Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Forum reputation = neutral

About yanmac

  • Rank
    Forum newbie


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    15 Dec 2017

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Can I link to one of my photos on Alamy, instead of sending visitors to my general profile page?
  2. Hi Oidige, I think your title probably intended to say "Images for sale with poor DISCOVERABILITY" I've recently found the answer after years of guessing. 1. Put 50 keywords for each photograph - I think it starts getting into the green with two orthree less than fifty. You can't put in more than 50. 2. Star ten of the kewords. I think that will move your photo to the optimized category. That is what the computer thinks. I am hoping that optimized photos really ARE more discoverable.
  3. Does the stuff in the right column about Alamy pic needs mean what it seems to? If the middle of the tweet says fremantle, does that mean that I should take hundreds of pictures of fremantle? If that is the case, it could be very helpful indeed.
  4. Thanks for all the good advice. There's a realistic bit of graffiti showing a snake with all its scales that's about three or four stories high on a blank wall. So, that would probably be rejected. It's probably too late anyhow, because last time I passed there the cranes were there to create or modify buildings. Fremantle is stuffed with heritage buildings. But the ground floor has mostly been changed to modern rubbish. So I mostly photographed buildings to show the Victorian architecture top stories, avoiding the people teeming below. I've just submitted 75 photos, so here's hoping.
  5. Thanks Cryptoprocta, The Australian Copyright Council is as confusing as most legal documents - presumably because the legal matters need a court case to decide what they mean! Here is an extract: Do I need permission to photograph artworks displayed in public places? The generally accepted interpretation of the relevant provision in the Copyright Act is that you may photograph a “sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship” which is publicly displayed “other than temporarily” without permission. There is, however, a technical argument that neither underlying works in such sculptures and craft works nor pre-existing design drawings are covered under that provision, and that permission is still required for the indirect reproduction of these works in a photograph of the sculpture or craft work. Although, we are not aware of any cases in which this argument has been raised in court. You will generally need permission to photograph other public art, such as murals. Now, to me "sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship" includes graffiti. But apparently it doesn't because I need permission to photograph murals. I think that I'll be including people more freely in future. I've mostly tried to exclude them, which is very limiting. Alamy wants pictures of Fremantle, and getting pictures without including people is very difficult indeed. I suppose if I got there very early in the morning there might be fewer people, but it is two hours away by public transport, which doesn't run much before daybreak.
  6. Many thanks to all of you who replied to my query. Especially Betty who gave such a clear explanation in such a way that I can apply it immediately. Ian McAllister
  7. Sorry Betty, I'm a beginner and don't know what RM and RF-editorial mean. I'll have to look up the Australian law again, but I think that anything that can be photographed from public property such as a road has no restrictions on photography. The same applies to sculptures, but not to paintings. My sister is called Betty. Ian McAllister
  8. I spent many hours taking some amazing photos of the new hospital buildings, then realized that they may not be usable. There are extensive car parks surrounding the buildings night and day. So, the buildings can not be photographed without including scores of motor vehicles, unless I photograph only the tops of the buildings. Am I right in thinking that this situation prevents me submitting photographs of the new buildings, or is it like crowd scenes where a release is not needed because the subject of the photograph is not the people? I've spent hours on Lightroom cleaning up the edges of the photos, and had started blurring the visible number plates on the cars, when I started to wonder if that would be enough. Ian McAllister
  9. I've a horrible feeling that I know the answer to this problem - the transmission cables under the oceans from eight time-zones away cause delays. Here goes. When I FTP 20 files to Alamy, about nine of them fail to upload. There is a red text message saying that it timed out. I wouldn't mind so much if there was some way to know which files had failed, because I could just resend them. Yesterday, I tried watching the green progress bar, noting the name which was nearest to 100%. Immediately the file reached 100% I checked if it had failed or succeeded, and wrote down the ones that failed. Then I re-sent the failed ones. The method works, but I have to keep alert, because my mind wanders when what I am watching is as exciting as watching the grass grow. Is there some way to get a list of files that timed out. Perhaps there is some way to set up Filezilla to allow more time before timing out? Ian
  10. When the submission form asks me if there is property, I've been filling in "no" for public buildings, and "no" for sculptures. But it seems that Australian law makes exceptions when things are photographed for commercial use. Should I fill in "yes" for all buildings-as-property questions without checking the law? Everything not human is property, so that means that if I photograph an expanse of fields, I should contact every farmer who has a field with a corner in the photograph. Apparently even graffiti requires a release! Here is some of the Australian law The recent settlement achieved for a U.S. sculptor for unauthorised use of a photo of his public sculpture engages the debate about the radical differences between Australian and U.S. laws on copyright for sculptures. In Australia, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) specifically allows the taking, and use of, photos of public sculptures without the sculptor’s permission. In the U.S., it’s copyright infringement. Australian law on Sculptures in public The exception to copyright infringement under Section 65 of the Copyright Act allows anyone to make drawings, take photographs or film a sculpture that is on permanent public display, without infringing copyright in the sculpture. A work is on permanent public display where it is in premises open to the public or permanently in a public place. Permitted reproductions extend to the adaptation of the work into digital form for both commercial and non-commercial reproductions. However the exception does not extend to other artistic works, such as paintings, murals or mosaics that may be permanently on public display. In these circumstances, permission of the copyright owner is required to avoid infringement. As a consequence, where sculptures are on permanent public display in Australia, commercial uses are allowed without the permission or remuneration of the sculptor. That is, a sculptor has no legal grounds to demand payment for any visual reproduction of the sculpture as his or her copyright does not extend to the general control of reproduction rights if the sculpture is publicly situated. The rationale behind the section 65 exception appears to be the difficulty in controlling or preventing the copying of public artworks such as in stopping tourists from taking photographs of sculptures. The logic is flawed when one considers that the rule is not applied to public murals or even graffiti. In Australia most forms of "unauthorised" photography have in fact been authorised since the 1937 High Court decision in Victoria Park Racing v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 (at p.496). This was reaffirmed recently in ABC v Lenah (2001) HCA 63, where the Court ruled that despite the passage of decades since Victoria Park, any concept of a Tort of invasion of privacy still does not exist in Australia. As Justice Dowd put it with ruthless clarity in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204: A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed. Summary: The short answer is that a photographer seems to have very wide rights in Australia - more so than in many other countries. When in a public place you can take photos of people also in public, and of people who you can see from the public place, with some limitations re looking into buildings etc. There are some limitations on photos of armed forces property - which are probably of no great surprise. When on private property you may take photos but must stop doing so if requested to do so by the owner or their agent. Photos that you have taken up to that point may be retained and used. You are not restricted when in public from taking photos of children or 'famous' people and they may block your line of vision but may not actively interfere with you - not legally anyway :-). Should I fill in "yes" for all buildings-as-property questions without checking the law?
  11. Hi, I'm just waiting for my first three submissions to be accepted, and have been reading the release forms. Two things surprise me. Firstly, I like the way age is not blatantly in your face. That annoyed some people. The big thing is that no witnesses are required. A year ago, I missed a brilliant photograph of an old man standing proudly beside an antique His Masters Voice victrola - you know the one where the dog had its ear to the trumpet as it recognized his masters voice. The trumpet was gleaming, the tent was letting in just enough diffused light to show all the detail. The exhibitor gladly signed the release form, but the next stallholder refused to sign as witness. I'm not happy about the tightening of release rules. The examples shown in the explanation show the lower legs of a pair of trousers. How anybody could claim to recognize himself in them and prove that there was anybody inside the cloth is beyond me. However, there is a good part to the information - media photos are probably easier than before, so now I can photograph children kissing a dog or cat, or being butted by a goat. A professional knife sharpener, a pair of stilt-walkers - they're all probably withing my reach now. Yes, I can see some possibilities opening up before me...
  • 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.