Avpics Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 My first sales of 2021 came in today, and both presentations. Each would need releases to sell on a site such as FAA, which I don't have, so I'm happy to have made the sales especially as one is to the US at full price. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 On 06/01/2021 at 15:49, Avpics said: My first sales of 2021 came in today, and both presentations. Each would need releases to sell on a site such as FAA, which I don't have, so I'm happy to have made the sales especially as one is to the US at full price. Why would they need releases to sell on FAA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 1 hour ago, John Mitchell said: Why would they need releases to sell on FAA? Photo with people, maybe? Sold editorial here, different requirements for wall art or on mugs, Phone cases, greeting cards etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avpics Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 7 hours ago, John Mitchell said: Why would they need releases to sell on FAA? They'd need model releases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyn Llun Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 On 24/11/2020 at 11:14, John Walker said: Recently, I've noticed a sudden increase in Presentation Sales. It actually represents 63% of my sales and there are variations in the price. Previously, I've only had the occasional Presentation Sale. I've not changed any of my settings. Any thoughts on why this might be? It's because clients and picture buyers have latched on to the same idea as so-called 'personal sales', most of which are nothing of the kind. They can get a full size image for peanuts and then do what they wish with it in perpetuity without penalty. Why would anyone pay full price for something when they can walk out of the same store with the identical item for a fraction of the price? There was a discussion about 'presentation' files being lower size and res but of course this hasn't happened. If usage and image theft was policed better it would deter this but of course Alamy turns a - deliberate - blind eye so as not to antagonise buyers. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasilnut Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 1 hour ago, Dyn Llun said: It's because clients and picture buyers have latched on to the same idea as so-called 'personal sales', most of which are nothing of the kind. They can get a full size image for peanuts and then do what they wish with it in perpetuity without penalty. Why would anyone pay full price for something when they can walk out of the same store with the identical item for a fraction of the price? There was a discussion about 'presentation' files being lower size and res but of course this hasn't happened. If usage and image theft was policed better it would deter this but of course Alamy turns a - deliberate - blind eye so as not to antagonise buyers. This sold as a Personal Usage license. Really. Then 3 weeks later it was refunded. Really. Alamy is microstock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasilnut Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 How's this for a beautiful wall-hanger? Sold for $7.49 gross. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 3 hours ago, Dyn Llun said: so-called 'personal sales', most of which are nothing of the kind. Could you share your evidence for that? I have none for my own PUs- none has turned up on image search- but if your experience is different I'm sure it woud help to know how you found out and so on. Alamy do say there's a monitoring system for misuse. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meanderingemu Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 7 hours ago, Dyn Llun said: If usage and image theft was policed better it would deter this but of course Alamy turns a - deliberate - blind eye so as not to antagonise buyers. not sure i understand their incentive to do so. Wouldn't this allow single purchase customers to get better deals than regular? Wouldn't that antagonise buyers? Also i presume lower revenue would antagonise shareholders, not something management would likely want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meanderingemu Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 3 hours ago, spacecadet said: Could you share your evidence for that? I have none for my own PUs- none has turned up on image search- but if your experience is different I'm sure it woud help to know how you found out and so on. Alamy do say there's a monitoring system for misuse. same here, i have yet to find hits for image bought as PU, and i probably go through them once a month for 6 months after purchase. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertSnapper Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 5 hours ago, spacecadet said: Could you share your evidence for that? I have none for my own PUs- none has turned up on image search- but if your experience is different I'm sure it woud help to know how you found out and so on. Alamy do say there's a monitoring system for misuse. I had a Personal Use licence when I was not restricting them, used by the UK artist **** *** ***** on his Twitter account. He is making a name for himself, using lots of social media containing his photo-montages of political figures, that help sell his books, jigsaws, prints, merch etc. The artist removed my image from Twitter straight away (after he'd been found out), then Alamy re-invoiced him with a commercial electronic licence. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said: The artist removed my image from Twitter straight away (after he'd been found out), then Alamy re-invoiced him with a commercial electronic licence. Good! I assume he paid? For my last three sales, one was PU and the other was presentation. Both at the "full" price. Regardless of the fact that some of the uses seem suspect, I am not complaining since the most recent sale, editorial for a magazine, was only half the above price (gross - in more way than one). I know that some people as well as disallowing PU also opt out of distribution. Looking at my sales, if I routinely disabled PU and opted out of distro, I'd lose about 1/5 of my sales. Bump that up a smidge more if presentation could be removed as well. With prices as they are anyway, I don't see why you'd want to do that, unless your images are such that they are entirely exclusive in terms of content and where they are hosted - in which case, good luck to you. Edited January 8, 2021 by Cal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 9 hours ago, Avpics said: They'd need model releases Not for personal-use prints. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 14 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: Photo with people, maybe? Sold editorial here, different requirements for wall art or on mugs, Phone cases, greeting cards etc.? My impression is that "products" like mugs, towels, etc. sold thru FAA are for personal use only, not for resale. I don't see a need for releases, but I ain't no lawyer (fortunately). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avpics Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 It's in FAA's Ts & Cs. I'm not prepared to take the risk, in particular for images as those sold where the 'model' is the main subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 15 hours ago, AlbertSnapper said: I had a Personal Use licence when I was not restricting them, used by the UK artist **** *** ***** on his Twitter account. He is making a name for himself, using lots of social media containing his photo-montages of political figures, that help sell his books, jigsaws, prints, merch etc. The artist removed my image from Twitter straight away (after he'd been found out), then Alamy re-invoiced him with a commercial electronic licence. Oh yes, I had him too, but it wasn't a PU, I think it was presentation. Ditto on the outcome, no refund, I kept the original fee. But I get the point- misuse of the cheapest licence. He blocked me from Twitter after I rumbled him as well. Initials CWS? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertSnapper Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 hour ago, spacecadet said: Oh yes, I had him too, but it wasn't a PU, I think it was presentation. Ditto on the outcome, no refund, I kept the original fee. But I get the point- misuse of the cheapest licence. He blocked me from Twitter after I rumbled him as well. Initials CWS? Yes. Him as well. No refund of the initial licence. My entire image used uncropped as the background to his montage. I checked with DACS, IIRC when someone makes a photo-montage, if using somebody else's photograph uncropped for the main part of the picture, they are supposed to obtain copyright holders permission first, and if that is given, then give joint copyright of the montage. Didn't happen in this case. If my photo had made it into print with one of his montages, then I would have taken legal action. My particular photo in this instance I am proud to have taken. A print is held in a national collection (RPS), and is also being used by a charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said: I checked with DACS, IIRC when someone makes a photo-montage, if using somebody else's photograph uncropped for the main part of the picture, they are supposed to obtain copyright holders permission first, and if that is given, then give joint copyright of the montage. Didn't happen in this case. Well I think the commerical licence covers that. The contract certainly mentions manipulation. s4.8 "You grant to the Customer the right to alter the Images including any cropping, manipulation, combining and creation of derivative Images providing such alteration is not pornographic, defamatory or otherwise unlawful. You undertake that the person who created the Image has waived all moral rights in respect of use of the Image pursuant to this contract by Alamy, its Customers or any third parties." Of course had he done it under the original licence he would have been in breach of copyright as well as contract. Edited January 9, 2021 by spacecadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avpics Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 The headline: https://news.sky.com/story/coldwar-steve-i-keep-waiting-for-lawyers-to-get-in-touch-11663162 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now