Jump to content

David Kilpatrick

Verified
  • Content Count

    516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Kilpatrick

  1. I was frustrated to see my direct DACS had fallen from nearly £2k to only £354 - inexplicable when Richard K's figure had moved from around £200 to over £700, and my late wife Shirley's legacy DACS (it does continue for ever) had fallen from over £300 to £270. But today Alamy dropped $543 Other payment with no deduction into my sales - which I believe will be DACS. That's up from $179 last year. It's not a compensation for a loss of rather vital residual income in retirement, but indicates something significant has changed in the way the Copyright Licensing Agency handles direct claims and Alamy. My Alamy account includes Shirley's work.
  2. Thanks Ian - I guess that could explain my reduction as a lot of my history is now very old, but it does not in any way explain Shirley's figure because she also had a lot of work published in the past. I do note that URLs are now included in uses which can be reported and this could be significant next year, depending on how many you are allowed to report. If you have list the URLs of specific images I could be spending weeks copying them... - David
  3. If it's impossible to withdraw from allowing Alamy to claim, and it has the effect DACS suggest, I'm very unhappy. But they have not been able to explain why my claim has been reduced by 82% in fact, and my late wife's claim by only 11%, when my activity in general has been higher and the submission process for DACS was followed in the same way for both. Nor do they seem particularly interested in trying to explain. I appreciate that once done, it's done, and I can not reverse it but I need to know what to avoid in future. Alamy has claimed in past years ($179 last year for us) without damaging the main claim which should be nearly entirely for non-Alamy stuff, any duplication would be a result of my finding Google books bylines. Perhaps I never authorised Alamy to claim for Shirley, without realising it. It's damaging for me as I'm mostly dependent on pension now, and DACS was worth as much as doing two months' work, it was about the same as I make out of publishing a magazine edition these days and that's all I am doing now, just six times a year, except for stock photography of course! - David
  4. Very odd news from me. I claim for myself and my late wife Shirley. Both claims were repeats of past years, and included new titles/sales added. My total uses are over 18,000 (there was a period when I illustrated step by step books using 400 images at a time and some of these were republished as new ISBNs repurposing the same photographs). In 2019 I received £2294.75 inc VAT (2017, £2404 including Shirley's - 2018, £1903) but for 2020 this fell to £425 which has come at the worst time. Shirley's claims were worth £274 (2018) then £364 (2019) and now £325 which seems balanced. DACS don't seem to be willing to explain why my claim has fallen and simply say it's due to a change using Copyright Licensing Agency data, then when queries again, saying it's because I also had a claim via Alamy (that makes no sense as the Alamy claim is for a very small number of uses). Seems to be nothing I can do about this, or to find out how others could avoid it happening. - David
  5. Any else had their last year's DACS claim (direct) massively reduced? I can't get a straight answer from them, as my late wife's DACS has not been affected (more or less the same this year as last) but mine has been cut by about 75%, very unwelcome when other income is greatly reduced. One of the answers as to why has been 'because Alamy has claimed for me' too - but Alamy only claims a tenner or so, not many hundreds, and I've lost about £1600 compared to previous recent years. I can't find out where, on Alamy, to withdraw my authority for them to claim on my behalf, as if it is having this effect, that's a serious prospect for the future. My wife's work is on the same Alamy account, different pseudonym, but can't work out why it would not affect her claim too (DACS continues to be paid to the heirs of a photographer's work).
  6. Very unusual for me to see a) no change in bank figure due at month end b) no new sales - since beginning of March. Anyone else experiencing this? I have zero transactions - no sales invoiced, no invoices paid, no payments cleared. Wondering if there's a system update or a hiatus in data entry caused by the new PA ownership? David
  7. Biggest market square in Scotland apparently, though I'm sure I have seen larger - maybe not authorised as market squares in the past!
  8. My total due at the end of the month has mysteriously fallen - cleared funds presumably stopped being cleared?
  9. I did not know what I was talking about! I just caught a slew of refunds replaced by higher fees. Very welcome, but may refer to a spread of past sales. Hard to know how this happens but I've had a good number of sales refunded and replaced by significantly higher fees, not the usual currency adjustment thing. I'll try to be around here more, this has not been a good year for me as one year ago Shirley was admitted to hospital and nearly died. She was found to have two brain tumours and treated for Stage IV Melanoma very rapidly, but this only gave 8 months, and she died on July 11th. I still have not filed her last sets of photographs and while I'm getting on with life as she wished me to much of that life is still taken up dealing with her creative making and collecting (almost hoarding, only not the usual mess, labelled and boxed and catalogued...) of 50 years. Rooms full of it, literally. From now on I may not be doing much new photography, as it was always a joint thing travelling, often with her research beforehand. But I have a huge collection of past images and have learned how to digitise them well on camera, not by scanning, and may sit down for a few years going through these. Alamy's change to requiring only that a model release should be available on demand is very useful. It means that any pictures which include her or me can be sold as model released, including her hands or just 'being a person in a landscape', as her executor I can do that now and in future. We never had the time to do signed model releases for every image like that and upload them with the pictures, despite the only models actually being the photographers. I haven't put it on Alamy yet, but this one - the Aphrodite Dress - has ended up my favourite shot of Shirley, taken in 1986. It was hers too, and she kept an undamaged 6 x 6cm Fujichrome perfectly (other frames got damaged by repro). ©me - if anyone wants a signed print on A3 (Epson Cold Press or Cotton textured) email me, reasonable price and 1/3rd to Cancer Relief UK.
  10. After a doldrum period 27th suddenly produced a burst. Very glad I once visited a tourist site so well covered it seemed superfluous - seven sales (all Japan) same shot, $360 gross total uses and this is a shot and client which already sells several times a year - just never so many uses at once.
  11. Robert - and everyone really - I know why I don't have higher sales and it's very easy - I spend 6 days a week indoors behind a desk and maybe get out to take pictures for two hours or so every week at the most, and even then usually just in passing. Perhaps one semi-photographic trip out every month and maybe two or three specific photo ventures - like actually visiting a spot I want to photograph - each year. All the rest is four to five weeks of travel, and it can take me six months before I finally process and keyword each trip because magazine deadlines occupy me full time, and involve plenty of processing other people's images, and it gets very tiring. I have an entire 84-page annual to edit next week when I'm away in Gran Canaria, and over half the images will need to have their (stoopid...) matte border surroundings cropped off because I will not reproduce these. Some four to five hundred images to check in detail, trim, and not one of them mine... This is my work and I make money from it so I should not complain, but for stock, the effect is to greatly reduce the range of places and subjects I cover. I have never even visited most places in Scotland in 26 years living here - never climbed a single mountain, never walked a coast path, never visited many towns or cities. Last week I had to spend 48 hours in Cologne so once again, as every two years, I get a dozen pictures of the same place. The key to really good sales is never visit the same place twice, take as many subjects as you can, Unless of course you live in Aberystwyth :-) in which case you can sit it out and let the world come to you...
  12. Well, it's taken me 12 years, but yesterday we clicked past the 1000 mark in total sales (now standing at 1002). Currently seeing most licences at a respectable not trivial rate (no more $9 etc) and also some worthwhile 'repeats' even though the original licences seemed to be for ever without restrictions! David
  13. Actually, the original raw files do go up to 24MB perfectly - the lens was one of the best ever made, and remains hard to match, they didn't need to change it for the A1, A2, A200 either. I have a few Dimage 5 files, only from raw, which were even smaller and a couple of those have sold. Regrettably I only shot a dozen or two raw files in the entire time I had that camera as they took 30 seconds to save - the JPEGs I took look good but are of no use for Alamy or any other library. David
  14. No, Alan, it was a (zoo)m - not, as these were the wild Gib apes, which may be the property of the Crown or something, but fair game for RF which this has been from the start back before I knew the reasons to pick RF or L. Oddly enough these older RF images have often secured very decent fees despite being small files. David
  15. Not been able to access measures for several days - always get this - Server Error in '/alamysearchhistory' Application. Runtime Error Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off". <!-- Web.Config Configuration File --><configuration> <system.web> <customErrors mode="Off"/> </system.web></configuration> Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's <customErrors> configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL. <!-- Web.Config Configuration File --><configuration> <system.web> <customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" defaultRedirect="mycustompage.htm"/> </system.web></configuration>
  16. The 16-50mm was only an extra £50 over the body cost of a NEX-6 back at The Photography Show so I bought it. Excellent little lens. Sold my 16mm f/2.8 and passed the converters over to our daughter, as she has a 16mm, as with the 16-50mm and the 10-18mm nothing else was needed. David
  17. From the first batch of images I uploaded to Alamy, in 2002, a $152 sale today. From a Dimage 7 5 megapixel camera, image not culled or updated. David
  18. Checkthe field curvature wide open, f/4 and 16mm on a landscape. Let me know if you get anything like sharp edges/corners. My test sample definitely did not have.
  19. Just over $1500 which makes it a good month for me (love to go back to the over-$2000 and 60% payout days though). August so far zilch. Maybe they are on holiday.
  20. Thanks SShep for listing the Observer 10 Best Windows (in print?) - including one of those examples of minimal work - Since this is what I see if I rotate my office chair away from the computer and look behind me! Other Alamy pictures also used, and credited to Alamy on The Guardian web page created from this Observer article - all the pix seem to be here as well http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jul/25/the-10-best-windows David
  21. You need to know the actual focal length of a lens for various reasons, but not all that often if you're a beginner. It would make more sense to mark lenses with their angle of view, say 30°-75° or whatever, but since that has never been done in the past it's too much of a departure. Makers of cameras with very small sensors do sometimes put both the actual, and the 35mm format equivalent, either on the lens or in the instructions. That's because focal lengths like 5.7mm or 8.8mm are really not very easily translated. David
  22. As if to emphasize the point, the very next sale I've made is from a 2002 Dimage 7 shot uploaded as 'archival' in 2010 - $133 for an image captioned, and clearly identified, as recording the food shortages caused by the winter freeze of 2002 in Scotland.
  23. Interesting response. I have occasionally used the description or even the caption field to mark out extremely large files or images with exceptional resolution, but never to note that an image may be softer than today's standards. That is a good idea as is it ethical. In the case of my shot, t featured a really good blue sky and this was something the early Foveon sensors did superbly (especially compared to Nikon) - the image was much better for colour (shot at ISO 100) than typical digital files of that date. And it's probably the colour which attracted them as i have many later examples of the same subject (duplicates? not exactly, but similars separated by several years, certainly).
  24. In 2006, when Alamy insisted on upscaling DSLR images when were then (almost) all below 17 megapixels up to 17 megapixel size, I filed a 2004 shot taken on a camera which was permitted then but now is not - Sigma SD9 or 10. I had a good number of sales and the 5000 pixel+ images looked just a touch softer than 6 megapixel DSLR shots on Bayer sensors treated the same way. Yesterday I made a $400 travel brochure cover sale from one of these and decided to look at the image, as I was curious to see if I remembered the origin of it correctly - and I had considered, last year, trying to locate the shoots on this and several other early 2002-2004 camera choices. My standards today are so high I expect to see pin-sharp detail at pixel level. Boy, was/is this image different. I know it will reproduce perfectly well on an A4 cover, as repro and print are my business in effect and I'm aware of the potential for quite soft large files to look perfect when correctly handled. But I am a little worried about what the client may think if Alamy provides the full size file from these early images - pretty much all my output from 2002 to mid 2006 being sub-10 megapixel. Then again I do not want to remove images when sales like this, $400 ten years after the (visible to the client) capture date, can still happen. Weighing the risks - of refund, versus of no sale at all?
  25. Reading in some sensational news rag that people alive today - some of 'em - could live to be 1000 years old (which I doubt, as even trees don't often look all that good after 1000 years and things made of meat and covered with hide would look even worse) I see that I've had a fairly decent sale, but based on my grandfathers on both sides, and my father, the licence which has a further 25 years to run and expires in 2039 will probably outlive me. Do you think you will live to see any of your textbook licences renewed? :-) David
×
×
  • 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.