Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They wouldn't give that out for fear you'd cut out the middle person

Edited by Avpics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds cool ! Thanks Sally and all ... still we should have all right to that list from Alamy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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!

Edited by KHA
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 😀

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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?

Edited by Chester_Brown
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

Private individuals do buy licenses

Yes - that's what I said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by AM Chang
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.