Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'personal'.
Found 4 results
After reading through the Forum the last couple of days (yes the trust is gone!), I saw a lot of mentioning that personal use was tied up with distribution sales. So when one would restrict ones images for PU, one would also loose the distribution sales... Not true! I asked MS yesterday and they confirmed that this is no longer the case, so one can easily restrict all images from PU now without loosing the distribution sales. <quote> Hi Arthur, Restricting your images for personal use no longer opts your images out of the distribution pool. The distributors can choose not to accept them, but this is rare, so you can restrict your images and still be included in distribution. Thanks, Siobhan <unquote> Have a great weekend all. Arthur
Gordon Scammell posted a topic in Stock photography discussion and contributor experienceHaven't got round to removing PU on a lot of of my images yet. Just had one pop up today. The interior of a Pret a Manger - Personal Use? Yeah - right. I have been looking at my PU sales over the past few years and have noticed that quite a lot of them have discounted prices. How come a person who wants to use one of my images for the their 'non commercial use' can negotiate a discount? Why does Alamy allow these images to be licensed for less than the stated price? I have always been led to believe that discounts are applied to 'bulk' sales. Obviously I'm wrong but would appreciate some sort of explanation from Alamy. I doubt I'll receive one but I am getting royally p****d off with being shafted.
I’ve taken a look round the forums, and the subject of “personal use” photos has already had plenty of debate. One I sold last month on that basis was almost undoubtedly not for personal use … it’s of the pre-amp unit of a guitar (see AFK256). To add insult to injury, the sale was refunded a few days into this month, creating an issue where someone downloaded one of my pictures, presumably used it and stored it for future commercial use, and finally got his/her fee refunded too… So, a couple of issues: Is there not a case for no refunds being given on “personal use” photos? Do the infringements team look at all refunds as the most likely source of potential misuse? I could, of course, just opt out of personal use sales, but before I do so, I’d like to know a lot more, so I’d be interested to know what anyone else thinks on these points, and any other measures that could be put in place to limit misuse.
Have you seen this type of licence before? It's the first time for me. A sale was reported this morning. Country: United Kingdom Usage: Internal business usage Media: Personal Start: 22 May 2013 End: 22 May 2016 I hope that it is the beginning of recognition by people that they have to pay to use images. Am I speaking too soon? Sung