Jump to content

"I've never made even half of 25K in one year. It would be interesting to know how many do qualify."


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Just my own opinion, but I do believe that there is a "Special Place in Photo HELL" for people who "Profit from

images that they did not press to shutter release to make."  I only make money from images that I make, well 

twice I did but I played a major part of bringing the images to market and they were EXCLUSIVE and newsworthy.

 

Chuck

 

Hell must be getting crowded, Chuck. This is the age of the middlemen. All stock photo agencies / photo libraries fit your definition. They all profit big time from zillions of images that they didn't create.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Just my own opinion, but I do believe that there is a "Special Place in Photo HELL" for people who "Profit from

images that they did not press to shutter release to make."  I only make money from images that I make, well 

twice I did but I played a major part of bringing the images to market and they were EXCLUSIVE and newsworthy.

 

Chuck

 

 

Maybe there's a compartment next door for those who sit in judgement on others?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

And from CR:

 

As long as you have ticked the ‘public domain’ box in AIM, you should be able to tick the image as either RF or RM.

Kind regards

Alamy Contributor Relations

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FocusUno said:

And from CR:

 

As long as you have ticked the ‘public domain’ box in AIM, you should be able to tick the image as either RF or RM.

Kind regards

Alamy Contributor Relations

 

Thanks for sharing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FocusUno said:
Two possibilities: (maybe more)
a. some kind of online bot image-text grabber & then batch actions to go live
b. or manually, if one nets $250K/yr, one can easily pay others to do busywork (& its tax deductible)
 
Just did 1 test image, could imagine working rate of 1 min/image total manually
or only 28.6 yrs per 5M images at 8 hrs/day 364...  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬  😬
maybe energy drink IV will bring it down to 30 sec/image & 14.3 yrs....

 

 

The savvy thing would be to edit carefully and save on all this grunt work. Use one's knowledge to select PD images that buyers want especially through using expertise in creating new captions and keywords using specialist vocabulary. 

 

Even for images that are already duplicated it is perhaps possible to create an edge over others who don't do this sort of added-value work?

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The savvy thing would be to edit carefully and save on all this grunt work. Use one's knowledge to select PD images that buyers want especially through using expertise in creating new captions and keywords using specialist vocabulary. 

 

Even for images that are already duplicated it is perhaps possible to create an edge over others who don't do this sort of added-value work?

 

 

 

That's my thinking as well -- upload selectively and add proper captions and keywords. I don't intend to spend much time on this, but it's another avenue to pursue, especially since my motivation is lagging at the moment. Also, I feel that I'm providing something of a research service by improving poorly annotated PD images correctly (I hope). As long as the sourced from PD box in AIM is checked, customers know that the images are available elsewhere. It's up to them what they want to do. Most images that have been released to the public domain are available for both editorial and commercial use, so I don't see an ethical problem. As discussed, the RM/RF question is something of a conundrum. However, in my experience, clients who license PD images usually do so for editorial or education use and are comfortable with RM licensing even if it doesn't make much sense in the case of PD images. I'm experimenting with making some RF, though.

 

Here's one of my recent PD sales ($$). It's basically RF disguised as RM.

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial, Editorial Website Use. In-Context Digital, Online and Social Media Rights included in perpetuity
Media: Editorial website
Start: 06 April 2021
Duration: In perpetuity

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other aspect of Chuck's post which I completely disagree with is that of 'rescuing' old photos and doing research to get copyright. Not PD but the same sort of idea of offering a service based on other people's photographs. 

 

But hard to discuss properly when those who disagree hide behind red arrows and say nothing at all.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Celluloid Hero said:

big red buttons that say Do Not Press fascinate me

 

Thankfully, the big red button on Donald Trump's desk was disengaged from the nuclear arsenal. Every time he pressed it, some flunky brought him a diet Coke...

  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Come On.  You all know what I was talking about and it was not about agents or libraries.

 

Think you all have been inside for too long......

 

Chuck

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, geogphotos said:

The savvy thing would be to edit carefully and save on all this grunt work.

Some proven savvy contributors think the opposite.
To each their own.

One strategy seems to be a rush to add public domain photos

of whatever is offered & in the news of the day, e.g., dead celebrity...
Yesterday's top (3) UCOs:

 

don everly 5 0 3 639 0.47
Mikel arteta 5 2 3 500 0.60
michail antonio 4 1 1 600 0.17
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FocusUno said:

Some proven savvy contributors think the opposite.
To each their own.

One strategy seems to be a rush to add public domain photos

of whatever is offered & in the news of the day, e.g., dead celebrity...
Yesterday's top (3) UCOs:

 

don everly 5 0 3 639 0.47
Mikel arteta 5 2 3 500 0.60
michail antonio 4 1 1 600 0.17

 

So the crowdsourced are becoming the crowdsourcers. Interesting twist in the plot.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Are these in the Public Domain?

 

Yes, it's tough to tell where they came from -- i.e. no "sourced from PD" designation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine there will now be a mad rush to upload archival/historical images of Charlie Watts.

 

I grew up listening to the Stones and Beatles, so it was a bit of a shock to hear about Watts' passing, especially since he seemed to the most sensible (lifestyle-wise) member of the Stones.

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I imagine there will now be a mad rush to upload archival/historical images of Charlie Watts.

 

I grew up listening to the Stones and Beatles, so it was a bit of a shock to hear about Watts' passing, especially since he seemed to the most sensible (lifestyle-wise) member of the Stones.

 

 

 

Oh what a surprise. PA have just put up 50 of their own.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Oh what a surprise. PA have just put up 50 of their own.

 

They must have been eavesdropping. Charlie looks to be at the top of today's UCO and views list if I'm reading the table in AoA correctly. You can't always get what you want, I guess. 😎

 

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I imagine there will now be a mad rush to upload archival/historical images of Charlie Watts.

 

I've no Charlie Watts images, but somewhere I have negs of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards leaving Aylesbury Crown Court. Will likely come across them soon as I'm finally in the process of selecting 35mm negs to digitise with a D750, Nikon 60mm macro and Nikon ES-2.

 

3 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I grew up listening to the Stones and Beatles, so it was a bit of a shock to hear about Watts' passing, especially since he seemed to the most sensible (lifestyle-wise) member of the Stones.

 

The Stones are one of my all time favourite bands, although I've only ever seen them live once, long ago at the original Wembley Stadium. Was only listening to Exile on Main Street recently.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Charlie fancied himself a gardener.

He was fond of gathering  non-vascular flowerless plants.

Edited by FocusUno
  • Confused 1
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.