Harry Harrison

I was able to read that Globe article though the second time I tried I was blocked by the paywall, you could try opening it again from a different browser perhaps. I hope I was paying enough attention on that single read through because with all due respect to Bill Brooks I didn't think it was entirely relevant to your dilemma. This was a case of a direct agreement between an artist/creator/copyright holder and a publisher. The artist provided original artworks to be included in a book project but the publisher's side of the bargain wasn't honoured and the artist's requests for compensation we

Well, I didn't want to sound like a stuck record but I do wonder if part of this new website that we're going to be helping to pay for by donating 20% - 60% of our commissions might include some better information, let's hope so.

Well I don't have the definitive answer, but logically I would have thought that since the default is that there is no Property Release, and that will be displayed to the potential buyer clearly below the image, then that should go a long way towards protecting you. Don't forget that there is no mention below the image as to whether there is Property (or Models come to that) in your image, just that there are no releases, and then a link directs the buyer to this page: https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx I suppose it then also comes do

Thanks, I was actually searching the 2019 contract for the word 'exploitation' so didn't find this clause. They are of course slightly different just through the use of that term but I'm happy to go along with the general view that there is nothing to be concerned about if that is the feeling.

Thanks to Ollie for picking up on clause 4.1.12 of the new May 17th contract and retained in the latest version, and others for commenting on it. It does not seem to be present in the 2019 contract. "there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;" Is this in fact so untenable that it couldn't be invoked? Why is there at all? I think I'm right in saying that none of us picked up on this before Alamy agreed to address concerns about the May 17th contract expressed in this for

It's a 100 pages folks.

I'd also like some clarification of that kind of situation, even a blog post might do.

Please someone correct me if I've got this wrong but just for reference to me the changes appear to be as follows: 4.1.5 - added subject always to clause 4.1.10, 4.1.6 - changed any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor replaced by: the Content uploaded to the System 5.1. (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; replaced by: (i) any

Didn't know that, thanks

That sounds like a good idea, I use Filemaker a bit and when searching a database there is an 'Omit' check-box, quite handy, saves having two cases for every criteria. I'd love to have it in AIM, find all images that don't have a particular keyword etc. You can do compound searches as well, find all with 'A' that don't have 'B' etc. If it bothered me then I could easily turn the download csv into a straightforward Filemaker database to do this kind of thing. In fact if I used the Lightroom Bridge Alamy plugin I could find and update particular groups of images. You've set me thinki

No, I was getting those two confused as well, clearly they both begin with 'E', it must be that, like 'Vaccine' and 'Virus', people do that all the time!

Not for me - Exclusive/non-Exclusive is there but not the equivalent for 'Editorial'.

Not an expert (only done it once) but provided you mean one of your images available on Alamy you open it in another tab and drag the image across. There are refinements in terms of which size image to use etc. so hopefully someone else can fill in the detail.

Thanks, didn't see that. So I guess what people need are two more attributes in the filter section, 'Editorial only' and 'not Editorial only'. could save a lot of time.

It might be worth searching the forum for 'drone', I seem to remember that there's been some good 'user' advice in the last year or so. The Sony RX100 series has been fitted with good quality zoom lenses but the review that Marianne has posted isn't that complimentary about the 28mm equiv. lens that Hasselblad have fitted to this one. Here's one post, but there's more, try searching for Mavic also. https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12467-dji-mavic-pro-2-with-a-1”-cmos-equipped-hassilblad/?tab=comments#comment-231908 This one's better but dates from 2018: