Potential changes to the image restriction structure – we want your view!

[AlexG]

8 hours ago, Marianne said:

Personal Use Sales:I'd like to be able to restrict personal use sales (since these are supposed to be to art.com) on both RF and RM images since, when I joined Alamy back in 2008, Alamy was not cannibalizing my print sales by selling a license that earned me $10 for a print that I sell elsewhere earning me anywhere from $21 (for a very tiny 8" x 6" print) to over $400, with the average print sale earning me well over $100, and often far more.

 

Yeeeaa.... spot on! Why should anyone have a full res file for just $10 and then they can make a print themselves or use it in other ways blown up? Does  not make sense when large prints sell for several times more. I've been on Alamy for less than a  year but only recently have I realized to restrict personal use on all my photos.

[vpics]

On 13/12/2019 at 16:38, Alamy said:

 

• A removal of the restriction “Don’t sell for editorial”
• A combining of the advertising and consumer goods restriction to just be: “Don’t sell for commercial”.
• Keeping the “Don’t sell for personal use” the way it is now.

 

 

Makes a lot of sense. When I restrict my images for "commercial" use, I always tick advertising AND consumer goods. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by vpics

[Radim]

I am in favor of restricting specific distributors, not countries

[TeeCee]

As many have already said, I too think simplicity makes a lot of sense - and thanks Alamy, for taking our views into consideration!

[Betty LaRue]

What Marianne said! 😄

Betty

[ReeRay]

Also for me What Marianne said. 

[Allan Bell]

 

Can someone give me a précis of What Marianne said?😉

 

Allan

[Pearl]

I don't mind some simplicity but I was very upset at the original removal of restricting for sensitive issues.  I have model released images of friends and family that I want to restrict for sensitive issues but no longer can.  As a result I no longer ask them for model releases in the hope that will provide some restriction.

 

I also agree with what Marianne said above.

 

Pearl

[Craig Joiner]

On 14/12/2019 at 15:18, wiskerke said:

Anyway if the restrictions are getting too broad and too simple, we would need a kill switch on an image level, including those in the pipeline with clients. News agencies all have this, but like with Alamy now, it can only be set by the agency.

I would argue for some simple procedure: please restrict/kill my image xx. And a reasons tick box. So Alamy would still have their finger on the switch.

 

 

+1 for a kill switch.

I sometimes license images direct to magazines that still demand the same images are not used in rival magazines for 6 months or more. Personally I thought the current restrictions were too blunt an instrument but I've come to live with them. However, if Alamy remove the editorial block I'm stuck. Deleting the image completely isn't an option because takes 6 months.

A simple kill switch in addition to the proposed options seems like a reasonable compromise to me and would cover all eventualities.

 

Craig

[Abiyoyo]

Please, give a discount of 50% over the PU for students.

 

$ 0.99  hurts my eyes everytime that one pop-up.

 

 

Usage: Student Projects, For non-commercial use in projects such as dissertations, presentations or essays.
Industry sector: Education
Image Size: Any size
Start: 05 December 2019
Duration: In perpetuity

[TABan]

I restrict personal use for the reasons stated by others. I also don't sell RF because I can't restrict personal use if I do. I would sell some images RF, if I could restrict PU. I would consider selling PU if there were size restrictions and price increased with increased file size. I have sold at least one print on FAA to somebody who wanted to buy a PU license and contacted me directly because I don't allow it.

 

As for the simplification, I'm fine with distilling non-editorial down to commercial use. It's the way things were done back in film days when I worked at stock agency. We just billed according to the size, placement and print run for various types of uses.

[Stokie]

The changes seem OK to me.

 

Another vote for size restrictions on PU, and the price increased with increased file size.

 

John.

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, Craig Joiner said:

 

+1 for a kill switch.

I sometimes license images direct to magazines that still demand the same images are not used in rival magazines for 6 months or more. Personally I thought the current restrictions were too blunt an instrument but I've come to live with them. However, if Alamy remove the editorial block I'm stuck. Deleting the image completely isn't an option because takes 6 months.

A simple kill switch in addition to the proposed options seems like a reasonable compromise to me and would cover all eventualities.

 

Craig

 

Even a kill switch won't guarantee that an image can't be used by a rival magazine because they may have already downloaded the image, be preparing copy and they will only declare use to Alamy when they go to print (or some time after in the case of Newspaper magazines). Restrictions don't help much in this respect either.

 

Mark

[Gabbro]

On 13/12/2019 at 12:19, LawrensonPhoto said:

I would like to see a

Large

Medium

Small size RF section

and an

RM

Personal with restrictions on size 1200px wide

Editorial

Commercial section

Anyone?

 

Sounds good to me, particularly the suggestion to restrict file size for Personal and Presentation uses. For the low price, you get low res download, fair and square.

 

The Presentation and Newsletter license should also be included in the Personal category. Otherwise, someone can just pick Presentation and newsletter instead Personal for the same low price.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Gabbro

[Craig Joiner]

54 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Even a kill switch won't guarantee that an image can't be used by a rival magazine because they may have already downloaded the image, be preparing copy and they will only declare use to Alamy when they go to print (or some time after in the case of Newspaper magazines). Restrictions don't help much in this respect either.

 

Mark

 

The current system doesn't do this either. It does, however, minimise the risk to an acceptable level as the image is immediately removed from sale and not subject to further downloads/sales until it is removed from public view. Waiting months for a deletion while still visibly on sale is asking for trouble, not to mention difficult to explain should the publisher stumble across it. In any case, Wim was suggesting the kill switch should kill anything in the pipeline too & I agree.

 

[M.Chapman]

54 minutes ago, Craig Joiner said:

Wim was suggesting the kill switch should kill anything in the pipeline too & I agree.

 

I feel sure Alamy will never agree to that. Some of Alamy's major customers download first, prepare their copy and then declare usage later (typically on publication or soon after). If there's the threat that an image a customer has spent time choosing and incorporating into their layouts could be withdrawn at anytime, then this part of their business model collapses. That being said, other very successful stock libraries operate a more sensible and efficient model with charges being levied immediately at the point of download of a non-watermarked image (EXCELLENT!!). Not only does the contributor's account get credited at that moment, the contributor can also withdraw images quickly. As licence fees fall, if Alamy wants to carry on competing it will have to shift to this type of model as their current system (delayed invoicing) is too inefficient and relies on manual intervention (IMHO). Alternatively, Alamy has to try to move back up-market and stop participating in the race to the bottom (easier said than done).

 

Mark

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by M.Chapman

[Jansos]

Not sure if this has already been asked but will this mean that we will have to go back and re-classify all of our existing submissions? Otherwise, seems quite sensible to me! 🙂

[Jon Lewis]

How about don't sell for less than 50$

 

[Tsado]

I agreed that the proposed changes are a good idea making submitting images easier for contributors. Thank you Alamy for asking our opinion.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Tsado
add a word

[Betty LaRue]

6 hours ago, Gabbro said:

 

Sounds good to me, particularly the suggestion to restrict file size for Personal and Presentation uses. For the low price, you get low res download, fair and square.

 

The Presentation and Newsletter license should also be included in the Personal category. Otherwise, someone can just pick Presentation and newsletter instead Personal for the same low price.

 

I guess you know Alamy has done it the way they have to make us restricting PU a non-issue for their pocketbook, don’t you? ..wink..wink..then the usages are ignored. Why else can we not opt out for Presentation and Newsletter too? That’s like us closing the front door and someone else opening the back door. I guarantee the opportunity for us to be able to restrict those ain’t gonna happen.

It would be a non-issue if size limits were implemented as suggested above.

Hey, y’all, I spent a lot of time and money making this apple pie, and will sell you the whole pie for the usual price of a small slice! 

Betty

[William Caram]

Fine with me, to the proposed changes....             In regards to the Personal Use Licence i am still in with 5 P.U sales and 1 Presentation sale this year....( these extra low value sales have topped up a modest sales tally for me this year )    I agree with others suggesting a restriction of file size..

 

RM Licence

Personal Use with restrictions on size 1200px wide...... Look after your contributors Alamy, as photographers we value our images and if you stop / moderate  the loop holes where buyers are ripping us off....and value the product that you market more then we all will be better $$ off..

Edited December 17, 2019 by William Caram

[Richard Baker]

I'm ok with this because I'm largely an editorial contributor who doesn't release. Only rarely have I needed to restrict for a specific usage (eg. a project which forbade me from licensing for advertising while other uses were allowed. I can't remember precisely what these were but it was simple in those days to select which usages I wanted to exclude). I suppose that if this arose again, I could ask Contribs Services what to do in this case?

 

Anyway, questions like these from Alamy are always welcome so thanks for thinking of us.

[Camera Girl]

Regarding Personal Use - perhaps one could make it a condition of purchase that with this use no refunds can be given.  They pay a pittance anyway, but at least it might deter the really devious buyers who set out to get something for nothing from the start.

Also - surely if we have stated that an image has no model or property release, then anyone wanting an image for non-editorial use would realise that certain images will not be suitable.  Why do we need to add the restrictions ourselves on top of declaring the lack of releases?

other than that I am happy with the proposed changes.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Camera Girl

[Betty LaRue]

On 16/12/2019 at 05:30, Allan Bell said:

 

Can someone give me a précis of What Marianne said?😉

 

Allan

Lol

[Ollie]

OK to remove "Don't sell for editorial." 

Personal Use should be limited to a small size--or with price increasing as size increases.  Many of these are highly suspect.

To get a lower price we sometimes pay for a hotel/motel room in advance, knowing the funds are not refundable if plans change.  The concept of "low price/no refund" is a common and well-understood marketing practice.  All PU sales should also be non-refundable.

If you're going to revise the Optional page on AIM then why not also eliminate the "Assign Existing Releases" feature?  I recall Alamy saying some time ago that they no longer wanted us to upload releases, merely to have them available if asked.

Finally, the distinction between "advertising" and "marketing" has never been clear to me.  Is "marketing" included in the Commercial Use category?