Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by meanderingemu

  1. someone with a 2017 start date also posted a negative balance, so it looks like it may be deeper.
  2. if the last 18 months have thought me something, is there is no "false alarms". we might not see flames now, but this is still an alarm. considering the would be the second "glitch" in about a week, many of us some cleared balanced suddenly "un-cleared", Alamy is obviously doing something in the back office.
  3. interesting. Where do you find out what these people were looking for? Why does Alamy not make this available to all contributors?
  4. everyone over $250 gross, is now qualified for Gold in 2022-23 and the "privilege" of Alamy only taking 60% commission from them for an extra year. 🙄. (seems like a weird thing to call gold) as for me, far from it, with an extremely marginal month with 3 sales, made worse by 2 $$ being distribution sales.
  5. 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 :
  6. 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)
  7. 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. Consider
  8. do photos buyers want to discover, All of Alamy is always a good source of what was searched, including those with low number of hits.
  9. you will need someone with access obviously. No guarantee it was used in that link, Google will also sometimes find the image and it's only a thumbnail to the original article, which likely fits in original license. for what it matters, Bing does not get a hit for the image.
  10. 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.
  11. it applies to me so far. i have now skipped 3-4 marginal newsy events i would have surely gone to 6 months ago. i've gone back to doing geometric architectural shots for the pleasure of it.
  12. 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 believ
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. the one new pieceof information it's that they are showing us the commission explicitly. the way the contract was now written i was expecting us the only see the $ after distro fee.
  16. And again the contract would allow them to have arrangements with a commission to the distributor higher the 40% leaving us even less.
  17. 24% is not even guaranteed. Alamy takes 60% after distributors commission with NO contractual restriction on amount of the distribution component. but if distributor take 40% it means Alamy takes 60% of 60% = 36% which would leave contributor with 24%. but it could be lower
  18. especially considering the relationship of many of them with the contract holder.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Did CBC licence the image for $575? i am not sure what the shelf licencing price of the image has to do with it? Would it have been better had it been $10,000? $0.25?
  • 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.