Jump to content

meanderingemu

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by meanderingemu

  1. 48 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

    This is the way to answer this question!

    yes and no.   this is the way,  since Alamy refuses to address the issue.  

     

    to me this is the proper way to answer the question, as all we are doing is putting bandaids on a problem created by Alamy :

     

    18 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

    I sure wish that Alamy would fix this discoverability issue in the Image Manager so people, who are rightfully confused, would not need to ask this question that comes up almost on a weekly basis.  Not only do we (mostly Steve F) have to educate people on this problem...but for the ones who don't ask, they are wrongfully encouraged to overpack their keywords (tags) with non relevant words or phrases.  That hurts the contributor and makes it a more difficult job for the buyer to find an accurate image for their needs....possibly sending them to another image source. 

     

    • Like 2
  2. 52 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

    I sure wish that Alamy would fix this discoverability issue in the Image Manager so people, who are rightfully confused, would not need to ask this question that comes up almost on a weekly basis.  Not only do we (mostly Steve F) have to educate people on this problem...but for the ones who don't ask, they are wrongfully encouraged to overpack their keywords (tags) with non relevant words or phrases.  That hurts the contributor and makes it a more difficult job for the buyer to find an accurate image for their needs....possibly sending them to another image source. 

     

     

    and this was not helped by Alamy issuing a "Blog Post" from an employee telling people to do so, with example. (and locking the discussion afterwards) 

    • Upvote 4
  3. 1 hour ago, Stephen quinn said:

    what do mean by that? look at similar photos and use tags that come up?

     

     

     

    All of Alamy, you can access for your Dashboard under "Alamy measure" is a list of all searches by registered buyers for a time period, so you can see what people where look for and what they used in search.  So if you want to really increase your discoverality, ie. Buyers discovering your images, this is a good source, much more that a quantitative indicator based on how many random marginal Keywords you added.

     

     

    For example, you would discover that Mallard has been searched in total 16 times in last month, a third  of said search having nothing to do with the ducks. Considering there is 800 pages of Mallard, not much you can do to get more discoverability.   

    • Upvote 1
  4. 4 minutes ago, Sally said:

    I just got a distributor sale despite opting out of all in May and the new contract now being in force. Of $34 I get $8. I will be contacting Alamy but I expect I’ll get that kind of answer, despite the sale being, it would seem, technically in breach of the contract. 

    yeah.  i know I have one coming (found the usage), but i think mine will fall into the multiple head-office of the distributor and one of them in country i wasn't decided until last minute to eliminate.  so i'll get my 60 cents based on prior sales.  

  5. 2 hours ago, Rico said:

    I don't remember saying I was perfect anywhere in this forum. As for the child begging photo, it was taken in Myanmar where the mother was standing next to her giving implied consent.

    That's how some people make a living in third world countries. Inappropriate maybe, that's what this discussion is about. You're probably right, some of my images are inappropriate.

    Edit: How long did you scour through my portfolio before you found that one?

    i didn't scour just that this one felt within my ethics limit,  could have used the ordination ceremony, which to me is highly personal moment, on page one ,  and it is an honest question, as I have struggled with the perception any image in public is fair game also.  See my ethics would not have allowed me that image.  Not sure how you got the mother to consent that her child's image would be used commercially, i don;t think i could.  I have plenty of these images for my own personal usages but never considered them for "making a buck"

     

    as for the Mother's "approval", so you believe she would be fine if you saw you were "making a buck" off the image of her kid begging, and can be licensed for a marketing package for £ 149.99

  6. 7 hours ago, Rico said:

    Naw, reading it one time is enough for me thanks. Whether or not I understood any of your post is irrelevant.

    When I posted the original link to the CBC article, it was to start a dialogue concerning sensitivity issues when photographing people during private moments in public. Apparently, that went over most people's heads as it quickly turned into a thread about the right to photograph as long a dollar is being made and that is more important in the long run.  Loretta John being hurt and confused is of no concern to anyone here. It's all about us after all. If that's what's where photographer's priorities are, so be it. I'm not here to change anybody's minds, not that I could anyway.

     

     

    you said you wanted to start a dialogue, yet have not engaged in it when some one us joined the discussion.  So again, why do you feel that image was inappropriate but one of a child begging is?  Is the issue the person had access to internet to see the image?  

    • Upvote 1
  7. 5 hours ago, BobD said:

    The article is journalism at its worse.

    First it warns people to be distressed, perhaps some readers will fell guilty if not.

    Then it blatantly misleads the reader to believe that image is being licenced at $575 a time, when being a publication itself will know full well this is very unlikely to be the case.

    Then horror of horrors it actually pays to publish the image and let anyone gain from doing so, it takes a screen grab ( presumably) of it and does exactly what the article is ranting about and itself invades the subjects privacy.

    I suppose it will claim editorial licence to publish it without paying (presumably).

     

    i didn't notice they literally stole the image.  So i guess CBC would be fine with me taking pictures of their content and just uploading it for profit elsewhere.  Not a good look from our public owned national broadcaster. 

  8. 1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

    Just noticed this is actually correct- they now take 60% after the distro's commission, instead of 30% of the gross, which nicely adds up to another 6%. Just a sneaky extra words; "after deduction of Distributor fee or commission" in the new commission table, which is deceptively placed below the old one on the contract page.

    And again the contract would allow them to have arrangements with a commission to the distributor higher the 40% leaving us even less.  

     

    • Thanks 1
  9. 1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

     

    No doubt there is some truth to that. However, I don't begrudge the photographer the few bucks that he probably made. It's a powerful image.

     

    Hesitate to say this, but I think that the whole issue of Canadian residential schools -- which were obviously dreadful places -- has become overly sensitive. It's now impossible to say or do anything that might be interpreted as infringing on prevailing sentiments. This is true of a lot of other "touchy" subjects as well, a dangerous trend IMO.

     

     

     

     

    we are getting to be a touchy bunch....  not sure if you are getting the echos of the Habs pick out west, but some of the comments around here are pretty bad.  

     

     

    on residential schools, the matter is horrifying on all level 

  10. 23 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

    A bit of an aside. When I was photographing at the memorial in Vancouver (same one in the CBC article), a young indigenous woman came along and started beating a drum and chanting. I was really moved by the amount of pain on her face and in her voice. She would have made a strong photographic subject. However, I realized that I couldn't take the picture and just listened to her instead. There's a reason why I'm not a real news photographer...

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    whereas at the Ottawa memorial I went to a planned ceremony, advertised in advanced, with media, so i felt comfortable to capture some of the ceremonial.  but at another more intimate event I only captured the offerings 

  11. 1 hour ago, sb photos said:

     

     

    I wonder how Lorretta John legally gave CBC permission to use the photo of herself, and CBC would obviously be aware of this. I suspect there may be more to this than CBC published. I don't find this disgusting, the photojournalist was doing their job, the same as any agencies involved, and ultimately the any decision to publish was with the unknown media organisation. Why no mention of who it was and how the photo was used, makes one wonder if it was published as only the big G image was shown with a high price that in practise is never paid. A CBC sensational article?

     

     

    the only way that it makes sense is she allowed them to use the image, and they they proceeded to licence it.  Would love to see the licence terms, as the image does not seem to be us in context of it's caption, or the event it portrayed whatsoever, but instead to illustrate privacy rules. 

  12. 2 hours ago, Rico said:

    So then, I take it that you be OK with someone photographing you crying at a public memorial, just as long as there was a buck to be made?

    Yes, there are far more distressing news photos being taken every day, but those are hard news. (Think riots, wars, catastrophes etc). This is a photo of a woman in a private moment.

    I find it disgusting for anyone to be insensitive, even a little.

     

     

    I am not dismissing your issues, actually I do have my issues with some captures myself- I did try to only take images of people who made their public presence present.  And the subject is a hard one.  However could you explain your thinking that this is exploitative "to make a buck", but a child begging in a developing country isn't?  This is the issue with ethics we all have a different line, there is no black and white.  

     

     

  13. 2 hours ago, Brizbee said:

    Thanks for your reply. So would a quick e-mail to customer services be advisable to get to the bottom of it?

    they will tell you.

     

    1- it was downloaded before you closed off

    2-we will still reported as sales today even if it potentially contradicts our agreement with you 

    3-thanks for being a valuable partner, don't spend all you 10 cents in one place 

     

     

    (there is another similar thread and this was their final word)  

  14. 10 minutes ago, Brizbee said:

    Just logged in and found I'd made 5 sales yesterday. Way-hey I thought.

    I then spotted the value of the sales - $1. Okaaaaay?

    I then dug down into the sales report and found the actual sales value was $0.50 - $0.10 each, bulk discount, flat rate.

    But then I noticed the deduction applied to each picture - $0.08, leaving me with a measly $0.02 for each image, a total of $0.10 or only 20% of an admittedly dire total.

    Now, I opted out of the distribution scheme on 18th May and was assured it was a clean break, but obviously it can't be.

     

    Any thoughts?

    if Alamy claims the sale is today,  and it seems so based on commission,  they would be in breach of your agreement it seems, download date is not contractual.  only issue is they never put in writing that opt out before was reopening due to the change,  so they will be able to use the "April clause" 

    • Like 1
  15. 27 minutes ago, Cobaleitor said:

    Thank you very much, I understand that I should only use keywords that are not generic to change the category of the photo, right? How long does it take from making the changes until Alamy decides to turn it green?

    Thanks a lot

     

    green is quantitative based not quantitative.   don't pay attention to it.  

     

    i had a look at my stuff, 7% of my images are green, and they represent 0% of my sales.  i have only sold "poor" discoverability images, because they were properly keyworded.  

    • Like 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.