Student projects use

[John Mitchell]

I had this one show up today for a whopping $0.99. Anyone else? Also, it was an exclusive image and I got 40% rather than 50% commission for some reason (not that it makes much difference). I'm not in NU.

 

Country: Worldwide Usage: Student Projects, For non-commercial use in projects such as dissertations, presentations or essays. Industry sector: Education Image Size: Any size Start: 27 April 2019 Duration: In perpetuity   P.S. Why wouldn't a sale like this be personal / presentation use?

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Phil Crean]

Had one a few weeks ago....

Marginally better than them nicking it. 🤨

Phil

[John Mitchell]

30 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

Had one a few weeks ago....

Marginally better than them nicking it. 🤨

Phil

 

Perhaps that is the topic of the student project -- "Nicking Images in the Digital Age". 😎

 

I believe that I've seen licenses similar to this in the past, but never one quite this low or "in perpetuity".

Edited April 27, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Betty LaRue]

Ahh, well, we should be pleased we’re getting below microstock prices, I guess.

NOT!

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Ahh, well, we should be pleased we’re getting below microstock prices, I guess.

NOT!

 

I have a background in teaching, so I understand that students need cheap photos (although some students drive Lamborghinis and pink Bentley's here in Vancouver). However, I think that they should have access to smaller files for a fixed time and price, not full-size forever at $0.99, though.

 

Still can't figure out why I only got 40%. 😒

Edited April 27, 2019 by John Mitchell

[sb photos]

I had an image sold last year at the same price and license. My view at the time was that a student could have easily afforded more, and the license terms shouldn't have been so loose. As it was, the image was from an event I was just leaving, and was an afterthought just to show a banner of a group not previously present. I wasn't as p****d off as I would have been if it had been one of the images I had driven 35 miles to shoot, but still too low a price.

[John Mitchell]

On 28/04/2019 at 01:52, sb photos said:

I had an image sold last year at the same price and license. My view at the time was that a student could have easily afforded more, and the license terms shouldn't have been so loose. As it was, the image was from an event I was just leaving, and was an afterthought just to show a banner of a group not previously present. I wasn't as p****d off as I would have been if it had been one of the images I had driven 35 miles to shoot, but still too low a price.

 

I always thought that Novel Use covered this type of usage, but I opted out of NU a few years ago. I wish Alamy could clarify what their policy is regarding students looking for inexpensive images. I still don't understand why student project use doesn't fall under personal / presentation use. Think I'll send Alamy an e-mail.

Edited April 29, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Gabbro]

I had one just like that a few weeks ago, and it was a full res download. As much as I am glad knowing a student PAID for a picture instead of lifting it off the internet, but $0.99 for a full res file still fixed for abuse by someone in somewhere. Can Alamy please at least restrict the hi-res download for such low-fee licenses?

[losdemas]

9 hours ago, Gabbro said:

I had one just like that a few weeks ago, and it was a full res download. As much as I am glad knowing a student PAID for a picture instead of lifting it off the internet, but $0.99 for a full res file still fixed for abuse by someone in somewhere. Can Alamy please at least restrict the hi-res download for such low-fee licenses?

.

Quite right. They should - but they won't. I remember it being said elsewhere here before about PU and/or presentation licences for which the same should apply. 

[John Mitchell]

10 hours ago, losdemas said:

.

Quite right. They should - but they won't. I remember it being said elsewhere here before about PU and/or presentation licences for which the same should apply. 

 

Weren't these student projects sales part of Novel Use at one time? Or does memory fail me...

[losdemas]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Weren't these student projects sales part of Novel Use at one time? Or does memory fail me...

 

Don't know the answer to that. Sorry! 

[alexandersr]

Maybe some students don't have enough money. I have some sells with student projects category. It's very low, but it's better than nothing. At least they don't steal from Internet. 

[Robert M Estall]

These student use fees are purely nominal, lets not really consider them as revenue. But it indicates that at least teachers and instructors are informing their students that in the real world, they have to obtain licences and when they are working, more substantial fees will be required. That may sound naive, but at least its a start in the right direction. I've only had one so far but I'm more OK with this than some of the derisory fees obtained in other markets. 

 

When our son was doing design at University, I suggested he should get a student version of a couple of software programs. He and his teacher looked at me like I was unhinged. They were all running hacked versions without any payment. That was their idea of reality; I was glad he got out of there sharpish. Poor example; start as you mean to go on. So ends the lesson!

Edited September 6, 2019 by Robert M Estall

[geogphotos]

My experience of supplying images for education. 

 

My Geography Photos website started off back in 2003 as a subscription site for schools. They would pay an annual fee and be able to download low res versions of my images, and those of some other teachers who contributed images to share without wanting any payment. The subscription fee started off at only £25 and in the end rose, with the number of images, to just under £70. All in all at one time or another I suppose I had close to 200 schools, primary and secondary, nearly all UK signed up. But it was a real struggle, a losing struggle, to get schools off the idea that everything on the internet was free. Blowing my own trumpet but I did win a Geographical Award ( admittedly only a bronze award) for the site's educational potential to promote geography education back in 2005.

 

There was a period in the 2000s when in UK the government gave schools money to purchase approved Curriculum Online digital resources. My site was approved for this but still it was a struggle to get schools to actually spend the money and a lot went unused - internal politics, teachers not getting around to it, whatever. 

 

In the end Google Images and Flickr made my site unviable. It just slowly died a death after they got going.

 

Quite a few of my non-exclusive images with another agency are on Britannica's 'Image Quest'. I think it is mainly fee paying/private schools that subscribe ( ones that want to impress parents with what provision they offer), and perhaps some education authorities, small states. I get small quarterly statements. The payment is worked out by some tiny amount per view, per download, and other such metrics.

 

https://elearn.eb.com/product/britannica-imagequest/

 

There was another educational company that tried a similar subscriptions scheme and that started off with lots of hopes but quietly died. On one level the global education market has huge potential but it is just so hard to regulate things and, in my view, would need central governments to lay down the law over copyright etc. It is just easier for them to turn a blind eye.

 

Not long back I was mulling over re-establishing my own site as a subscription service again and talked it over with my son who is a state school teacher. He basically just humoured me and reminded me that teachers simply use Google and that there was no way they would pay a penny. 

 

I was one of the few Alamy contributors who welcomed Novel use for education use and would do so again if Alamy wanted to offer some sort of service to schools. But I think it would only stand a chance if it was at the level of local government, groups of schools, small nation states etc being able to incorporate the image offering within their own password protected resource site. For example, London Grid for Learning. 

 

 

Look what I found!  Some of the links actually still work.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20040521220516/http://geographyphotos.com/

Edited September 6, 2019 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

I don't think that primary schools or secondary schools are likely to be purchasers. Primarily (in the UK) because there is no need if the images are purely for educational use

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright .

Also because of the closed resource sites you mention (in Scotland, it's GLOW). You did very well to get buyers for your site. I could never have taken out any subscription because we had to have the goods in our hands before we could pay for anything. I had to pay for my subject periodical myself for that reason.

 

I'd think any sales would be for university students for theses, and that is probably the reason for their unlimited duration of licence. They probably should be low-res, but do we know that this definitely isn't the case?

[geogphotos]

11 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I don't think that primary schools or secondary schools are likely to be purchasers. Primarily (in the UK) because there is no need if the images are purely for educational use

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright .

Also because of the closed resource sites you mention (in Scotland, it's GLOW). You did very well to get buyers for your site. I could never have taken out any subscription because we had to have the goods in our hands before we could pay for anything. I had to pay for my subject periodical myself for that reason.

 

I'd think any sales would be for university students for theses, and that is probably the reason for their unlimited duration of licence. They probably should be low-res, but do we know that this definitely isn't the case?

 

 

Image Quest won an award at BETT a few years back. Their market is schools. The idea is that having selected images in one collection provides safety, assures quality, and avoids any possible copyright problems. This would demonstrate to me that there is a market for images purely for educational use. You will find that they charge quite a high price for access to this collection depending on school size and other factors.

 

With such an image collection you can add quality through metadata, slide shows, personal image libraries, lesson plans, resource templates,  and so on ( some of which Image Quest does). The images are of consistent size and quality so users know what they are getting and they are ready to use. I resized all mine to ensure this. 

 

Proportionally I had more Scottish schools subscribe than anywhere else though did notice, as you say,  that some could not act independently and had to order through their local council etc. 

 

I'm not entirely sure that your link includes anything that permits schools to infringe copyright in photography but am not going to argue over it.

 

I was once contacted by London Grid for Learning with an enquiry about providing a  licence for my images to cover all London schools. Unfortunately the scale of it and the amount of discounting that would be required meant that I couldn't proceed. If you look under the bonnet you will likely see that the image collections that these resources provide is very limited and of low quality compared to those from a stock photo agency.

 

There is no doubt that schools use images in all sorts of ways. The demand certainly exists.

 

The global education budget is huge I don't see why photographers shouldn't get their cut from the images that they produce.

 

In UK perhaps an extension of the DACs licence would be way forward?

 

Or Alamy working with a major publisher to create a collection on the same lines of Image Quest?

Edited September 7, 2019 by geogphotos

[Bill Brooks]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Image Quest won an award at BETT a few years back. Their market is schools. The idea is that having selected images in one collection provides safety, assures quality, and avoids any possible copyright problems. This would demonstrate to me that there is a market for images purely for educational use. You will find that they charge quite a high price for access to this collection depending on school size and other factors.

 

With such an image collection you can add quality through metadata, slide shows, personal image libraries, lesson plans, resource templates,  and so on ( some of which Image Quest does). The images are of consistent size and quality so users know what they are getting and they are ready to use. I resized all mine to ensure this. 

 

Proportionally I had more Scottish schools subscribe than anywhere else though did notice, as you say,  that some could not act independently and had to order through their local council etc. 

 

I'm not entirely sure that your link includes anything that permits schools to infringe copyright in photography but am not going to argue over it.

 

I was once contacted by London Grid for Learning with an enquiry about providing a  licence for my images to cover all London schools. Unfortunately the scale of it and the amount of discounting that would be required meant that I couldn't proceed. If you look under the bonnet you will likely see that the image collections that these resources provide is very limited and of low quality compared to those from a stock photo agency.

 

There is no doubt that schools use images in all sorts of ways. The demand certainly exists.

 

The global education budget is huge I don't see why photographers shouldn't get their cut from the images that they produce.

 

In UK perhaps an extension of the DACs licence would be way forward?

 

Or Alamy working with a major publisher to create a collection on the same lines of Image Quest?

 

Great information, both posts.

 

I am glad students are learning to pay for use. My only concern is that students may keep using the images after they graduate.

 

I had a number of NU sales last month but it is not all bad. My CLR on a number of images was 100 not 10 or 1 or .01 but 100. In addition they sold for NU, and might have been saved to a lightbox, so that NU activity should put me nearer the top of the search order for the $$$ sales.

[spacecadet]

19 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I don't think that primary schools or secondary schools are likely to be purchasers. Primarily (in the UK) because there is no need if the images are purely for educational use

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright .

 

An abstract of text may be, but, to quote, copying the whole work would not generally be considered fair dealing.

I assume a lot of uses would be covered by a CLA or similar licence.

Edited September 7, 2019 by spacecadet

[John Mitchell]

19 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I don't think that primary schools or secondary schools are likely to be purchasers. Primarily (in the UK) because there is no need if the images are purely for educational use

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright .

Also because of the closed resource sites you mention (in Scotland, it's GLOW). You did very well to get buyers for your site. I could never have taken out any subscription because we had to have the goods in our hands before we could pay for anything. I had to pay for my subject periodical myself for that reason.

 

I'd think any sales would be for university students for theses, and that is probably the reason for their unlimited duration of licence. They probably should be low-res, but do we know that this definitely isn't the case?

 

I had another of these "student specials" show up yesterday. It was to the US, so I guess the rules must be different there.

 

At least I my share was 50% this time rather than 40%. Good thing I'm too old to have student loans to pay off. 🤓

[Cryptoprocta]

20 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

An abstract of text may be, but, to quote, copying the whole work would not generally be considered fair dealing.

I assume a lot of uses would be covered by a CLA or similar licence.

Yes, indeed, a CLA licence is necessary.

[geogphotos]

51 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Yes, indeed, a CLA licence is necessary.

 

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

An abstract of text may be, but, to quote, copying the whole work would not generally be considered fair dealing.

I assume a lot of uses would be covered by a CLA or similar licence.

 

Isn't a photograph a 'whole work'?

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Isn't a photograph a 'whole work'?

Yes. That was my point. The CDPA exception wouldn't help. But a CLA licence probably would.

 

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Isn't a photograph a 'whole work'?

The CLA licence which was above our photocopier said we couldn't take a photo out of its context (for use in a different context, implied). That was specifically for photocopying of course,as the rules were made before digital. They've probably been updated by now.

BTW, you're right, the GLOW images weren't great quality, at least in my subject, but GLOW had only been in use for a short time before I quit.

[geogphotos]

The web page preceding the one linked to above specifically states that not all the fair use exceptions apply to photographs.

 

It has always been a Catch 22 situation. Provision won't become available until there is revenue to support it.

[Cryptoprocta]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

The web page preceding the one linked to above specifically states that not all the fair use exceptions apply to photographs.

 

It has always been a Catch 22 situation. Provision won't become available until there is revenue to support it.

It's a minefiled for sure:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-copyright-law

 

BTW, I'm really curious. When you sold to Scotland, did you sell to abc (the authorities' buying consortium) or (older) Strathclyde? These were what I worked under where subscriptions were not allowed from per capita.