PU license omission?

[John Mitchell]

I've just had two very suspicious personal use licenses. Both images have sold a number of times for editorial use (one was even zoomed just before the PU sale), and they are not subjects that would lend themselves to prints, cards, etc. I can't help noticing that the current PU licensing terms mention "Non-commercial use only" and not editorial use. Wouldn't it make sense to expand the phrase to something like "Non-commercial and non-editorial use only"? The current licensing terms seem to leave the door open to editorial use. Any thoughts on this?

 

Current terms:

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale.
Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use

 

Change to:

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial and non-editorial use only, not for resale.
Media: Non-commercial, non-editorial, one time, personal/home use

Edited July 30, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Bryan]

There are some instances where the PU fee is higher than the editorial, e.g. some UK Newspaper scheme web usage, but I agree, there are plenty of other cases where the buyer would be making a, sometimes considerable, saving.

[John Mitchell]

6 hours ago, Bryan said:

There are some instances where the PU fee is higher than the editorial, e.g. some UK Newspaper scheme web usage, but I agree, there are plenty of other cases where the buyer would be making a, sometimes considerable, saving.

 

That's true. I had three PU sales this month and they were all full price ($19.99). My concern, though, is that some buyers these days might not realize that they can't use PU images for editorial purposes. Perhaps Alamy isn't being clear enough about this in their licensing terms.

 

Just sayin'...

Edited July 31, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Betty LaRue]

6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That's true. I had three PU sales this month and they were all full price ($19.99). My concern, though, is that some buyers these days might not realize that they can't use PU images for editorial purposes. Perhaps Alamy isn't being clear enough about this in their licensing terms.

 

Just sayin'...

I agree. I had one yesterday that was promptly refunded. It was of a storefront...hard to think of it for PU.  Maybe the buyer realized that and had an honesty attack.

Sayin’ with you.

[losdemas]

The term 'Personal Use' seems about as straightforward to me as can be. I simply cannot believe that those who abuse it do not know what they are doing, or that adjusting the written usage terms will therefore make the slightest difference to those who license in this way: intending to abuse the licence.  Which is why I opted out some considerable time ago.

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I agree. I had one yesterday that was promptly refunded. It was of a storefront...hard to think of it for PU.  Maybe the buyer realized that and had an honesty attack.

Sayin’ with you.

 

Honesty attacks are pretty rare these days. Don't recall ever having had a PU sale refunded (touch wood). However, when an image has licensed for editorial use in the past, has no aesthetic value whatsoever, and has been zoomed, I can't help feeling that something is fishy if it suddenly licenses for PU. But I guess anything is possible.