Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

So, while it has been pointed out most people here are honest and would obey the rules, it would be possible for a nasty criminal individual to take shots from the same session nearly identical to each other, upload under one name exclusive to Alamy and under another name spread them around agencies.  In preventing this Alamy could punish and withdraw exclusivity from an innocent photographer - because by chance another photographer took the same shot as them.  Yes there are ways of making sure this does not happen - but they involve time and effort pixel peeping and checking EXIF and other such fiddly bits that the cost of effective policing will be more than the increase in income exclusivity brings.

Eh? How does the innocent get his name and account associated with the cheat's images?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

No I mean it is a fact that 2 different photographers have taken the identical millisecond shot while close together (already quoted but https://petapixel.com/2018/03/07/two-photographers-unknowingly-shot-millisecond-time/) - it was chance one saw the others work and thought his own image had been stolen.  
So when it comes to the likes of tourist attractions, common wildlife, etc there are huge numbers of photos taken by different photographers that are nearly indistinguishable from each other - certainly not possible with a single glance.   
So, while it has been pointed out most people here are honest and would obey the rules, it would be possible for a nasty criminal individual to take shots from the same session nearly identical to each other, upload under one name exclusive to Alamy and under another name spread them around agencies.  In preventing this Alamy could punish and withdraw exclusivity from an innocent photographer - because by chance another photographer took the same shot as them.  Yes there are ways of making sure this does not happen - but they involve time and effort pixel peeping and checking EXIF and other such fiddly bits that the cost of effective policing will be more than the increase in income exclusivity brings.

I know I sound cynical and paranoid - but I believe there will always be a human ready to exploit a weakness and the best way to avoid weakness is to highlight it.  Without some significant extra detail I do not see how this system will not be scammed - and if the system is scammed then innocents will lose out either through being mistaken for a scammer or because the scammer is getting rewards they are not entitled too.

 

 

I worked for 20 years with an agency that defined similiars as images taken by the same photographer, that looked like they were taken in the same shooting session.

 

No similiars allowed, and the photographer was terminated, unless they came up with a good reason for the similiar. The termination was not arbitrary, the photographer was given a chance to explain about shooting as part of a crowd, or any other logical reason.

 

A few photographers were terminated over the 20 years, as an example to everyone else, when it was found they were gaming the system,

 

It was a public shaming of gamers. It worked quite well for everyone except the gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

This is why it is crucial that Alamy clarify whom they consider to be their competitors -- e.g. are they only referring to stock agencies, or to POD sites and outfits that link you up directly to customers as well?

 

Yes, I have the same question about POD sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

 

I worked for 20 years with an agency that defined similiars as images taken by the same photographer, that looked like they were taken in the same shooting session.

 

No similiars allowed, and the photographer was terminated, unless they came up with a good reason for the similiar. The termination was not arbitrary, the photographer was given a chance to explain about shooting as part of a crowd, or any other logical reason.

 

A few photographers were terminated over the 20 years, as an example to everyone else, when it was found they were gaming the system,

 

It was a public shaming of gamers. It worked quite well for everyone except the gamers.

 

Terminating photographers? Sounds pretty final. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Eh? How does the innocent get his name and account associated with the cheat's images?

Uh when the client who has (theoretically) paid a premium for an image exclusive to Alamy finds the "same" image on a different agency - or (here comes my inner cynic again) when general jealous trouble-stirrers among other photographers find similar images on other agencies because they have deliberately gone looking for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, amycicconi said:

 

Yes, I have the same question about POD sites.

 

Let's hope we get an answer soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

 

I would say yes because they could practically be the same image just the colouring changed. They are obviously both from the same shoot regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BobD said:

 

I would say yes because they could practically be the same image just the colouring changed. They are obviously both from the same shoot regardless.

 

They are two different images in my opinion.  One customer may particularly like the colour in one of those images and not like the colour in the other.  

It's like standing on a hill and taking a panoramic shot of a valley in bright sunshine and a couple of hours later taking a panoramic shot of the same valley but with a stormy sky.  Two different images of the same subject each with a different 'feel'.

 

Also, my analogy of a ship sailing down the Thames.  One image is of the ship approaching.  The second image taken 1 minute later is of stern of the ship as it passes.  Same subject but slightly different views.  Are these to be classed as 'similar'?  

 

Personally, I think the whole exclusivity thing is  a bit of a mess.  It is open to interpretation either way.  

 

Personally I cannot give exclusivity to images on Alamy that will be sold for peanuts and also open to misuse via the presentation licence.  If Alamy were prepared to pull their finger out and police the presentation licence - or actually get rid of it - then I would certainly re-consider.  They won't - so I won't.  

 

Pleased that it is going to work for some contributors.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

 
So, while it has been pointed out most people here are honest and would obey the rules, it would be possible for a nasty criminal individual to take shots from the same session nearly identical to each other, upload under one name exclusive to Alamy and under another name spread them around agencies. 

 

If I were a criminal, I could think of many more profitable activities than stock photography!

Alex

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

 

If I were a criminal, I could think of many more profitable activities than stock photography!

Alex

Yes well not all criminals are intelligent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Also what happens if/when 2 photographers take almost identical images (which can and does happen https://petapixel.com/2018/03/07/two-photographers-unknowingly-shot-millisecond-time/)   with one submitting exclusively to Alamy and the other one submitting to multiple agencies?

Can't do anything about that.

Look at photos of the press pack with lenses crammed right next to each other.  They are taking similars or even near-identicals. Eg there are constant pics of TM coming out of Downing Street every day, and they're only different if she's wearing something different. Otherwise, they're all similars.

Any big event is going to have a lot of similars from a lot of different people going to different places.

 

If I'm on safari, sure thing is that a lot of my pics will be very like someone else's from my group as we're all shooting from the same vehicle. I could no more stop them from putting their pics wherever they want as they could stop me.

 

Some months ago, I was in a local nature reserve's photo hide. There were some other people in who I didn't know. As it happened I took a photo which was just at the right moment to be funny in that 'write a caption for this' sort of way, so posted it on Fb. One of my Fb friends said, "Were you in the hide at the same time as X?" where X was his pal (from the other side of the country) who had put a near-identical pic up on his Fb page (with the same 'write a caption for this' suggestion).

Share this post


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

 

If I were a criminal, I could think of many more profitable activities than stock photography!

Alex

LOL Alex

 

One would hope....

 

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Can't do anything about that.

Look at photos of the press pack with lenses crammed right next to each other.  They are taking similars or even near-identicals. Eg there are constant pics of TM coming out of Downing Street every day, and they're only different if she's wearing something different. Otherwise, they're all similars.

Any big event is going to have a lot of similars from a lot of different people going to different places.

 

If I'm on safari, sure thing is that a lot of my pics will be very like someone else's from my group as we're all shooting from the same vehicle. I could no more stop them from putting their pics wherever they want as they could stop me.

 

Some months ago, I was in a local nature reserve's photo hide. There were some other people in who I didn't know. As it happened I took a photo which was just at the right moment to be funny in that 'write a caption for this' sort of way, so posted it on Fb. One of my Fb friends said, "Were you in the hide at the same time as X?" where X was his pal (from the other side of the country) who had put a near-identical pic up on his Fb page (with the same 'write a caption for this' suggestion).

Yes I know it happens and cannot be stopped - and see it as a possible cause of problems for exclusivity.

If Alamy accepts anything and everything as exclusive - and market the images as "only available here" they are likely to get disgruntled customers complaining they have found the identical image elsewhere cheaper when they were told it is exclusive.   Which opens up a whole new can of worms - do Alamy restrict what can be marked exclusive?  Do they carry on selling stuff marked exclusive at rock bottom prices?  Do customers start to treat exclusives as nothing but hot air?  How exactly is this going to either help Alamys bottom line or help us increase our sales and incomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Yes I know it happens and cannot be stopped - and see it as a possible cause of problems for exclusivity.

If Alamy accepts anything and everything as exclusive - and market the images as "only available here" they are likely to get disgruntled customers complaining they have found the identical image elsewhere cheaper when they were told it is exclusive.   Which opens up a whole new can of worms - do Alamy restrict what can be marked exclusive?  Do they carry on selling stuff marked exclusive at rock bottom prices?  Do customers start to treat exclusives as nothing but hot air?  How exactly is this going to either help Alamys bottom line or help us increase our sales and incomes?

It happens with other sites which require exclusivity - e.g. these news images I highlighted are often supplied by different people to different exclusive agencies.

One might possibly be on dodgier ground if one set up a commercial shoot with props and models with other photographer/s and each tog sent very similar pics to different agencies.

 

I'm on a micro deal which is artist exclusivity for all RF pics, and no similars to be sent RM. However, they also allow print sales from POS sites.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BobD said:

I would imagine the contract will include similars, and you may loose your account if you flout whatever the rules will be.

 

Well, notwithstanding that what they did would be unethical and borderline fraudulent, not to mention a breach of contract, Alamy doesn't need to prove it.

Look up "sole discretion" in the contract. If Alamy doesn't want to represent you, it ends your contract.

 

 

If you include similars then you probably stop EVERY professional live news photographer subitting to live news

Edited by Julie Edwards
Added quuotes
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

Also what happens if/when 2 photographers take almost identical images (which can and does happen https://petapixel.com/2018/03/07/two-photographers-unknowingly-shot-millisecond-time/)   with one submitting exclusively to Alamy and the other one submitting to multiple agencies?

 

Nothing happens. When you mark an image as 'exclusive' to an agency, you are simply stating that image (your image), is exclusive to that agency.

You are not saying the subject of the image is exclusive, and to believe so is just plain silly if you think about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BobD said:

 

You can only be responsible for your own images, not everyone's. I would imagine some locations, i.e tower bridge will have thousands of similar images.

 

Absolutely! And it has always been so . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I am well aware of the how exclusivity works I am trying to get people to see how an exclusive system can be scammed.  That people can claim that the identical image on a different site was taken by someone else.  That people who do not sell under a different identity on other sites can be accused of doing just that.  That the fact that it can be scammed will open a whole new can of worms and is likely to cause way worse headaches than it solves.

Unless of course, Alamy is going to do absolutely nothing about differentiating exclusive images from non-exclusive and are just going to leave it as a box people tick that achieves nothing except a higher percentage commission - in which case every honest person who does not tick the box is being handicapped by their honesty.

I see flaws with the proposed system - and I want to highlight them and find out what is going to be done to protect contributors against them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you set an ftp upload to exclusive? I get that going into the AIM and ticking the box for the upload will do it.

 

But then there’s a window when live news will be non-exclusive on the fresh upload and subject to a 20% penalty. This mostly would concern those that use Photo Mechanic to get a batch upstairs quickly.

 

In all honesty, instant live news sales (from non-agencies at least) don’t seem to be a thing, but it could happen, and it made for the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Again I am well aware of the how exclusivity works I am trying to get people to see how an exclusive system can be scammed.  That people can claim that the identical image on a different site was taken by someone else.  That people who do not sell under a different identity on other sites can be accused of doing just that.  That the fact that it can be scammed will open a whole new can of worms and is likely to cause way worse headaches than it solves.

Unless of course, Alamy is going to do absolutely nothing about differentiating exclusive images from non-exclusive and are just going to leave it as a box people tick that achieves nothing except a higher percentage commission - in which case every honest person who does not tick the box is being handicapped by their honesty.

I see flaws with the proposed system - and I want to highlight them and find out what is going to be done to protect contributors against them.

The images I have marked "exclusive" here are exclusive here. Same as ALL the images I have at another big, big, big US-based agency; contractually, that is the situation, and I and the agency entered that contract in good faith.

 

Funnily enough, I have never felt handicapped by my honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dustydingo said:

The images I have marked "exclusive" here are exclusive here. Same as ALL the images I have at another big, big, big US-based agency; contractually, that is the situation, and I and the agency entered that contract in good faith.

 

Funnily enough, I have never felt handicapped by my honesty.

It would be the ones honest enough to not mark images exclusive being handicapped if Alamy do not intend to monitor police and enforce exclusivity. 

How are you going to feel if people are clicking the exclusive box and getting 50% when they are not being exclusive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

It would be the ones honest enough to not mark images exclusive being handicapped if Alamy do not intend to monitor police and enforce exclusivity. 

How are you going to feel if people are clicking the exclusive box and getting 50% when they are not being exclusive?

I couldn't care less what others are doing. Life's too short.

 

the big US-based agency I mentioned before: they are very serious about exclusivity. However, they don't actively monitor it (realistically, they can't so they don't, they're not that stupid), but if it comes to their attention someone has broken their contract, they certainly do 'enforce'. For some strange reason, I suspect Alamy will do the same because it's all they can realistically do.

 

I'm not in the business of looking for solutions to problems that don't (or may not) exist, so I have absolutely no problem with that arrangement.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Eh? How does the innocent get his name and account associated with the cheat's images?

 

I'm with you Mark . . . how does the innocent get his name and account associated with a cheat's images?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a definition of "exclusive to Alamy" in the contract.

 

For instance here is my "exclusive to Alamy" photo of a famous historic painting. My individual copy photo made from the original painting may be "exclusive to Alamy", but other copy photos made from the original painting by other photographers at different times are all over the internet. I have not uploaded my copy photo anywhere else but at Alamy.

 

Can exclusive to Alamy apply to my uploads of public domain images that would also be elsewhere on the internet?

 

If public domain images not exclusive, that means any upload of public domain images would have to be at 40%.

The Death of General Wolfe by Benjamin West oil on canvas painted 1776 Royal Ontario Museum ROM in Toronto Ontario CanadaStock Photo

  • Upvote 1

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.