Personal use and limiting file size for the end user

[shearwater]

As so many stated in the comments, I think the survey is not well focused.

Sizes should be in pixels.

There shouldn't be a limit to allow personal uses...just a tiered system similar as M. Chapman detailed.

Refunds should have the shortest time limit possible.

And as Bill Kuta says...it is fundamental not to show Personal/Presentation Uses the first and marked...Alamy's big clients are suppose to be professionals.

Anyway, thanks Alamy for the effort of asking and trying to improve 👏 👍

[John Walker]

+1 for pricing by image pixel size.

 

This is how another agency prices but doesn't appear to distinguish for Personal Use.  Prices seem a bit steep but they are pricing based on size.

 

PURCHASE A LICENCE

All Royalty-Free licences include global use rights, comprehensive protection, and simple pricing with volume discounts available

 

Extra small

£50.00

 

Small

£150.00

 

Medium

£275.00

 

Large

5212 x 3468 px (44.13 x 29.36 cm)

300 dpi

18.1 MP

£375.00 GBP

 

 

GET THIS IMAGE FOR £340

ADD TO BASKET

Edited October 1, 2019 by John Walker

[Harry Harrison]

As far as defining the sizes, Alamy already put the size under the images like this:

 

File size: 

57.3 MB (2.9 MB Compressed download) 

Dimensions: 5479 x 3653 px | 46.4 x 30.9 cm | 18.3 x 12.2 inches | 300dpi

 

No reason why, for consistency and if they are committed to MB, they couldn't express the limits to various download sizes in the same way, without the compressed download size of course.

 

 

 

[MDM]

3 hours ago, Phil Crean said:

+1

This is crucial...Don't make the first choice available at the lowest price pint...

Phil

 

Have you been drinking Phil or is this a new pricing model ? 🤣

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

This.  The survey is not asking the right question.   Should be based on pixel dimension.  i.e. longest side   Also a PU/Presentation refund time limit

 

Looking at the options in the survey, they must actually mean pixel dimensions but it is certainly not obvious. The survey needs rethinking as so many have pointed out.

[Bryan]

I am currently opted in so have not voted. I would support the idea of linking the fee to the file size.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Bryan

[spacecadet]

4 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

I'm assuming this includes digital files, but please correct me if I'm wrong!

So, would be nice to have, but illegal essentially...

Sorry!

Steve

Not if the download is done immediately which would apply to a PU, and the buyer explicity acknowledges that they have thereby forfeited their cancellation rights.

Alamy's cancellation policy is more generous than the CCRs.

Edited October 1, 2019 by spacecadet

[mickfly]

On the matter of digital music (it's a product) or even software; try getting a refund on those items, even 10 seconds after you downloaded it!
I'm sure the consumer legislation is meant to cover items which are faulty or not wanted which can be RETURNED for a refund.

[Phil Crean]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

Have you been drinking Phil or is this a new pricing model ? 🤣

Only water!!!

 

[isphoto]

5 hours ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

No refunds after 30 days (to stay within consumer rights?)

Images sold by pixel size (with cm or inches in brackets so a consumer can clearly see what size image they are getting)

£100 per image (or is that too much to ask)

make it payable before download and no refund. My fundamental issue with PU is that it appears to have been very poorly policed with regards to use. Even presentation use is questionable. I would much rather see a min $/£25 per use, this would negate most peoples issues with pu. I do not see why i should pay more in car parking to get a shot, than the amount that someone pays for the image, it is fundamentally wrong.

Edited October 1, 2019 by isphoto
Text edit

[Bill Kuta]

16 minutes ago, isphoto said:

 I would much rather see a min $/£25 per use, this would negate most peoples issues with pu. I do not see why i should pay more in car park ing to get a shot, than what someone gets to pay for the image, it is fundamentally wrong.

 

+1

And to pile on further, I'll say what some others have--though I am not currently opting images out of PU, I do occasionally reconsider. When I looked at the last year's sales, I was surprised at how many were for PU (or presentation).

Edited October 1, 2019 by Bill Kuta

[Steve F]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Not if the download is done immediately which would apply to a PU, and the buyer explicity acknowledges that they have thereby forfeited their cancellation rights.

Alamy's cancellation policy is more generous than the CCRs.

 

Rapidly getting out of my area of expertise here... But in this case then, why is a refund offered for PU at all by Alamy?? Shouldn't refunds only be offered if the wrong license was purchased?

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Phil Crean said:

Only water!!!

 

 

I recommend coffee. 

[Panthera tigris]

1400 px x 1400 px

[Thomas Kyhn]

As pointed out above: sizes should be in pixels.

[spacecadet]

11 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

Rapidly getting out of my area of expertise here... But in this case then, why is a refund offered for PU at all by Alamy?? Shouldn't refunds only be offered if the wrong license was purchased?

To repeat-because Alamy's refund policy is more generous than the CCRs.

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

To repeat-because Alamy's refund policy is more generous than the CCRs.

 

Was more a question to Alamy! Sorry, wasn't clear

[vpics]

This should give pixel dimensions and not just file sizes. People downloading person use files probably have no idea for 25MB stands for. The option should show sizes according to usage -  eg social media 600x400 or print 3000x2000. For this reason, I have not cast a vote as yet.

[Joseph Clemson]

6 minutes ago, vpics said:

This should give pixel dimensions and not just file sizes. People downloading person use files probably have no idea for 25MB stands for. The option should show sizes according to usage -  eg social media 600x400 or print 3000x2000. For this reason, I have not cast a vote as yet.

 

Plus one on this. Alamy's wedlock to image file size in Mb baffles me. Pixel dimensions, please, so I can offer a constructive vote.

[Bill Brooks]

I already allow both personal use and novel use so I cannot answer the question.

 

However whenever I see a high rez image sold for personal use or novel use it gives me pause, and I review my decision.

 

I feel that anything bigger than 1500 pixels on the long side for  personal use has to be suspicious. I also am concerned that a personal or novel use high rez file could leak out into the wild west of the internet. If the file was only 1500 pixels this would not be as great a concern.

 

If someone wants to make a large personal use wall decor $600 print for their castle, then they should be paying a much higher price to get the digital file with increased resolution.

[shearwater]

5 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

Plus one on this. Alamy's wedlock to image file size in Mb baffles me. Pixel dimensions, please, so I can offer a constructive vote.

 

One more plus to the chain. I can't vote seriously in something I can not understand

[shearwater]

12 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

I feel that anything bigger than 1500 pixels on the long side for  personal use has to be suspicious. I also am concerned that a personal or novel use high rez file could leak out into the wild west of the internet. If the file was only 1500 pixels this would not be as great a concern.

 

If someone wants to make a large personal use wall decor $600 print for their castle, then they should be paying a much higher price to get the digital file with increased resolution.

 

I completely agree with Bill.

[Jill Morgan]

Is the MB size based on jpeg (which is what most personal use buyers are looking for) or on the uncompressed size? If based on uncompressed than size would certainly be consistent with MP size, but if based on jpeg, then depending on the content of the image, the pixel size would vary all over the place.

 

People buying for personal use usually don't know anything about Raw or Tiff files.  They deal in jpegs and want to know what size image they are getting. Giving a choice of 5 MB doesn't tell the buyer who may want it for a full page photo how big the image is.  More confusion.

 

Alamy seems to have problems in the size defining area.  Look at all the issues with the 17MB uncompressed minimum.  How many newbies have been so confused by that one?

 

Jill

[NYCat]

23 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

As far as defining the sizes, Alamy already put the size under the images like this:

 

File size: 

57.3 MB (2.9 MB Compressed download) 

Dimensions: 5479 x 3653 px | 46.4 x 30.9 cm | 18.3 x 12.2 inches | 300dpi

 

No reason why, for consistency and if they are committed to MB, they couldn't express the limits to various download sizes in the same way, without the compressed download size of course.

 

 

 

 

This makes sense to me with dimensions given in inches and centimeters. These are things everyone should understand. Perhaps also a mention of the size appropriate to a screen use. 

 

Paulette

[M.Chapman]

10 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

Plus one on this. Alamy's wedlock to image file size in Mb baffles me. Pixel dimensions, please, so I can offer a constructive vote.

 

Agreed.

 

Defining the size of the uncompressed image in MB is, I think, a hangover from the days when computers had far less RAM since it defines how much RAM the image will consume when the image is opened on the computer. Now that computer RAM is much, much larger (many GB) the size of an opened image in MB is largely irrelevant. Alamy should stop using MB as it just causes confusion. Indeed Alamy appear to be confused by it themselves as illustrated by the errors in their own infographic. Alamy infographic 

 

Mark

Edited October 2, 2019 by M.Chapman