Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

 

and from the royal mail

https://www.royalmail.com/royal-mail-you/intellectual-property-rights/reproducing-stamps

 

So if the stamp is public domain a 100% photo of the stamp is not in breach of copyright

 

However different countries have different rules

 

 

Just read it and I understand from it that commercial use requires a license.

Hence if we upload the stamp for selling it, unless we mark it editorial only, we need a license, don't we? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hdh said:

 

Just read it and I understand from it that commercial use requires a license.

Hence if we upload the stamp for selling it, unless we mark it editorial only, we need a license, don't we? 

 

 

also to consider that the post office does not owns the rights to the image in the stamp, for stamps of works of art. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sent this email.

 

Was it only sent to contributors who have all of their images as Exclusive and none as Non-exclusive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I wasn't sent this email.

 

Was it only sent to contributors who have all of their images as Exclusive and none as Non-exclusive?

they sent a count of pictures that had the flag (which was an incorrect figure btw), maybe your count was (incorrectly) zero? 

Edited by hdh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

 

I quote from Wikipedia

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps/Public_domain

 

United Kingdom

Many British stamps are "Crown Copyright", that expires after 50 years and puts the stamps in the public domain. (See Crown copyright.) This also applies to the stamps of the various territories of the British Empire prior to their independence.

Following the privatisation of Royal Mail as a separate legal entity in 2012 the copyright of new British stamps has been held by Royal Mail in its own right, so in general no stamp may be uploaded."

 

and from the royal mail

https://www.royalmail.com/royal-mail-you/intellectual-property-rights/reproducing-stamps

 

 

So if the stamp is public domain a 100% photo of the stamp is not in breach of copyright

 

However different countries have different rules

 

I am careful about which countries I upload - not British or US for example - and mark them all as editorial only, but I was wondering about Alamy's view of what constitutes a 'work of art'.

Edited by Phil Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

I wasn't sent this email.

 

Was it only sent to contributors who have all of their images as Exclusive and none as Non-exclusive?

 

I have a mix, a small number of mainly murals marked as non exclusive and I did receive the message.

Edited by Bryan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bryan said:

 

I have a mix, a small number of mainly murals marked as non exclusive

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way of checking in AIM to see which of your own images are Ex/Non Ex?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Is there a way of checking in AIM to see which of your own images are Ex/Non Ex?

 

 

 

 

yes, it's two of the Attribute check boxes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

yes, it's two of the Attribute check boxes

 

 

Thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Angler said:

Yes it is a continuing squeeze on contributors which started with the crash of 2008. I started with Alamy in 2003 when the commission was 70/30 in favour of the contributor now 50/50 for exclusivity or 40/60 for non exclusive. Despite the fact I've done pretty well with Alamy, nearly $500k in sales, this email today has had a really negative affect on any remaining motivation I have and I'm really questioning is it all worth it? The hours sat in front of this screen trying to manage 50k+ is mind numbing and I'm afraid to say it may be time to start looking elsewhere for earning potential for my archive but I'll probably wait and see how this current issue plays out.

 

Know how you feel, and with a combination of refunds and resales for less and winter weather, I just don't have the motivation to enlarge my collection at present. I could be spending the time uploading existing images to a POD site and that might involve less hassle and better returns.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

yes, it's two of the Attribute check boxes

 

Shame it can't be combined with the keyword search. I'd have found a search for "Artwork" + Exclusive would have been really useful in AIM yesterday. Can't even do it with an advanced search from the Alamy search page.

 

Mark

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I wasn't sent this email.

 

Was it only sent to contributors who have all of their images as Exclusive and none as Non-exclusive?

You'll probably get it eventually- I got mine this morning (although oddly timestamped yesterday afternoon- don't think I missed it then) and I'm all ex as well.

Some of you know my under-the-radar approach to this matter, and seem to share it, so I won't repeat it.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just trawled through mine and 'non-exclusived' a few which had artwork as the main subject.  Fortunately I had added artwork, picture, sculpture, street art etc. as keywords so finding them was easier.  I originally changed all my images to exclusive as they are only on Alamy.  I hadn't allowed for the works of art etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2052 images with "art" in the tags. That's almost a quarter of my port.

Am I going to check them all in order to reduce my income? Go figure.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I have 2052 images with "art" in the tags. That's almost a quarter of my port.

Am I going to check them all in order to reduce my income? Go figure.

 

 

 

I dread to think how much it has cost me financially in lost commission and time. I had to change all my images to non-exclusive when the change was made, and then it took six months to get images removed from some libraries, equally a long time to get lists of images from G, which turned out to be incomplete and so I had to use my own submission records and cross reference to fill in gaps. Many images had different file refs ( stupid me) and consequently had to be searched for on G individually to match up with my image refs used on Alamy. 

 

Weeks and weeks going through excel spreadsheets, messing up, starting again, but got there in the end.

 

Seriously, it had to be done but what a nightmare!

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand:

 

Non-exclusive meaning:

 

1) The image is with another stock agency

2) The image is in the public domain and not taken by me

3) The image is a direct copy of 2 dimensional artwork in which no new copyright has been created through photography - painting, illustration, book cover, poster, old magazine advert  (In other words if anybody else copied it it would look exactly the same apart from lighting/processing)

 

Apart from that I'm not sure.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I make the next statement I just want to say that I have fully read and understand what Alamy is after or where they are coming from.

 

I thought that it was the image itself, regardless of content, that was exclusive. Yes I know that you can say the content is the image. But whatever the content is that cannot be exclusive to Alamy when you consider how many thousands of images with that content, or very similar, are floating around on other sites. Even Alamy must have thousands of images with a particular, or similar, content and only some, not all, of those will be marked exclusive.

 

The only way to have an exclusive subject is if you produce it yourself. (painting, sculpture, whatever.) Then photograph it to put up on Alamy.

 

Just my thoughts, if you can understand what I am trying to say.

 

Allan

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What all this reminds me of is the adage about making laws in haste usually leading to bad laws being made. "Make Law In Haste, Repent At Leisure"

 

The original intention ( around a year ago wasn't it?) was for all commission to drop to 40%. Then, in face of protests, Alamy 'looked at the numbers' and got off the hook by changing the decrease so that it only affected non-exclusive images ( so just a minority of us were lumbered with it).

 

Then they had to think up a definition. Clearly that definition continues to be problematic. And the definition affects all contributors who have shots of any 'artworks'.

 

Given that this was an abrupt ( knee-jerk?) contract change made by Alamy it would be very harsh to blame contributors for a 'breach of contract' (as mentioned by Alamy in a post on this thread). There is actually an inbuilt advantage to those contributors who don't act on it, don't understand it, don't do anything about it.

 

Perhaps, Alamy can have another look at the 'numbers' and do the decent thing of restoring our commission to 50% across the board and drop the requirement for an exclusivity definition. 😁

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

those contributors who don't act on it, don't understand it, don't do anything about it.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't understand it and orginally took 'artwork' to include statues, and lost out (a very little, admittedly) because of it (licensed a statue pic, but not for much), but now I have to spend more time reclassifying them as exclusive.

Ho-hum.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Well, I didn't understand it and orginally took 'artwork' to include statues, and lost out (a very little, admittedly) because of it (licensed a statue pic, but not for much), but now I have to spend more time reclassifying them as exclusive.

Ho-hum.

 

 

I  had only 40% commission on every sale for seven or eight months until I was able to respond with my complete list of 60,000 images. Many of those sales were of non-ex images ( I suppose that makes sense that they were selected elsewhere), but by no means all.   I had no way of responding to the change more quickly than that so I did ask if I could be refunded for those that actually were exclusive all the time. But Alamy didn't want to listen to that, 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

Before I make the next statement I just want to say that I have fully read and understand what Alamy is after or where they are coming from.

 

I thought that it was the image itself, regardless of content, that was exclusive. Yes I know that you can say the content is the image. But whatever the content is that cannot be exclusive to Alamy when you consider how many thousands of images with that content, or very similar, are floating around on other sites. Even Alamy must have thousands of images with a particular, or similar, content and only some, not all, of those will be marked exclusive.

 

The only way to have an exclusive subject is if you produce it yourself. (painting, sculpture, whatever.) Then photograph it to put up on Alamy.

 

Just my thoughts, if you can understand what I am trying to say.

 

Allan

 

 

I take "only available on Alamy" to mean that I haven't sent a particular image, regardless of its content, to another stock agency.

 

The whole "artwork" thing has to do with the content of images and possible copyright infringements, not with exclusivity.

 

These are really two separate matters that shouldn't have been lumped together. Therein lies the continuing confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

3) The image is a direct copy of 2 dimensional artwork in which no new copyright has been created through photography - painting, illustration, book cover, poster, old magazine advert  (In other words if anybody else copied it it would look exactly the same apart from lighting/processing) 

 

That is my problem. I have hundred of musical posters, lots of them stripped out from the walls, that means that each one has its "finger prints" and are unique. Are those artworks have to be "non-exclusive?

 

lou-reed-madrid-1980-tour-musical-concer

 

 

Edited by Abiyoyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than tightening the restrictions on contributors further (and making them more complex and open to interpretation), if Alamy need more revenue, why not increase the price for high resolution personal use downloads rather than having the same price for all resolutions?

 

Mark

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

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.