Jump to content
ArtStudio29

Would like to have your opinion on my portfolio

Recommended Posts

You have some nice images.  I have two comments, there are not many with people pictured.  Given Alamy is largely an editorial agency you may want to include some people, or not.  Second, I noted on your keywords on some images you have added “America”. I think that my throw up false positives and effect your CTR, although some, wiser than I would say that does not matter.  

Edited by IanDavidson
Typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You have some nice images.  I have two comments, there are not many with people pictured.  Given Alamy is largely an editorial agency you may want to include some people, or not.  Second, I noted on your keywords on some images you have added “America”. I think that my throw up false positives and effect your CTR, although some, wiser than I would say that does not matter.  

Thank you very much for your comments Ian.  You are right ... I don't have many pictures with people.  Unfortunately the law is very strict here in Quebec. We need a Release even for Editorial photos if people appears in the picture :(    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ArtStudio29 said:

We need a Release even for Editorial photos if people appears in the picture

Always wondered about this sort of regional variation, would you know whether that would mean that a potential customer of Alamy in Quebec (or Canada as a whole presumably) wouldn't be able to use an editorial picture that had no releases releases but was taken in a country where there was no such restriction, like the UK for example? I think France is potentially the same but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ArtStudio29 said:

Thank you very much for your comments Ian.  You are right ... I don't have many pictures with people.  Unfortunately the law is very strict here in Quebec. We need a Release even for Editorial photos if people appears in the picture :(   

 

I can’t imagine how newspapers and magazines can operate with those kinds of restrictions!

Share this post


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

Always wondered about this sort of regional variation, would you know whether that would mean that a potential customer of Alamy in Quebec (or Canada as a whole presumably) wouldn't be able to use an editorial picture that had no releases releases but was taken in a country where there was no such restriction, like the UK for example? I think France is potentially the same but I'm not sure.

 

Quebec is different from the rest of Canada in a lot of respects. It even has its own legal system for civil law. Quite a bit has been made of Quebec's privacy laws when it comes to street photography and the like. However, I don't think there has been much in the way of enforcement or successful court cases. But please don't quote me...

 

That said, here's an exception that I came across. Again, it concerns photography in Quebec, but the Supreme Court of Canada was on the side of the individual involved.

 

P.S. If the image was taken in a place where there were no restrictions, I don't see how there would be a problem publishing it in Quebec or anywhere else with restrictions as the privacy laws would only apply to residents of those places. But I'm no lawyer...

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

I can’t imagine how newspapers and magazines can operate with those kinds of restrictions!

 

That's probably why the Quebec laws haven't been enforced much AFAIK.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article from the photographer Edmond Terakopian's site rather suggests that the situation is similar in France, but it dates from 2012, has it really been tested in terms of stock photography I wonder?

 

https://photothisandthat.co.uk/2012/02/15/the-french-privacy-law/

Edited by Harry Harrison
typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

P.S. If the image was taken in a place where there were no restrictions, I don't see how there would be a problem publishing it in Quebec or anywhere else with restrictions as the privacy laws would only apply to residents of those places. But I'm no lawyer...

 

Yes, I suppose it needs a lawyer, the other scenario would be going to Quebec (or France?), taking pictures without releases and putting them up on Alamy from the UK. Are you then out of their jurisdiction, could those people at the very least get them taken down. Note I'm just thinking of pictures with incidental, albeit recognisable people in, nothing to harm their reputation.

Edited by Harry Harrison
typo

Share this post


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

Always wondered about this sort of regional variation, would you know whether that would mean that a potential customer of Alamy in Quebec (or Canada as a whole presumably) wouldn't be able to use an editorial picture that had no releases releases but was taken in a country where there was no such restriction, like the UK for example? I think France is potentially the same but I'm not sure.

There was a judgment in the 80s following the complaint of a person who found his image in a magazine (street photo). She chased the photographer and she won. Which has had as effect a case law case. So, we are screwed :( 

Share this post


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

Always wondered about this sort of regional variation, would you know whether that would mean that a potential customer of Alamy in Quebec (or Canada as a whole presumably) wouldn't be able to use an editorial picture that had no releases releases but was taken in a country where there was no such restriction, like the UK for example? I think France is potentially the same but I'm not sure.

I believe that if someone decides that he wants to win a handful of money, it will be easy to say that the photo has damaged his reputation ... Now ... should we be more Catholic than the pope? LOL

Share this post


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

 

I can’t imagine how newspapers and magazines can operate with those kinds of restrictions!

Indeed ! It's ridiculous. In addition, anyone can take pictures of you in the street, and put your picture on fb, instagram etc. 

Share this post


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

This article from the photographer Edmond Terakopian's site rather suggests that the situation is similar in France, but it dates from 2012, has it really been tested in terms of stock photography I wonder?

 

https://photothisandthat.co.uk/2012/02/15/the-french-privacy-law/

 

The Quebec case that I linked to above dates back to 1998, I believe. Not much seems to have happened since then. At least, I can't find anything on the Web.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ArtStudio29 said:

Indeed ! It's ridiculous. In addition, anyone can take pictures of you in the street, and put your picture on fb, instagram etc. 

 

That's a good point. Putting images on social media is a type of publishing. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why these privacy laws don't seem to have gone anywhere. That said, I always look the other way when I'm in public and spot someone pointing a phone in my direction. You never know where you might see yourself these days. I'm also a lot less comfortable photographing people than I used to be.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't mean to divert your thread and I haven't really been on Alamy long enough to give you any meaningful critique. Still, not feeling that you can include people is clearly a problem for the type of photographs you would like to submit to Alamy but does seem to be particularly local to Quebec in terms of its severity. I see that in terms of France this has already been discussed on this forum here back in 2013:

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/65-street-photography-in-france/

 

Do you have professional photographic associations there that can offer you any guidelines?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to divert your thread and I haven't really been on Alamy long enough to give you any meaningful critique. Still, not feeling that you can include people is clearly a problem for the type of photographs you would like to submit to Alamy but does seem to be particularly local to Quebec in terms of its severity. I see that in terms of France this has already been discussed on this forum here back in 2013:

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/65-street-photography-in-france/

 

Do you have professional photographic associations there that can offer you any guidelines?

I'm part of a Photo Club and people are very "strict" about the need to get releases if we use photos with people in exhibitions etc. On the other hand, none of the members use the "stock photos” sites, so they are not aware of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my question is: all the photos you sell on Alamy, are photos with people? What would be the approximate percentage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ArtStudio29 said:

But my question is: all the photos you sell on Alamy, are photos with people? What would be the approximate percentage?

 

I'd say that 75% of my images that license on Alamy do not have people in them, so I don't think it's really a big issue. The main thing is to think editorially -- i.e. think images that can be used to illustrate articles, books, etc. If you've been submitting to microstock agencies, you'll find the market here quite different. It will probably take awhile to get used to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I'd say that 75% of my images that license on Alamy do not have people in them, so I don't think it's really a big issue. The main thing is to think editorially -- i.e. think images that can be used to illustrate articles, books, etc. If you've been submitting to microstock agencies, you'll find the market here quite different. It will probably take awhile to get used to.

Thanks John !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ArtStudio29 said:

Thanks John !

 

De rien. My hope is that Alamy will be able to make inroads -- at better prices -- into the microstock market, but that hasn't happened, not yet anyway...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar to John,  a bit over 75% of my sales in the last year have not had people in the images, and the two biggest sales (including my biggest of all time) had no people.  That is partly because I don't have a high proportion of people in my images.   But I believe as long as one's portfolio includes well-taken photos of subjects that customers are looking for, then one can have some success.

 

Maria

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked my data, and out of 41 (43 if I include two refunds) sales so far this year, only 10 had people in them.

 

I used to live in Montreal, and I try to go back every year for a visit. Have to say that while there I don't usually worry about including people in my images.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • 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.