Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since yesterday or today, there is 360 folder in my upload directory when connecting over FTP, which probably means anyone now can upload 360° spherical images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, njene said:

Maybe a select few contributors were invited to upload these kind of photos, as it looks like this is something most of us did not know about

i would have to wonder how many licenses would sell in the real world of advertising.

Honestly I rarely if ever come across these 360 images anywhere

 

Yes, cool as these 360 images are, they seem more of a novelty than a serious innovation that is likely to stay around for any length of time. But then nothing lasts very long these days. The digital world has a very short attention span.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am on a PC running Win10 and I can not login to the main Alamy site.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction, 

 

After logging in via the forum I finally got onto the main page?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that, by nature these will be for electronic use only, I would be interested to know what prices they sell for. The Calculator prices for these look healthy
 

Website or social media site 
£ 249.99
VR or game apps 
£ 299.99
Digital publishing 
£ 299.99
TV programme 
£ 349.99
Marketing package: Small Business 
£ 299.99
Marketing package: Large business 
£ 399.99
Royalty Free License 
£ 450.00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

From the public section of Jim Pickerell's website

Alamy Offers 360Cities Image Collection

By Jim Pickerell | 278 Words | Posted 11/5/2018 | Comments

Alamy.com and 360Cities.net have announced that the 360Cities’ collection of thousands of stunning, immersive 360° spherical images will now be available to Alamy customers through Alamy’s online worldwide marketplace. The 360Cities database will launch on Alamy.com on 5 November 2018 with an initial collection of approximately 150K images, to be supplemented with a regular stream of new content.

 

Thank you for the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

The digital world has a very short attention span.

 

Indeed it does... Look... a cat... playing a piano...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, lophius said:

I don’t understand how many images could be RF if there are many people there without model release.

I agree. I clicked on one which had several very recogniseable people, marked no MR, but RF, not editorial.

Is this a new policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy's images on front page works here.

 

I immediately checked the difficult spot immediately above and below the camera. Seems to have been solved rather exelent in most cases.

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I agree. I clicked on one which had several very recogniseable people, marked no MR, but RF, not editorial.

Is this a new policy?

 

 

There is no new policy. The present way of working was instituted with the new AIM. The new AIM presently allows you to declare an image as either MF, or RF, with none released people or none released property in it, without declaring it as editorial only.

 

The purpose of the photographer marking either a RM as editorial only, or a RF as editorial only, is to reduce the photographer's, in my opinion, very small risk of becoming embroiled in a lawsuite if either type of image is used commercially.

 

The legal risk is the same for unreleased RM or RF. Making an unreleased people or property image as straight RM only, instead of RF, is not a get out of jail card.

 

Even if you are willing to take the risk, the client has already been warned on the zoom page that there is no model or property release available, when you do not answer the model and property release questions. If you answer "no release" to the questions the client is warned as well.

 

My images are all RF. If the images feature unreleased people or property I mark them RF editorial only, to reduce my risk. BUT I DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT !!!!!.

 

I also do not make unreleased general scenes, RF editorial only, unless unreleased person or property is FEATURED in the scene. Therefore unreleased city skylines or unreleased crowd scenes with hundreds of people I will mark simply RF. This is my policy that makes sense to me, follow it at your own risk.

 

It is my opinion that the new 360 images containing unreleased people and property could be classified as RF without declaring them editorial only, because they are general scenes that do not FEATURE either a few people, or couple of properties.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Morrison said:

 

Indeed it does... Look... a cat... playing a piano...

 

Forget that one. There's one over there playing a trombone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the Alamy email announcing the launch of their 360 degree images and highlighting the 360Cities collection.I don't mind competing with these new technologies as a traditional photographer, but I would like it to at least be on a level playing field. The 360Cities collection contains numerous examples of unreleased people and property set as RF with no editorial only restriction. When importing large outside collections it may be convenient for Alamy to ignore the rules existing contributors have to abide by, but it really feels deeply unfair on those of us who try to do the right thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/11/2018 at 12:35, funkyworm said:

 

I have a done a little bit of research into the demand after I noticed that recently certain organisations were putting out tenders for these sort of images. So there seems to be some demand.  Before spending the money I approached a colleague mainly with technical questions (fringing seems to be an issue with many images.) He mentioned another colleague who has supplied our largest agency with 360 images and reckons the returns have been underwhelming. That may be down to the marketing, I went to their website and couldn;t find them.

A while back you'd see them being taken at football matches. If you know where to look you can see me at work in this one.   http://360photos.fifa.com/?panid#!startscene=jpn_gre

(The photo I took =   E3DKFF)

I didn;t cover the last world cup and whilst I know I have seen my Getty colleague in the last year with a 360 camera it doesn;t seem to be part of their standard apparatus which in itself could tell us something.

 

 

 

 

Would that image have been accepted on Alamy? Would you tell what camera you used for that? It obviously wasn't a DSLR and then stitched. I am thinking of buying a 360 camera as I travel the country a lot but, after nearly two hours searching, I am yet to find an answer to which camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

Just received the Alamy email announcing the launch of their 360 degree images and highlighting the 360Cities collection.I don't mind competing with these new technologies as a traditional photographer, but I would like it to at least be on a level playing field. The 360Cities collection contains numerous examples of unreleased people and property set as RF with no editorial only restriction. When importing large outside collections it may be convenient for Alamy to ignore the rules existing contributors have to abide by, but it really feels deeply unfair on those of us who try to do the right thing.

 Bill says above that it's not necessary to indicate RF-editorial, just to indicate no releases, as with RM.

I've read what I wrote above many times on the forum (RF with no releases must be indicated specifically as editorial), but I don't see it on this page:

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/understanding-stock-image-licensing

or this page:

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

So if that rule exists elsewhere, a new contributor (far less an ingested collecton) could be forgiven for not knowing.

Also you might reasonably expect that if the rule exists, if someone indicated needs release/s / no release/s, the 'only editorial' tickbox would be ticked automatically.

Is this just a forum myth, or has the policy changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Also you might reasonably expect that if the rule exists, if someone indicated needs release/s / no release/s, the 'only editorial' tickbox would be ticked automatically.

Is this just a forum myth, or has the policy changed?

 

From the AIM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

The screenshot example is for Royalty Free.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a tweet as well.

Agreed, it should be clearly stated in the How To Sell section.

 

Edited by gvallee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

From the AIM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

The screenshot example is for Royalty Free.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a tweet as well.

Agreed, it should be clearly stated in the How To Sell section.

 

 

I've searched high and low for an official Alamy reference to the idea that an RF image with no releases needs to be marked as RF-Editorial, but I can only find the one gvallee refers to here. However, I even in my befuddled old age I feel sure I've not imagined that Alamy said somewhere else at some time that editorial RF images needed to be marked editorial only. and that it's not some kind of forum myth. Perhaps Alamy would be so kind as to clarify one  way or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

I feel sure I've not imagined that Alamy said somewhere else at some time that editorial RF images needed to be marked editorial only. and that it's not some kind of forum myth. 

 

Absolutely. Alamy said it several times. Where is a good question.

 

Alamy please chip in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

From the AIM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

The screenshot example is for Royalty Free.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a tweet as well.

Agreed, it should be clearly stated in the How To Sell section.

 

So they 'recommend' that we submit images as RF, and 'request politely' that we indicate unreleased RF images as editorial only.

 

Back in the day, if we indicated a file needed/didn't have release/s, the system automatically forced the licence to RM, so the ability is there to indicated an RF image without releases as editorial only, if Alamy insist on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)".

 

So why put this on the optional page.... if it's not "optional"

In the old AIM (if I recall correctly) it asked "Does the the image contains property that requires a release". If I answered yes then RM was automatically selected.

In the new AIM the question is simply "Is there any property in the image" (my underline) and so makes no distinction between property that requires a release and property that doesn't.

 

Consider a photo of a distant village or a city skyline (a popular subject for a calendar sale). In the old AIM I would have marked it as NOT requiring a property release and left as RM with no restrictions. But, in the new AIM I feel obliged to answer YES to "Is there any property?", but I wouldn't mark it as editorial only as I know it doesn't need to be and this could potentially exclude commercial sales (for calendars etc.) I'd also be happy to sell such an image as RM or RF (although I almost always choose RM as it means I get info required for DACs claims if the image gets used)

 

The same issue applies to Alamy's question about people. A distant shot of a beach full of holiday-makers contains lots of (unrecognisable) people, so in AIM I must put 5+ in the number of people box. But again I'd have no problems selling as RM or RF with no Editorial only restrictions as distant unrecognisable figures don't need releases .

 

Or have I misunderstood something??

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

This has gone off at a tangent. 

 

Where does the photographer stand when the cameras whirring around - dancing around out of the way? 

 

Surely the only possible uses are web/digital so high res DSLR images not actually essential?

 

360 panos are much better quality with DSLR/mirrorless cameras, where you shoot 4 or so photos around, standing behind the camera, and stitch. Single shot pano cameras tend to have flaws like serious chromatic aberration, lack of sharpness and dynamic range, stitching faults, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Mark,

 

I don't think that you are misunderstanding anything really except that Alamy won't be the ones taking the hit if anything ever ended up in a legal dispute - it will be the contributor.

 

That is why when people post ( above) about what Alamy allows us to do or doesn't allow us to do I think that they are missing the point.

 

Sure, you CAN get your images with people and property on Alamy as RF without clicking any 'editorial only' button. But it is the contributor who is taking on the responsibility for any potential consequences. Alamy won't be there helping pay the legal fees. 

 

I think that the whole idea of offering unreleased images as RF ( when MRs/PRs are needed for commercial use) is dubious at least. With RF there is no control over how that image will be used into the future. 

 

No, I can't quote any instances when this has ended up being a huge expensive problem but I can see the potential for it.

 

I remain 100% RM. 

 

Ian

 

If I haven't misrepresented anything (I've accurately stated whether there's any people or property in the image and whether I have appropriate releases or not) then I am of the opinion that it's the publisher who is is responsible for any implications arising from their decision about how to use the image and not me.

 

I'm also almost 100% RM too, but not for that reason.

 

Mark 

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes agreed any putative dispute will definitely between the contributor and the publisher. 

 

Good luck with that for contributors who have RF images without releases when releases are potentially needed. 

 

The offended party will go after the publisher who will go after the contributor. And Alamy will point to our contract.

 

At which point it's worth referring to the contract between the buyer [the licensee] and Alamy.... Even with RF licences from Alamy,  buyers are contractually obliged to follow certain rules. In particular, note the following clauses in Alamy's licence agreement which apply to both RM and RF images.

 

7.1 You [the licensee] must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s)/Footage have been secured and are appropriate for your intended use. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the Licence is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image(s)/Footage usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement.

 

8. Indemnity

 

You [the licensee] agree to indemnify and hold Alamy and its Contributors harmless against any claims, damages, losses, expenses or costs, including legal costs, arising in any manner whatsoever from your unauthorised use of any Image(s)/Footage or of the depiction of any person or thing contained in any Image(s)/Footage supplied to you by Alamy, or any other breach by you of any of your obligations under this Agreement.

 

Obviously lawyers may argue over the legal enforceability of such clauses, but at least they provide a starting point. 

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, geogphotos said:
  • RF stands for Royalty Free. Customers pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions on how they use it, or how long they use it for. RF images can be used across multiple projects, forever.

It's in their interests to make sure that any unreleased images are marked as such, especially if RF, thereby possibly being put into some sort of 'pool' of images for future use. They need to have a system. Like some places don't have for reporting RM re-uses, not only the DM, but also in one case for me, the NUJ!!! (Alamy chased both of these up.)

 

But as we know, some RM sales are being made with ever-wider licences, some being not much short of RF (repeat uses, long time-frame), so the same applies there.

I'm still not sure when RM/no releases pics are used for 'marketing... not advertising', what that apparent paradox actually means.

 

(still all RM here)

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.