antonio pagan Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Hi , hope all is well. Was wandering how could we get from Alamy the list of publications each contributor has had published ? Not monthly but at least annually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avpics Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 They wouldn't give that out for fear you'd cut out the middle person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonio pagan Posted April 25, 2019 Author Share Posted April 25, 2019 This is not right toward contributors.we still own the copyright of the images and we have all legal right to use and track our published work fir our portfolio. Furthermore if we want to claim Payback on our own we must have the list of published work. How possible!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 If you upload your sold images to a copyright site like Copytrack (it’s free) or Pixsy, you should be able to spot online uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonio pagan Posted April 25, 2019 Author Share Posted April 25, 2019 That sounds cool ! Thanks Sally and all ... still we should have all right to that list from Alamy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 43 minutes ago, antonio pagan said: still we should have all right to that list from Alamy... I don't think any agency will give you that information. If they do then all you have to do is phone the client yourself and negotiate with them. No business is going to give you the means to cut their services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 hour ago, antonio pagan said: we should have all right to that list from Alamy... You're going to have to get used to the idea that you won't usually know where your pix end up... or give stock photography a miss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonio pagan Posted April 25, 2019 Author Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Colin Woods said: I don't think any agency will give you that information. If they do then all you have to do is phone the client yourself and negotiate with them. No business is going to give you the means to cut their services. Hi Colin, not sure what you mean re negotiating with Client. I believe as photographer we should have an ethic of work and respect that. I would not go to the Client, the images were sold by Alamy (or agency)and already negotiated. The images must be credited to the photographer and if the Client is interested to work directly with the photographer for commission that os another thing and I do not see why not. Alamy is not the photographer exclusive agent but just a distributor and seller and they take 50% to cover their work for selling which is already a lot. If they are scared of this why they do not put it in black an white? and we can decide if agree or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonio pagan Posted April 25, 2019 Author Share Posted April 25, 2019 39 minutes ago, John Morrison said: You're going to have to get used to the idea that you won't usually know where your pix end up... or give stock photography a miss... I am thinking often to that ...but also thinking of photographer get together this could be changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thyrsis Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Alamy never have, and never will, hand out that sort of information. Also I think Alamy could be in breach of GDPR if they did so. That’s why the friendly community here and the images found thread are invaluable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHA Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I agree, Antonio. It would be a nice courtesy to let creators know where their work had been published. People often find out incidentally anyway, so if they were going to negotiate on their own, they could be doing that every time they found one now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 13 minutes ago, KHA said: I agree, Antonio. It would be a nice courtesy to let creators know where their work had been published. People often find out incidentally anyway, so if they were going to negotiate on their own, they could be doing that every time they found one now. By the time pix are reported, they are already published, the deal done (though probably not yet paid for 😥). A "nice courtesy"? Really? Alamy have their business model. It seems pretty obvious that they're not going to spend time and money notifying photographers where and when their pix are published. And, believe me, nobody working on a mag, or paper, or website wants to hear from photographers requesting a tearsheet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 34 minutes ago, Thyrsis said: Also I think Alamy could be in breach of GDPR if they did so. Really? Surely GDPR would only apply if a private individual bought a licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHA Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 9 minutes ago, John Morrison said: A "nice courtesy"? Really? Yes, really. If they didn't want you to know where it was published until after the deal was done, they could delay notifying you until then. I really don't understand your distinction, though. After you read the thread about where your piece has been published, what would stop you from negotiating a future deal with that outlet? I don't really understand the purpose of making photographers spend time finding photos by accident, when they could spend their time shooting and uploading more shots for you instead. And if I were paying the rates some of these outlets were getting away with paying, I sure as hell wouldn't have a problem giving the creator a tearsheet, at minimum! But surely you wouldn't have a problem with the photographer buying a copy of your publication so they could get a tearsheet, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 minute ago, KHA said: Yes, really. If they didn't want you to know where it was published until after the deal was done, they could delay notifying you until then. I really don't understand your distinction, though. After you read the thread about where your piece has been published, what would stop you from negotiating a future deal with that outlet? I don't really understand the purpose of making photographers spend time finding photos by accident, when they could spend their time shooting and uploading more shots for you instead. And if I were paying the rates some of these outlets were getting away with paying, I sure as hell wouldn't have a problem giving the creator a tearsheet, at minimum! But surely you wouldn't have a problem with the photographer buying a copy of your publication so they could get a tearsheet, right? Well, that's two more things you say you "don't understand". Alamy run their business in the way you probably would, if you were running a stock pic library rather than shooting pix. If you don't like their business model - or T & Cs - you can do as you suggest, and approach potential clients directly. Tearsheets? Nobody in any kind of business wants to hear from photographers who want tearsheets. It's irrelevant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHA Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 22 minutes ago, John Morrison said: Well, that's two more things you say you "don't understand". Alamy run their business in the way you probably would, if you were running a stock pic library rather than shooting pix. If you don't like their business model - or T & Cs - you can do as you suggest, and approach potential clients directly. Tearsheets? Nobody in any kind of business wants to hear from photographers who want tearsheets. It's irrelevant... If tearsheets are irrelevant why did you bring them into the conversation? Nobody broached the idea of contacting clients for tearsheets except you. Antonio specifically said he would not contact the client. I never suggested contacting clients. I said that if people are seeing where their pictures are published and not contacting clients currently, then official knowledge of where their work has been published is not the thing that's going to make them start contacting outlets. Please don't twist my words. Is there some reason you have a problem with people saying there are things about what other people have said they don't understand? Anyway, no more time for this, got to be off now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 15 minutes ago, KHA said: Is there some reason you have a problem with people saying there are things about what other people have said they don't understand? Well, I don't understand that. 😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester_Brown Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 If tearsheets are irrelevant why does Alamy want to see one to grant live news access? They want to see something THEY have, but won't tell YOU where it was published. What am I missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thyrsis Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Russell said: Really? Surely GDPR would only apply if a private individual bought a licence. Private individuals do buy licenses! Isn't that what PU is technically? And unless a business gives Alamy written permission to pass on their details surely Alamy can’t do so? I may well be wrong. Maybe someone who knows more than I do about the legality of this can answer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 When I worked as a photo editor at a book publisher, only amateurs asked for tearsheets, which I refused to send out. The same amateurs would offer to save me money, and cut out their agent in future, by dealing direct. So it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 25 minutes ago, Thyrsis said: Private individuals do buy licenses Yes - that's what I said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHA Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 46 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said: When I worked as a photo editor at a book publisher, only amateurs asked for tearsheets, which I refused to send out. The same amateurs would offer to save me money, and cut out their agent in future, by dealing direct. So it happens. If your company was paying them for their work, which one hopes they were, surely they were no longer amateurs? They were paid professionals asking for a copy of their work. Not an unreasonable request in my estimation, but clearly you don't share the same opinion. And I definitely don't think it's unreasonable for photographers to want to buy a publication or print out a copy of their work from the Internet. Or merely just to know where it's been published so they can keep a publication list for their portfolio. But at any rate, the point remains that photographers could be doing all this stuff now anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AM Chang Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I don't know any agency - at least with those that I have worked - that provides that "complete" information (clients information). If a photographer uploads a photo for Agency "A", at the same time "A" provides to another partner distributor "B", and "B" provides to distributor "C" and "C" licenses to client "D". Agency "A" will go crazy to look for that publication/tear sheet/client. Imagine "A" asking "B", "B" asking "C" who is "D". And have to consider that the license date may not be the publication date, and it can be magazine, newspaper, internet, internal brochure, powerpoint presentation, etc. I prefer that the agency's staff work for marketing and selling my images, instead of looking/searching at the publication/tear sheets, which will surely cost time and money for human resources. The agencies do not work with a single photographer, not mentioning they have partner agencies, etc. It seems to be simple but it is complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHA Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I have no idea why some photographers are so hostile to the idea of photographers actually being told where their work is published that they feel the need to downvote people who merely agree with the OP (who got no downvotes on any of his posts) and comment that it would be a nice courtesy, but I'll leave you guys to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thyrsis Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Russell said: Yes - that's what I said! Exactly. Which is why Alamy can’t tell you who licensed that image. Wether the same rules apply to companies I don’t know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.