me identify church interiors taken in Rome, types of plants, landmarks, etc. that I couldn't identify from memory. Because of the way I use it, it would work on mac or windows.

I love this app! I use it when I have one of my photos up ready to upload of a church or identifiable building and I don't recall the name of it. The majority of the time, I snap a photo of my monitor and it identifies it. Really, really useful in those circumstances when my memory fails me (or I never knew the building to begin with).

Unfortunately, you are probably right. I just looked through your port and you seem to mark them the same way I do regarding editorial-non-editorial so we are on the same page as far as that is concerned.

I agree that it's a great option. I do it all the time so I can submit as commercial, including here at alamy, but then they're not recognizable faces, places or logos anymore so they cease to be editorial. That saves me some stress in the long run not having to worry about any potential issues down the road. Probably better for alamy too to be submitted as commercial without the logos, faces, etc.

I had that happen, too. Surprised me a little, but I also complied since there were no people in it, just graffiti and a few logos.

A very lively and interesting discussion and unfortunately one I wish I hadn't started. I will continue to select editorial as alamy requests if my image has recognizable faces or property. Thanks to the way alamy is set up, you aren't forced to do that which is great for you. Every other stock site, at least that I'm on, removes this whole discussion by making the decision for you. Probably, because they know many photographers won't check the box even if it applies. I appreciate alamy for that because other sites go way too far in forcing editorial on a photo.

OK. Your original post said this in response to my question: Yes- the UK, for a start, if the image is taken where there's no expectation of privacy, especially of a public figure, and no implied endorsement of a product. Ryanair does it from time to time. There's no right of publicity here.>>>> I posted this, which seems to directly address your post. If you still think it's irrelevant then I don't know what to say. We'll just agree to disagree on that: This is actually a better link which includes: "In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material. However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important."

Yes, I screwed up and posted the incorrect link. I've edited the post. Sorry about that. Damn - I used the wrong link from my post. This is the correct link. http://fotographicimages.co.uk/about-us/privacy-policy/ This is actually a better link which includes: "In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material. However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important." The key word is "recommended" I suppose.