dustydingo

I couldn't possibly comment . . . DD

With what seems like an almost universal rush to smaller and smaller cameras, I was beginning to think the advantages I have consistently found using a blatantly big "professional" looking DSLR and 2.8 wide-angle zoom were an aberration. I'm generally not one for hiding the fact I'm shooting a person or people (talk about a great way to get the great unwashed to distrust photographers even more), and I have found doors opening and lots of "if you come through here you'll get a better view" simply because I appear to "look the part". Mind you, that tune would change in an environment where photographers and / or the press are simply not welcome (who'd be a press photographer at a certain orange bloke's rallies in the US at the moment?), but using the big gear has certainly served me well, and I am pleased to see it's an experience shared elsewhere in this funny old world 😊 DD

It could also establish your portfolio with a point of difference over most others of the same ilk I have seen here and elsewhere . . . a very positive point of difference too if your captions and additional information are accurate (which I'm sure they are by the way). In other words, I definitely do not think it is wasted effort. Instead I think the extra effort you take could lift your portfolio above the crowd . . . and even if it doesn't, it in no way detracts from your image. DD

Totally agrree DD

Last one out, turn off the li------------------------------------------

Phew, that's a relief 😉 DD

This is an argument for all non-exclusive images on Alamy (i.e. images the buyer has to, as you put it, "share with lots of others" by way of them being non-exclusive to Alamy) to be sold for peanuts because they may sell more than once. As usual I have to preface my comments with "I may be missing something here", but to me that looks like an argument _against_ all those railing against the low prices sometimes earned here, or at least a justification for those low prices? No? DD

Yeah, next thing you know people will be posting Off Topic stuff like " I'd like to feel free to point out on crystal-clear un-professional methods i'm seeing here about Alamy Measures issue management. " . . . oh . . . wait . . . DD

By my reckoning, gleaned from irregular sorties into the forum over many years, this used to be the predominant sentiment here. Of late many appear to have abandoned it in favour of the lure of multiple peanuts elsewhere. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that hopes of rising prices here are in danger of being stymied by the planned movement of portfolios to, or replication on, certain MS sites. DD

I don't submit to IS, but with the abominable-snowman's "main" mob I get 30% for my exclusive-to-abominable-snowman RM images' licenses, and 20% only for RF images. So of course RF get priority on their website, and submissions are often under pressure to become RF, not the (by me) stipulated RM. Needless to say, I argue for RM status wherever possible. And yes, as with all of us there, I too get the micro fractions as you describe above, but to be fair, that's nowhere near the whole picture . . . quite frequently . . . well, let's just say that quite frequently I see licenses that keep my images there and leave me more than happy for folks to call it what they like 😉 DD

A little thought experiment: "wow, look at this, HH has sent us three photos of the Russians invading Staffordshire . . . but wait, OH NO, what a shame, he used different headlines on each one . . . we can't use them!!!" DD

Nothing in that message from Alamy about headlines or captions or insensitivity to Britain's cats or any other speculative reason you can invent . . . it is what it is, surely: telling you that the images aren't what Alamy are looking for for their News Feed. Most of the time, if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and someone says it is indeed a duck . . . DD

It was a rhetorical question. And as for fees . . . my understanding of the standard non-exclusive usage license from that exact mob tells me there was no need for an 'extended' license for any of the uses noted. YEMV of course. DD

How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees--it appears this image was exclusive to a particular "other" agency: Single photograph used by political parties again and again and again . . . for a few quid. DD

. . . and . . . while considering the safeguards Bill outlines above when considering microstock, consider also that the complaints here about what Alamy does or does not do regarding inappropriate personal use licenses pales into the background when the "Thieves Thread Update" elsewhere is read . . . just use your favourite search engine and look up "thieves thread update" . . . it'll take your breath away. DD