Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Bummer. I know someone with the same problem. He says it's the sulphites. Apparently even organic wines have some.

 

 

Happens to me too. I stick with Bourbon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for an explanation of this, mentioning that I would post the reply on the forum.

Here it is:

 

"This is part of our new simplified popular pricing licenses that we have been testing with market addressable customers. These have proven very successful for both customers and contributors. 

Customers are entitled to use the image in each of the mentioned uses but from our experience, customers do have a specific use in mind and won't be using it in each area, it simply makes things a lot easier and simpler for customers looking to license images on an ad hoc basis."

Share this post


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

I asked for an explanation of this, mentioning that I would post the reply on the forum.

Here it is:

 

"This is part of our new simplified popular pricing licenses that we have been testing with market addressable customers. These have proven very successful for both customers and contributors. 

Customers are entitled to use the image in each of the mentioned uses but from our experience, customers do have a specific use in mind and won't be using it in each area, it simply makes things a lot easier and simpler for customers looking to license images on an ad hoc basis."

"market accessible customers"!!!

Essentially, it's a way of selling content we have chosen to be RM as near-RF.

And making it harder for us to identify misuses. In my case, that licence was for a low price.

The thing is that with saying they can use files once for each type of usage doesn't make things much easier for the client, as they should still keep records so that someone else in the company doesn't use it again for the same type of use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would question what their definition of successful for contributors means as I have yet to see a contributor anything other than annoyed at these.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I asked for an explanation of this, mentioning that I would post the reply on the forum.

Here it is:

 

"This is part of our new simplified popular pricing licenses that we have been testing with market addressable customers. These have proven very successful for both customers and contributors. 

Customers are entitled to use the image in each of the mentioned uses but from our experience, customers do have a specific use in mind and won't be using it in each area, it simply makes things a lot easier and simpler for customers looking to license images on an ad hoc basis."

 

Thanks for sharing. This type of smorgasbord license doesn't sound like a bad idea to me these days. I just wish that the pricing was higher given the number of options, although wim seems to have done well with one of his.

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for sharing. This type of smorgasbord license doesn't sound like a bad idea to me these days. I just wish that the pricing was higher given the number of options, although wim seems to have done well with one of his.

 

194.56 's well enough.

It's 4.56 higher than the second highest this month.

The average is 44.15 so far, but that's counting everything, today's single 6.97 included.

I'm not seeing a huge drop in fees.

For the rest: google Lingchi. Maybe not in Google Images.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

RM Landscape image 

 

Country: Worldwide ;

Usage: Editorial ; 

Media: Editorial website ; 

Print run: up to 2 million ; 

Placement: Inside and online ; 

Start: 03-February-2019 ; End: 03-February-2024 ;

  

Additional Details: One use in a single editorial article used within the digital versions of a single publication. Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article.

 

All for single single digits licence fee, not enough to even get the hot water for the tea! Really Alamy!!! In this instance, microstock would have been better. 

 

Edit. And...the image is  7514 x 3243 px in size... round of applause to the genius who thought that was a good idea!

Edited by Duncan_Andison
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

RM Landscape image 

 

Country: Worldwide ;

Usage: Editorial ; 

Media: Editorial website ; 

Print run: up to 2 million ; 

Placement: Inside and online ; 

Start: 03-February-2019 ; End: 03-February-2024 ;

  

Additional Details: One use in a single editorial article used within the digital versions of a single publication. Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article.

 

All for single single digits licence fee, not enough to even get the hot water for the tea! Really Alamy!!! In this instance, microstock would have been better. 

 

Edit. And...the image is  7514 x 3243 px in size... round of applause to the genius who thought that was a good idea!

 

Fully understand your annoyance and frustration.

 

+The ability to download full size images for web/personal/presentation, etc. use should have ceased long ago.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

194.56 's well enough.

It's 4.56 higher than the second highest this month.

The average is 44.15 so far, but that's counting everything, today's single 6.97 included.

I'm not seeing a huge drop in fees.

For the rest: google Lingchi. Maybe not in Google Images.

 

wim

 

My Lingchi sale was for a fraction of yours, so it appears that some of us are getting sliced up faster than others.😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have all my images PU restricted so would I be right in thinking that this licence couldn't be offered for one of my pictures?

Share this post


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

I have all my images PU restricted so would I be right in thinking that this licence couldn't be offered for one of my pictures?

 

I'd been thinking that...I imagine that they'd use exactly the same terms, just with PU usage removed?

  • 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.