Ultimate Collection

[Stephen D]

Can anyone explain the "hand selected" choice of images for the Ultimate Collection.

As I specialise in images of the Cotswolds I idly did a search for images of the Cotswolds in the Ultimate Collection following the advice -  "If you’re fed up with run-of-the-mill search results, try hand-selected images like no other, sourced by creative experts".

The result was underwhelming. Six of them frankly could be anywhere and one isn't even of the Cotswolds at all.

I'm really not sure how Alamy imagine that such a selection of images will excite a picture researcher looking for the best Cotswold images.

Please try it at https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/cotswolds.html?collectiontype=ultimate&sortBy=creative

 

[meanderingemu]

7 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

 

Chest of drawers is custom built to my design, so who owns that?

 

not sure, but clear property, which is the actual question. actually as the owner of the design you might be able to sign the release.  

 

 

 

[Rebecca Ore]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

Do you have this is writing from an Alamy employee?  I was instructed other wise by one of the respected photographer on this forum.  Also this seems inconsistent with the "Person" part where we are told to answer yes even if not recognizable.  Why the difference? 

 

Is it the property of the owner or the architect?   I think at this point getting an answer from Alamy is going to be better than debating this among ourselves.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 

Vital = This high-end creative collection is built on authenticity and created with emerging trends in mind.

Uncut = Celebrate the raw, the random and the subversive. From abstract photographers to UGC – it’s all here. Uncut frees you from convention.

Mark

 

 

don't forget the "Tab" label where

Vital= "Currently Trending"

Uncut= "Unconventional"

 

 

 

my account balance will vouch that plenty of my Vital images have not been trending.  

[Rebecca Ore]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

actually as the owner of the design you might be able to sign the release.  

 

It was more of a collaboration, three people, actually.   I've got a bench that the furniture maker and I also collaborated on. 

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

Is it the property of the owner or the architect?   I think at this point getting an answer from Alamy is going to be better than debating this among ourselves.

 

which is what many of us have been trying to do for weeks now. But i am hoping that now that we have James helping out the whole thing will be issued with Clear and Consistent rules and guidelines so that Everyone is on equal footing. 

[Rebecca Ore]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

don't forget the "Tab" label where

Vital= "Currently Trending"

Uncut= "Unconventional"

 

 

 

my account balance will vouch that plenty of my Vital images have not been trending.  

 

Neither have mine, but I suspect not many travel advertisers are sending people to Jinotega these days. 

[Rebecca Ore]

16 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

which is what many of us have been trying to do for weeks now. But i am hoping that now that we have James helping out the whole thing will be issued with Clear and Consistent rules and guidelines so that Everyone is on equal footing. 

 

I've been thinking that the new website and all that is a project of an art major recent graduate adult child of one of PA's executives, and while I've read the threads, I've been more amused than anything.  I'm going to take pictures, respect people and traditional work, and basically do photos I want to do and let the licenses happen or not.  My helper's phone is now on my plan, so he owes me some assisting time.  My Lightroom Classic has a keyword for "reshoot." 

 

What James said about property was that it was complex.  Trademarked items are not complex, but a lot of other situations are.   I've got a photo of a artist self-portrait, painted before the current changes in copyright.  Shows the frame.  It's been licensed once before, but I didn't upload it again when I re-enrolled with Alamy.   Marked for editorial only. 

 

For written work, fair use includes parody and quotations.   We had the business with album and book covers where there had to be something besides the cover, and it's still property, yes.   Also, you can have physical possession of a manuscript/printout with edits/etc. but would not own the copyright.  People get confused over that from time to time.

 

With people, some of them, even if only a hand, might be recognizable by people who didn't expect them to show up precisely there when they were supposed to be elsewhere.   People who are dead?   I've got two of those from here.  No release is possible and in one case, only the grandson is alive now.   I assume that even dead people's photos would need releases if the death was recent.

 

 

 

[meanderingemu]

5 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

 

What James said about property was that it was complex.  Trademarked items are not complex, but a lot of other situations are.   I've got a photo of a artist self-portrait, painted before the current changes in copyright.  Shows the frame.  It's been licensed once before, but I didn't upload it again when I re-enrolled with Alamy.   Marked for editorial only. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but most of the stock industry have figured it out. I know to use non descript plates for my soup, non designer non label clothes, no logo, no identifier.  But fact still remains this is not the question asked, optionally, by Alamy. Question is "Is there property", not is it ""fully safe" for commercial usage"  which is why all my vital images were birds until recently. 

 

and if Vital means ""fully safe" for commercial usage" why do these image still have the "Do I need a release?" Link for clients? 

 

 

i think I have to agree with you about the project source. 

 

 

[NYCat]

11 hours ago, Alamy said:

 

Feel free to share some examples where there appears to be a contradiction and I'll look in to it and post the reasons why here for yourself and others to see.

 

Best

 

James

 

Hello James:

 

Thank you for the opportunity to do this. One of the posts from Alamy said the images can't be more than 10 years old. I don't think that makes sense for wildlife but I'll give examples from the last 10 years. They are similar images that have fallen into different collections.

 

From a 2014 trip to the Pantanal in Brazil..

 

In the Vital collection...

 

FA4XAR Jaguar in the Pantanal

 

In the Uncut Collection

 

ERM67T Jaguar in the Pantanal

 

From a 2015 trip to Kenya.

 

In the Vital Collection

 

JBP09F Reticulated Giraffes in Kenya

 

In the Uncut Collection...

 

K2WFXN Reticulated Giraffes in Kenya

 

For some reason none of the images I took in India in 2017 show up in the Vital Collection. That is sort of typical of my experience of India but here is one of the images...

 

In the Uncut Collection..

 

MBTFDX Bengal Tiger in Bandhavgarh National Park, India

 

Two too similar photos I took in the Falklands in 2018...

 

In the Vital Collection...

 

W9EKP4 Snipe in the Falkland Islands

 

In the Uncut Collection...

 

Snipe in the Falkland Islands

 

So those are some of my mysterious images. Thanks a lot for checking this out.

 

Paulette

 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by NYCat

[meanderingemu]

12 hours ago, NYCat said:

 

Hello James:

 

Thank you for the opportunity to do this. One of the posts from Alamy said the images can't be more than 10 years old. I don't think that makes sense for wildlife but I'll give examples from the last 10 years. They are similar images that have fallen into different collections.

 

From a 2014 trip to the Pantanal in Brazil..

 

In the Vital collection...

 

FA4XAR Jaguar in the Pantanal

 

In the Uncut Collection

 

ERM67T Jaguar in the Pantanal

 

From a 2015 trip to Kenya.

 

In the Vital Collection

 

JBP09F Reticulated Giraffes in Kenya

 

In the Uncut Collection...

 

K2WFXN Reticulated Giraffes in Kenya

 

For some reason none of the images I took in India in 2017 show up in the Creative Collections. That is sort of typical of my experience of India but here is one of the images...

 

In the Uncut Collection..

 

MBTFDX Bengal Tiger in Bandhavgarh National Park, India

 

Two too similar photos I took in the Falklands in 2018...

 

W9EKP4 Snipe in the Falkland Islands

 

In the Uncut Collection...

 

Snipe in the Falkland Islands

 

So those are some of my mysterious images. Thanks a lot for checking this out.

 

Paulette

 

 

 

 

Gorgeous images.  

Edited November 18, 2022 by meanderingemu

[Rebecca Ore]

3 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

I know to use non descript plates for my soup, non designer non label clothes, no logo, no identifier.  But fact still remains this is not the question asked, optionally, by Alamy. Question is "Is there property", not is it ""fully safe" for commercial usage"  which is why all my vital images were birds until recently. 

 

I have some white dessert plates, one white mug, and one white bowl.  Everything else was bought from Nicaraguan used stuff stores except for the pots  and knives I brought from the US.   If the Vital collection is put together programmatically based on releases if people or property is involved, then the only significant thing that can be said about that collection is it should be safe for use in advertising.   If that is what's wanted, then yeah, all the "fresh trends" is sort of beside the point.

 

The tile on that counter is generic and nondescript  for Nicaragua.   My kitchen tiles in this house don't even match.

 

 

 

 

[Rebecca Ore]

5 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

Do you have this is writing from an Alamy employee?  I was instructed other wise by one of the respected photographer on this forum.  Also this seems inconsistent with the "Person" part where we are told to answer yes even if not recognizable.  Why the difference? 

 

This is what Alamy tells the customer: https://www.alamy.com/images/branding/sections/releases/property-model-releases-infographic-en.pdf?v=3

[Harry Harrison]

An infographic is always going to have to be simplistic I suppose. In the real world, as James said in his reply to me, "Unfortunately the question about what is and isn't property and what does and doesn't need a release is very complex and would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

If we stick with the infographic then the key distinction for commercial use without releases (i.e. "to sell a product, promote something or raise money for a cause")  would be "Does it have identifiable people, buildings, trademarks or pieces of art?". If it has any of those then it is only suitable for editorial, so it can be used "to illustrate an article, story or educational text". Leaving trademarks and pieces of art to one side then the key here is identifiable people or property and there lies the grey area because in the past many of us have filled in the optional fields according to whether there is any people, or any property, not just 'identifiable' people & property.

 

What has changed with the new Creative Collections is that images in Vital are promoted to be safe for commercial use on the basis of their metadata. They are not, and never can be, found in the Editorial search but quite clearly many contain identifiable buildings in landscapes, street scenes, townscapes & cityscapes etc. so perhaps we need to review our choices in Optional in the light of the new collections. On the other hand perhaps we can forget about Vital altogether because most people still search in All images.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

 

What has changed with the new Creative Collections is that images in Vital are promoted to be safe for commercial use on the basis of their metadata. They are not, and never can be, found in the Editorial search but quite clearly many contain identifiable buildings in landscapes, street scenes, townscapes & cityscapes etc. so perhaps we need to review our choices in Optional in the light of the new collections. On the other hand perhaps we can forget about Vital altogether because most people still search in All images.

 

 

But reviewing it the way it is written expose the contributor to the totality of the risk.  Taking the examples of Rebecca above, though she feels she answered in good faith, Alamy can always claim that the question was more stringent ("is there property?") and the lack of clarification means any future liability lies totally on the contributor as per the agreement.  This is similar to the ill defined "Exclusive" content for infringement which we got another reminder of today which still, to me, leaves plenty of question vague enough to expose the contributor yet again (while not addressing Alamy's ignoring of clause 16.7 of the agreement)

 

 

If this collection is promoted as " "Fully Safe" for Commercial", gone is the protection that client had responsibility.  If the design of what you thought was a non descript cup on the table gets argued to be proprietary by the designer, Alamy can claim "no exposure" since they now left all the responsibility with vague undocumented instructions.  

Edited November 18, 2022 by meanderingemu

[Alamy]

Hi All,

 

Lots of questions from multiple posters so I'll do my best to summarise and address where I can. 

 

First off, we head over to Mr Mark Chapman, who writes:

  

21 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

How is the customer supposed to know which category to search in that best suits their needs? The descriptions on the home page are very "nebulous" and seem to bear little relation to the criteria you just quoted.

 

Also.... Why are the only images that appear in the Editorial Tab those that are marked as Editorial Only, or those uploaded as live news?

 

 

I can't go into granular detail of our customer profile or user data, however it's important to remember that not all customers are the same - many of our customers are managed specifically to their needs (with lots of contact from our enterprise team) and view and search the site in a very different way to how it appears to you as an unmanaged customer. Also remember that the design and wording here is aimed at a specific customer demographic - I can appreciate this may seem "nebulous" to those outside this target audience. If and when the usage data suggests we need to update or tweak it, we of course will. We base design choices on customer activity and data. For that reason you can expect designs and layouts to change as we learn new things and customer behaviour changes. Like all companies, especially in the media, sometimes with brand new things, we need to design based on best available data at the time and then learn what improvements to make from there.

 

There are various paths into the collections, many start in ALL and stay there, whilst others start in ALL then use filters to browse around the different options. Sometimes certain searches give better examples of differences within the collections, for others the difference can be minimal. We are a crowd sourced collection so outside of the Ultimate collection which is hand curated per image, there will never be 100% alignment to the collection descriptions unless each image in each collection was assessed. An image within one of the collections does not exclude it from ALL where the majority of searches happen - this is expected.

 

Regarding "editorial" - this is "editorial" more in the sense of a news definition, or something very specifically articulated as for editorial use only. It's not "editorial" as in just "non-commercial". Again, this is based from expectations from what that customer profile expects. General stock buyers who want editorial (non-commercial) imagery search in ALL. 

 

Next up we have the wonderful NYCat - Paulette, asking about why some specific images have ended up where. These examples appear in collections created by metadata so it's rules based rather than aesthetics. As there are quite a few I'll need to ask someone in the Image Management team to look at the database to determine what lives where and why. Quick question for you though, have you updated the metadata of these images at all very recently (or since uploading?) - doesn't matter if you can't remember but will help us if we find anything that doesn't make sense. We'll get back to you on this one but in the meantime, I'd also like to reassure you that most (if not all) searches for wildlife topics happen within "ALL".

 

Moving on to Rebecca's images in and around Nicaragua. I can't give a definitive response because as I've previously mentioned, when it comes to defining property etc, it's a grey area. It's just the reality of the situation I'm afraid. If you're unsure, I would always annotate on the side of caution, but ultimately the end user would also have to make that judgement before usage. We don't present any collections at present as 100% "safe" but we do point customers here as the place to more likely find images that are free of copyright issues (taken from info sourced from the metadata). In reality though a search for any kind of "destination" subject will tend to be undertaken within ALL. The majority of users in Vital are looking for released lifestyle or concepts.

 

For MeanderingEmu, I think my previous post already has answered and given you the reasons for why some of your images appear where. Given that one image you presented was an image of some flowers marked as having 4 unreleased people in it, I think you can see how much of an effect incorrect data can have on placement. Again though, I think the bulk of your content is perfectly suited to "ALL" so my advice to you will be to just continue to submit as you are (but keyword with accuracy) and not try and direct images into certain collections. I'd also very much appreciate it if you can take this answer in the right spirit - my feeling is you have a tendency here to sometimes derail discussion, flood threads with multiple posts or take things in isolation out of context. This can look like it becomes more about finding a "gotcha" to catch someone out with rather than a productive discussion.  We obviously would much rather not have to remove posts in order to keep discussion productive but we may have to if the thread goes in that direction from you.

 

Thanks All,

 

James A

Head of Content

[NYCat]

16 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi All,

 

Lots of questions from multiple posters so I'll do my best to summarise and address where I can. 

 

First off, we head over to Mr Mark Chapman, who writes:

  

 

I can't go into granular detail of our customer profile or user data, however it's important to remember that not all customers are the same - many of our customers are managed specifically to their needs (with lots of contact from our enterprise team) and view and search the site in a very different way to how it appears to you as an unmanaged customer. Also remember that the design and wording here is aimed at a specific customer demographic - I can appreciate this may seem "nebulous" to those outside this target audience. If and when the usage data suggests we need to update or tweak it, we of course will. We base design choices on customer activity and data. For that reason you can expect designs and layouts to change as we learn new things and customer behaviour changes. Like all companies, especially in the media, sometimes with brand new things, we need to design based on best available data at the time and then learn what improvements to make from there.

 

There are various paths into the collections, many start in ALL and stay there, whilst others start in ALL then use filters to browse around the different options. Sometimes certain searches give better examples of differences within the collections, for others the difference can be minimal. We are a crowd sourced collection so outside of the Ultimate collection which is hand curated per image, there will never be 100% alignment to the collection descriptions unless each image in each collection was assessed. An image within one of the collections does not exclude it from ALL where the majority of searches happen - this is expected.

 

Regarding "editorial" - this is "editorial" in the sense of a news definition. It's not "editorial" as in just "non-commercial". Again, this is based from expectations from what that customer profile expects. General stock buyers who want editorial (non-commercial) imagery search in ALL. 

 

Next up we have the wonderful NYCat - Paulette, asking about why some specific images have ended up where. These examples appear in collections created by metadata so it's rules based rather than aesthetics. As there are quite a few I'll need to ask someone in the Image Management team to look at the database to determine what lives where and why. Quick question for you though, have you updated the metadata of these images at all very recently (or since uploading?) - doesn't matter if you can't remember but will help us if we find anything that doesn't make sense. We'll get back to you on this one but in the meantime, I'd also like to reassure you that most (if not all) searches for wildlife topics happen within "ALL".

 

Moving on to Rebecca's images in and around Nicaragua. I can't give a definitive response because as I've previously mentioned, when it comes to defining property etc, it's a grey area. It's just the reality of the situation I'm afraid. If you're unsure, I would always annotate on the side of caution, but ultimately the end user would also have to make that judgement before usage. We don't present any collections at present as 100% "safe" but we do point customers here as the place to more likely find images that are free of copyright issues (taken from info sourced from the metadata). In reality though a search for any kind of "destination" subject will tend to be undertaken within ALL. The majority of users in Vital are looking for released lifestyle or concepts.

 

For Mr MeanderingEmu, I think my previous post already has answered and given you the reasons for why some of your images appear where. Given that one image you presented was an image of some flowers marked as having 4 unreleased people in it, I think you can see how much of an effect incorrect data can have on placement. Again though, I think the bulk of your content is perfectly suited to "ALL" so my advice to you will be to just continue to submit as you are (but keyword with accuracy) and not try and direct images into certain collections. I'd also very much appreciate it if you can take this answer in the right spirit - my feeling is you have a tendency here to sometimes derail discussion, flood threads with multiple posts or take things in isolation out of context. This can look like it becomes more about finding a "gotcha" to catch someone out with rather than a productive discussion.  We obviously would much rather not have to remove posts in order to keep discussion productive but we may have to if the thread goes in that direction from you.

 

Thanks All,

 

James A

Head of Content

 

Thank you, James. I don't have a memory of changing any of the metadata on those images. I chose ones that were probably taken the same day, same place, though quite possibly uploaded on different days.

 

Paulette

[Martin L]

2 hours ago, Alamy said:

 

 

For MeanderingEmu, I think my previous post already has answered and given you the reasons for why some of your images appear where. Given that one image you presented was an image of some flowers marked as having 4 unreleased people in it, I think you can see how much of an effect incorrect data can have on placement. Again though, I think the bulk of your content is perfectly suited to "ALL" so my advice to you will be to just continue to submit as you are (but keyword with accuracy) and not try and direct images into certain collections. I'd also very much appreciate it if you can take this answer in the right spirit - my feeling is you have a tendency here to sometimes derail discussion, flood threads with multiple posts or take things in isolation out of context. This can look like it becomes more about finding a "gotcha" to catch someone out with rather than a productive discussion.  We obviously would much rather not have to remove posts in order to keep discussion productive but we may have to if the thread goes in that direction from you.

 

Unnecessary. Jan-Francois's questions and responses have been very important and have made this and other threads, for me trying to understand the vagaries of the new collections, a very 'productive discussion'.

 

( I can't find a 'thought I understood how to annotate my images but am now struggling again' emoji)

 

 

[Rebecca Ore]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

In reality though a search for any kind of "destination" subject will tend to be undertaken within ALL. The majority of users in Vital are looking for released lifestyle or concepts.

 

Orchids and cats are lifestyles.  I'll try to get cat and Lalia rubescens together when my plant blooms. 

 

One US photographer who posed in her husband's stock shots found that they were getting licenses from Turkey because she was darker skinned than the typical blonde white model but not black.   Alamy shouldn't miss possibilities in other markets by assuming lifestyle is mostly the ethnic groups of the UK.

[Alamy]

5 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

Orchids and cats are lifestyles.  I'll try to get cat and Lalia rubescens together when my plant blooms. 

 

One US photographer who posed in her husband's stock shots found that they were getting licenses from Turkey because she was darker skinned than the typical blonde white model but not black.   Alamy shouldn't miss possibilities in other markets by assuming lifestyle is mostly the ethnic groups of the UK.

 

When I say "lifestyle" I'm referring to images containing people (from ALL backgrounds) doing things - this is the sense of what "lifestyle" means as a subject within stock photography. It's not about a literal definition of the word, more in how it relates to a stock category. 

 

We absolutely do not assume lifestyle is mostly about the ethnic groups of the UK, far from it.

 

Best

 

James A

[Rebecca Ore]

9 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

When I say "lifestyle" I'm referring to images containing people (from ALL backgrounds) doing things - this is the sense of what "lifestyle" means as a subject within stock photography. It's not about a literal definition of the word, more in how it relates to a stock category. 

 

We absolutely do not assume lifestyle is mostly about the ethnic groups of the UK, far from it.

 

Best

 

James A

 

I'll see  if I can find the ginger Nicaraguan girl again for life style poses (there are more gingers here than unbleached blondes).

 

You have another layer of management to feed now.  Licenses payments have plummeted for a number of non-agency photographers.  Adding onto this categories with mysterious criteria that may or may not be producing higher license fees than usual does tend to make some of us edgy.   Or cynical.   Or both.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, Alamy said:

Hi All,

 

Lots of questions from multiple posters so I'll do my best to summarise and address where I can. 

 

First off, we head over to Mr Mark Chapman, who writes:

  

 

I can't go into granular detail of our customer profile or user data, however it's important to remember that not all customers are the same - many of our customers are managed specifically to their needs (with lots of contact from our enterprise team) and view and search the site in a very different way to how it appears to you as an unmanaged customer. Also remember that the design and wording here is aimed at a specific customer demographic - I can appreciate this may seem "nebulous" to those outside this target audience. If and when the usage data suggests we need to update or tweak it, we of course will. We base design choices on customer activity and data. For that reason you can expect designs and layouts to change as we learn new things and customer behaviour changes. Like all companies, especially in the media, sometimes with brand new things, we need to design based on best available data at the time and then learn what improvements to make from there.

 

There are various paths into the collections, many start in ALL and stay there, whilst others start in ALL then use filters to browse around the different options. Sometimes certain searches give better examples of differences within the collections, for others the difference can be minimal. We are a crowd sourced collection so outside of the Ultimate collection which is hand curated per image, there will never be 100% alignment to the collection descriptions unless each image in each collection was assessed. An image within one of the collections does not exclude it from ALL where the majority of searches happen - this is expected.

 

Regarding "editorial" - this is "editorial" more in the sense of a news definition, or something very specifically articulated as for editorial use only. It's not "editorial" as in just "non-commercial". Again, this is based from expectations from what that customer profile expects. General stock buyers who want editorial (non-commercial) imagery search in ALL. 

 

Thanks All,

 

James A

Head of Content

 

James, thanks for taking time to give an insight into some of the thinking behind the new Website front end and how it works with your existing customer base. I do however wonder what the reaction of potential new customers is when visiting the Alamy site for the first time. Would they find the categorisation confusing and simply give up and go elsewhere, never to return? I know that if i can't find what I'm looking for pretty quickly on a website, I tend to look elsewhere.

 

Mark

[Brian Yarvin]

27 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

James, thanks for taking time to give an insight into some of the thinking behind the new Website front end and how it works with your existing customer base. I do however wonder what the reaction of potential new customers is when visiting the Alamy site for the first time. Would they find the categorisation confusing and simply give up and go elsewhere, never to return? I know that if i can't find what I'm looking for pretty quickly on a website, I tend to look elsewhere.

 

Mark

 

Mark, most of the picture buyers I've known would have been able to easily decode the choices without looking at the words describing them. Alamy is making it clear that it's speaking directly to them and in a language that's specifically for them. Seeing this is something that I actually find encouraging. It means that Alamy is promoting itself to a broad range of markets and in a way that's meaningful to the people who are doing the spending. 

 

With great clarity, James has spelled out Alamy's marketing strategy for us. I for one get it and appreciate his effort.

[Steve F]

20 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

With great clarity, James has spelled out Alamy's marketing strategy for us. I for one get it and appreciate his effort.

 

+1

[Martin L]

24 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Mark, most of the picture buyers I've known would have been able to easily decode the choices without looking at the words describing them. Alamy is making it clear that it's speaking directly to them and in a language that's specifically for them. Seeing this is something that I actually find encouraging. It means that Alamy is promoting itself to a broad range of markets and in a way that's meaningful to the people who are doing the spending. 

 

With great clarity, James has spelled out Alamy's marketing strategy for us. I for one get it and appreciate his effort.

I agree, however what I am still a little unclear about, how we, as contributors, can annotate our images effectively so that we can help Alamy in this new market strategy.

We are part of this enterprise after all

[M.Chapman]

Deleted, copied wrong post

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by M.Chapman