Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Your input is required, and there's a triple potential benefit to what we're proposing so we want to get it right. This post details a proposed change that we think will:

 

- Make the restrictions process far simpler for you, which means less time in admin mode and more time in photography mode

- Make the process of buying licences for customers even simpler, which means higher potential for more sales

- Simplify our back-end technical logic, allowing us to make improvements to the site and search engine much quicker 

 

For those of you who have been with us many years, you may recall the system we used to have where image restrictions were available for every possible end use. This system was overly complex and due to customer demand we needed to simplify it down to just 4 possible restrictions, with only 3 of the 4 being available to be selected. They are:

 

  • Don't sell for advertising and promotion
  • Don't sell for consumer goods
  • Don't sell for editorial
  • Don't sell for personal use including single copy, non-retail wall art prints

 

Even though this is a huge improvement on the old system, from customer feedback and activity, it’s clear that this restriction system is still overly complex, so we are proposing some simple changes that will make life easier and hopefully lead to increased sales potential as a result. We think this will work and is the right approach, but before we press on, we want your thoughts, feelings and feedback. This is what we are proposing:

 

  • 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.

 

So essentially, it will mean all images on Alamy will be available for the editorial licence. You’d be able to restrict commercial use and personal use if you wish (which encompasses consumer goods, advertising and personal prints). Therefore there are no changes to the “editorial only” restrictions you can place now. This will make applying restrictions easier for you, whittling the restriction options down to two.

 

This will make things far simpler for the customer, allow us to remove some of the complex combinations of logic that have to be applied behind the scenes whilst essentially still allowing you to be able to restrict for what’s important to you.

 

So – what do you think? Can you foresee this causing you any issues? Do you think this is a good idea?

 

Let us know.

 

Cheers

 

Alamy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems very sensible, the most important restrictions for me are -

 

“Don’t sell for personal use” and "editorial only".

 

So thumbs up from me.

 

Many thanks

 

NCR

Edited by EYESITE
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any issues with that set of restrictions, but I don't get involved much with subjects which call for thinking about restrictions. I don't do releases so I'm mostly in the editorial camp. As far as "Don't sell for personal use" my real concern about that area is the suspicion that some clients are gaming the system and being economical with the truth about their usage

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't generally apply restrictions but do indicate whether or not the image has releases, mostly they don't.  Rather hoping that is sufficient, but maybe not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

" Keeping the “Don’t sell for personal use” the way it is now "

 

Sorry but isn't it time you got rid of that?

 

If we have “Don’t sell for personal use” the way it is now the "customer" just goes and buy it on the presentations licence

at exactly the same price.

 

RM images should just have personal use and get rid of the "presentations" licence.

 

RF images should be sold by size/resolution with higher prices for higher resolution/sizes

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

However, does this mean a more simplified structure to pricing?

And what does that mean to us.

 

This concerns me as far as will license prices drop even further along with the simplified licensing structure?

 

Personally I've made very few PU sales, and these have been for acceptable amounts. I'm happy for the contributor to decide wether to accept PU or not.

 

My uploads are all editorial, I have no issue with removing the don't sell for editorial.

 

Will be interesting to read all newer newer posts in case I've missed something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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?

I think to be honest that would certainly be my preference :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds sensible to me.

I also agree with suggestions to combine Personal and Presentation use into a single category, and with tiered pricing depending on image size downloaded.

 

"So essentially, it will mean all images on Alamy will be available for the editorial licence."

 

This raises a question. How will you handle existing restrictions that have already been set (e.g. Don't sell for editorial - although I don't imagine that affects many images as I imagine it's very unusual for anyone to set this restriction)

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

I would like to see a

RM

Personal with restrictions on size 1200px wide

 

Anyone?

 

A good idea Alamy.

 

Agree with LawrensonPhoto about restrictions on size for the PU licences.  Size restriction makes sense and has been mentioned by others on the forum.  Have restricted PU on all my images for this reason and not knowing where the high resolution images end up after they have been refunded of course, and in my case the number of refunds were just a few too many.

Helen

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple is good. Certainly keep the restriction on 'personal use'. I don't think a minority of them are suspect, I firmly believe that 99% of them are and this loophole is being abused by too many 'commercial' buyers of photography. To let anyone have a full size file for them to do with what they wish in perpetuity for peanuts, or nothing if the fee is refunded, is ludicrous. However, if a very strict escalating size and price restriction was set as has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, I may, just may, opt back in. 

 

Pete Davis

https://www.pete-davis-photography.com/

http://peteslandscape.blogspot.com/

https://www.instagram.com/petedavisphoto/

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe add one: re-selling.

And maybe another: sensitive issues. Because even with releases that is a possible restriction that will always be necessary. That goes for editorial and commercial.

 

What happens with restrictions to regions/countries? Some agencies and individual contributors on Alamy have very broad restrictions, some narrow. Usually to protect their home market or to comply with regional legal issues. Like freedom of panorama or privacy issues like in France or Quebec, which also affect editorial. Those issues will increase.

And what happens with an image that's been restricted by a client for say, use as a cover or a billboard? This can now be set by Alamy, but seemingly not by the contributor. Which makes no sense because one's image could get restricted on another agency or because of a personal sale.

 

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.

 

wim

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 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?

 

+1 for the RM suggestion. I do not have any RF images.

 

Allan

 

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.