Personal use and limiting file size for the end user

[Harry Harrison]

It appears that Alamy are looking for a possible single cutoff threshold rather than a tier but half of those options are above the current Alamy minimum size threshold of 17MB. It would seem sensible that any single threshold should be below 17MB otherwise some images couldn't be sold for PU without either upsizing or simply barring them from purchase which would add an extra complication, many news images are on or around the minimum for example, the same would be true of any tiered thresholds above 17MB. How do other libraries deal with this?

[TABan]

I probably won't cease restricting personal use in any case. However, I agree the sizes should be in pixels on the long side? Also, does personal use allow posting online. If so, there is no way I'd allow that.

Edited October 3, 2019 by TABan

[StanRohrer]

I still sell PU. I have not voted. A file size or pixel size file reduction will not help in the cases I've reviewed. I find some of my sales being used on web sites that are more towards commercial and less personal. For example, I found 2 PU sales used on two different (but related) web sites created by the same web site developer company. Alamy extracted a change in pay for one site use and wasn't able to extract a new payment for the other. Alamy said I could chase the 2nd issue. For the difference Alamy got on the first issue I couldn't justify the time nor expense of chasing that second. With the Alamy precident for the first, how can I charge a penalty if I chase the second? File size restrictions will likely have no impact on this problem. Alamy needs to do serious push-back on the buyer when the buyer does not follow the license agreement. The agreement should have penalties (say, 10x) for miss-use of the purchase agreement. In my first case, the first change of price was not a penalty but just a price per normal scale so cheating wasn't penalized. In the second case, I think the buyer figured out if he did not respond then Alamy wasn't going to carry out the penalty (bill the credit card, send an additional invoice, send the billing change to collections). I can't prove it (Alamy would have the record of sale), but I highly suspect the same buyer bought both images.

[Andreas]

I vote for limited pixel size. And yes, definitely extend the limit to presentations.

Currently I opted out for PU and would do same for presentations if possible.

[CHP]

Another vote for limiting by pixel dimensions, not file size in MB.

[Betty LaRue]

Vote for pixel dimensions and extend to presentation.

[Matt Ashmore]

5 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Vote for pixel dimensions and extend to presentation.

 

How does this work given as images could be in any aspect ratio?  .. 4x3, 3x2, 16x1 ?

[Chexy]

As many have already pointed out, personal image use should of course be defined and charged according to image size in pixels. While the survey question is a step in the right direction, I will not click an option because the survey was not clearly presented. A file for small web use should not be capable of making a quality 20 x 30 inch print and the file for a quality 20 x 30 inch print should not be available for $15. 

 

I currently shoot images at 8256 x 5504 pixels but rarely upload to Alamy at over 3000 pixels long. If licence prices were scale graded according to required pixel dimensions, I might be persuaded to upload larger files. Most of my images are not currently available for personal use on Alamy.  

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

How does this work given as images could be in any aspect ratio?  .. 4x3, 3x2, 16x1 ?

It's a good point considering the other thread about Alamy minimum file size where I think it's fair to say that longest pixel dimension wouldn't work because of the different aspect ratios, that's my view anyway. I actually think that is why Alamy choose MB which also takes this into account but MP would be better.

 

I think the difference here is that longest pixel dimension might be easier to explain to the inexperienced untrained PU or Presentation buyer, those buying panoramics might be disappointed, but hey, they're not paying much and the vast majority of images must be either 4:3 or 3:2.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Betty LaRue]

5 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

How does this work given as images could be in any aspect ratio?  .. 4x3, 3x2, 16x1 ?

I’m sure better mathematicians than I could work that out, Matt. I do think the price should be tiered, with the lowest price for the smallest pixel size instead of allowing large files to go for a pittance, as others here have stated.

And I do believe something should be done to stop returns after the shortest legal time limit. We all suspect this has been abused. A lot. People download the file, use for their purpose, then return it.

I can remember when people switched price tags in sticker form on items in the shops. That led to stickers that were nearly impossible to remove without coming off in pieces, then bar codes.

There will always be those who scheme to get something for nothing or next to nothing. What blows my mind is that those people/companies who are well off do it too. I guess that’s how some of them got rich to begin with. Cheating.

And those of us who are honest are the chum for the sharks.

Betty

[njene]

i would vote for limited pixel size

[losdemas]

On 02/10/2019 at 10:29, spacecadet said:

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

 

Ummm, CCR? - https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CCR

[spacecadet]

11 hours ago, losdemas said:

 

Ummm, CCR? - https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CCR

Sorry, wrong TLA.

I mean CRA. Consumer Rights Act. Replaced the DSRs (distance selling regulations) in 2015.

CCRs would be the consumer credit regulations, which aren't relevant, and aren't in that American dictionary anyway.

[Allan Bell]

On 01/10/2019 at 16:24, M.Chapman said:

I'm not currently opted out of PU, but have seriously considered it sometimes. Although a single PU size limit might be easy to for Alamy implement I think it misses the point, and an opportunity to create extra revenue.

 

I think what's needed is a tiered system of pricing using the size guide I suggested above, with gross pricing something like this.

• $9.99 for up to full screen standard computer/web/presentation use at 1,000 x 1,000 pixels = 1MP (≈ 3MB)
• $14.99 for up to 1/2 A4 printed page at approx 1,800 x 2,400 pixels ≈ 4 MP (≈12MB)                        
• $29.99 for up to A4 printed page at approx 2,400 x 3,600 pixels ≈ 8 MP (≈24MB)
• $34.99 for up to A3 printed page at approx 3,600 x 4,800 pixels ≈ 17MP (≈50MB) 
• $49.99 for up to A2 (poster size) at approx 4,800 x 7,200 pixels ≈ 34MP (≈100MB)  

All single personal use, and not for resale in any form.

This introduces a lower* price than today for the lowest resolution images, but higher prices for larger sizes. Any comments on pricing welcome...

*I notice that my PU sales prices seem to vary widely by territory

 

Mark

 

I have been reading this thread with some interest, and despite saying that I would still not allow PU sales from my port whatever the outcome, I would seriously reconsider allowing PU sales from my port if Alamy introduced the tiered pricing system that Mark has put forward.

 

Allan

 

[rickboden]

I agree with the majority who say the poll should be in pixel size and limit also to presentation/newsletters.   I have stopped sending in my 8000+ pixel wide images after seeing one sell full resolution for a 5 year presentation use.  Now limiting my Alamy uploads to 5500 pixels but still hate to see them go towards a "powerpoint" presentation when 2500 would be more than enough.

[losdemas]

On 09/10/2019 at 10:09, spacecadet said:

Sorry, wrong TLA.

I mean CRA. Consumer Rights Act. Replaced the DSRs (distance selling regulations) in 2015.

CCRs would be the consumer credit regulations, which aren't relevant, and aren't in that American dictionary anyway.

Ta!

[Ed Rooney]

I have 7 sales so far this month. Five of them are PU. 1 or 30 MB is okay with me.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Ed Rooney