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

 

[Rebecca Ore]

6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I've never understood the term "lifestyle images." The definition "people doing things" seems far too general to me, but I guess it's better than nothing. I seldom choose the "Lifestyle" category because I find it meaningless. But no doubt I'm missing something...

 

What I've seen were photos that had released people doing an activity that could generically be used in advertising.  Tony Northrup had one used as an advertisement for erection disorder pills in his video on stock.  Google searches show advice on advertising photos to be more about hired studio work where the subject was the item being advertised.   Lifestyle generically seems to be models laughing around a breakfast/dinner table with generic glasses of something in their hands.   Or attractive people looking at a generic computer or some piece of machinery with intense expressions. 

 

Searching "lifestyle" in the Alamy all search shows a number of examples of released people and released property shots.  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Rebecca Ore
clarification, I hope

[John Mitchell]

7 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

What I've seen were photos that had released people doing an activity that could generically be used in advertising.  Tony Northrup had one used as an advertisement for erection disorder pills in his video on stock.  Google searches show advice on advertising photos to be more about hired studio work where the subject was the item being advertised.   Lifestyle generically seems to be models laughing around a breakfast/dinner table with generic glasses of something in their hands.   Or attractive people looking at a generic computer or some piece of machinery with intense expressions. 

 

Searching "lifestyle" in the Alamy all search shows a number of examples of released people and released property shots.  

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's what always comes to mind when I think of "lifestyle" images -- "stocky" looking, staged images of models engaged in the kinds of activities that you mention. Anyway, what matters is what buyers want, and Alamy knows a lot more about this than I do. Interesting conversation, though. I'm not sure anyone would want to photograph my lifestyle.  😬

[Rebecca Ore]

9 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Yes, that's what always comes to mind when I think of "lifestyle" images -- "stocky" looking, staged images of models engaged in the kinds of activities that you mention. Anyway, what matters is what buyers want, and Alamy knows a lot more about this than I do. Interesting conversation, though. I'm not sure anyone would want to photograph my lifestyle. 

 

To me, all of these seem posed.   I think a very good model would be able to seem more natural, but those would be expensive or naturals discovered by accident.   I can't imagine that they don't look posed to experienced photo editors, either, so advertising has a side to it that disrespects its audience.

 

The Northrups photographed themselves arguing in bed, which the pharma company used to its advantage.   Their video on stock photography was interesting.  Kai of Digital (whatever) and his own channel did a snarky video on stock photography:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUTv_k_Xwzs

 

Northrup YouTube video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QlLW2nvj5Q

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Rebecca Ore
Adding the url for the Nortrup video on stock

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

To me, all of these seem posed.   I think a very good model would be able to seem more natural, but those would be expensive or naturals discovered by accident.   I can't imagine that they don't look posed to experienced photo editors, either, so advertising has a side to it that disrespects its audience.

 

The Northrups photographed themselves arguing in bed, which the pharma company used to its advantage.   Their video on stock photography was interesting.  Kai of Digital (whatever) and his own channel did a snarky video on stock photography:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUTv_k_Xwzs

 

Northrup YouTube video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QlLW2nvj5Q

 

 

 

 

 

It's a cheesy world out there. 🙃

[Alamy]

On 22/11/2022 at 17:46, NYCat said:

 

Thank you, James. Busy getting ready for Thanksgiving here. Best wishes to all.

 

Paulette

 

  

On 17/11/2022 at 23:56, 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 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

 

 

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you, I've got some insight for your previous question about seemingly very similar images in nature appearing across Uncut and Vital.

 

First off I need to explain that I am not able to divulge all the detail and intricacies of how our search engine operates - it would be too commercially sensitive for me to do so and I would really appreciate your understanding on this. I will give as much info as I can though to provide clarity.

 

Your situation in the examples you cite are quite unique, because your images contain keywords that will affect whether or not your images end up in vital or uncut. The Vital collection is the more commercially safe collection of images for those customers that need extra levels of indemnification and images less likely to have legal issues when it comes to commercial use.  For this reason, in addition to the other metadata rules like release information, age of image etc, there are some keywords that, if present, remove an image from Vital. I can't provide a list of these words, but they might be as you expect - brand names, certain locations or certain themes that we know can generally be problematic when it comes to commercial use. This step is taken to help protect you and the end user of the image from potential future legal issues. It means that these images could be taken out of Vital and end up elsewhere, such as uncut, which has less strict rules.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind though that again, the vast majority of wildlife imagery searches happen in ALL so you shouldn't be overly concerned with which collections your images are directed to (or not).

 

To get to your examples:

• FA4XAR people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• JBP09F people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• W9EKP4 people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• ERM67T people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "BANK" = UNCUT
• K2WFXN people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "TOWER" = UNCUT
• MBTFDX people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "NATIONAL PARK" = UNCUT
• W9EKPD people value not filled in, property value not filled in, no restrictions and uploaded through stock route = UNCUT

 

I hope this provides some clarity - to be absolutely clear once again, the best approach for any contributor to Alamy is to submit their best work and keyword thoroughly and accurately - let us work on directing the customers (and the images) to the right place, based on wealth of data we have available. Many approaches can never be perfect but they are constantly reviewed and implemented to maximise suitability for the majority of situations.

 

All - this will likely be the last post from me in this thread, please keep any future comments on topic and direct any questions to contributors@alamy.com - the team will be happy to help.

 

Cheers

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

[Rebecca Ore]

On Twitter, I follow a photographer's coop that was founded by photographers who wanted more control over pricing and presentation of their photos.  They do a range of things now besides pure stock.  If they have to expand into teaching, gallery work, and selling small prints, this is going to be as true for other photographers are well.   Agencies will also be trying new things -- and policy will change depending on what works for the company and its suppliers as a whole.

 

Advertising has always been part of general stock.  I think people who have worked in advertising probably have the best grasp of this field.  I don't.  My only prior paid experience was photographing for a small weekly rural paper as a reporter/photographer. 

 

Some of this comes across like amateurs deciding that they'll need to get $100K for their novel if they write one.  Pictures license or not depending on how  they strike someone else.  Artists (generic including writers, musicians, and photographers) are notorious for not being able to judge their work.   My agent told me once if one of her writers said "this is the best thing I've ever done," her heart sinks.  

 

"I want to get my photos in those collections because they might sell better."

 

Between the Northrups and Kai, as snarky as those videos are, it's clear that advertising stock photos are attempts to tell a story that can be used to promote a product in one photo.  

 

It looks like the thumbnails are bigger than they used to be. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

 

  

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you, I've got some insight for your previous question about seemingly very similar images in nature appearing across Uncut and Vital.

 

First off I need to explain that I am not able to divulge all the detail and intricacies of how our search engine operates - it would be too commercially sensitive for me to do so and I would really appreciate your understanding on this. I will give as much info as I can though to provide clarity.

 

Your situation in the examples you cite are quite unique, because your images contain keywords that will affect whether or not your images end up in vital or uncut. The Vital collection is the more commercially safe collection of images for those customers that need extra levels of indemnification and images less likely to have legal issues when it comes to commercial use.  For this reason, in addition to the other metadata rules like release information, age of image etc, there are some keywords that, if present, remove an image from Vital. I can't provide a list of these words, but they might be as you expect - brand names, certain locations or certain themes that we know can generally be problematic when it comes to commercial use. This step is taken to help protect you and the end user of the image from potential future legal issues. It means that these images could be taken out of Vital and end up elsewhere, such as uncut, which has less strict rules.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind though that again, the vast majority of wildlife imagery searches happen in ALL so you shouldn't be overly concerned with which collections your images are directed to (or not).

 

To get to your examples:

• FA4XAR people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• JBP09F people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• W9EKP4 people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• ERM67T people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "BANK" = UNCUT
• K2WFXN people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "TOWER" = UNCUT
• MBTFDX people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "NATIONAL PARK" = UNCUT
• W9EKPD people value not filled in, property value not filled in, no restrictions and uploaded through stock route = UNCUT

 

I hope this provides some clarity - to be absolutely clear once again, the best approach for any contributor to Alamy is to submit their best work and keyword thoroughly and accurately - let us work on directing the customers (and the images) to the right place, based on wealth of data we have available. Many approaches can never be perfect but they are constantly reviewed and implemented to maximise suitability for the majority of situations.

 

All - this will likely be the last post from me in this thread, please keep any future comments on topic and direct any questions to contributors@alamy.com - the team will be happy to help.

 

Cheers

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

 

Thanks James, this is good information and reassuring.  

 

 

is there a way to get to most commons such words, so that we would avoid making references to "river BANK" for example. 

[gvallee]

2 hours ago, Alamy said:

All - this will likely be the last post from me in this thread, please keep any future comments on topic and direct any questions to contributors@alamy.com - the team will be happy to help.

 

Cheers

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

Well James, thank you very much for NOT answering my question to you regarding 'lifestyle'. I guess Paulette and Emu are the lucky ones. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by gvallee

[Alamy]

15 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

Well James, thank you very much for NOT answering my question to you regarding 'lifestyle'. I guess Paulette and Emu are the lucky ones. 

Well, apologies for missing that - I’ve tried my best to stay on topic and provide as much valuable information as possible. Your response here perhaps highlights why we can’t get into many full Q+A style threads as there will always be people who feel left out, even if it is unintentional. 

 

The topic of this thread is really about how the creative collections are formed rather than defining categories. Just for closure though, T0CCWT is definitely not what would be considered “lifestyle” in the stock world. If you did want to put a category on it I would describe it more as travel.

 

As mentioned before, lifestyle in the stock photography sense is best described as images of model released people doing things. Families watching TV, couples cooking, individuals taking part in various activities etc.

 

James

[John Mitchell]

I don't really know a lot about the stock world. However, the cruise industry frequently uses the term "the cruising lifestyle" on their websites, which are often illustrated with stock images of cruise ships at sea. Consequently, I'd say that T0CCWT could arguably fit into both the "Travel" (primary) and "Lifestyle" (secondary) categories even though it doesn't fit the "people doing things" definition.

[gvallee]

59 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Well, apologies for missing that - I’ve tried my best to stay on topic and provide as much valuable information as possible. Your response here perhaps highlights why we can’t get into many full Q+A style threads as there will always be people who feel left out, even if it is unintentional. 

 

The topic of this thread is really about how the creative collections are formed rather than defining categories. Just for closure though, T0CCWT is definitely not what would be considered “lifestyle” in the stock world. If you did want to put a category on it I would describe it more as travel.

 

As mentioned before, lifestyle in the stock photography sense is best described as images of model released people doing things. Families watching TV, couples cooking, individuals taking part in various activities etc.

 

James

 

With respect, I might not have been clear but my question to you was should I delete 'lifestyle' as a tag? Nothing to do with categories.

 

I have taken your comments on board, I thank you for that and will review my lifestyle tags.

 

[Rebecca Ore]

1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

Well James, thank you very much for NOT answering my question to you regarding 'lifestyle'. I guess Paulette and Emu are the lucky ones. 

 

5 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I don't really know a lot about the stock world. However, the cruise industry frequently uses the term "the cruising lifestyle" on their websites, which are often illustrated with stock images of cruise ships at sea. Consequently, I'd say that T0CCWT could arguably fit into both the "Travel" (primary) and "Lifestyle" (secondary) categories even though it doesn't fit the "people doing things" definition.

 

Lifestyle seems to have a range of meanings depending on cultures, businesses, and such.  A photograph of a cruise ship is property, so can't be used in advertising, so isn't "lifestyle" in a sense that advertisers are looking for.  I know what lifestyle means in some other circles but wouldn't use that word for an Alamy stock photo of a Pride Parade, or an unreleased expat gathering. 

[Alamy]

46 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

With respect, I might not have been clear but my question to you was should I delete 'lifestyle' as a tag? Nothing to do with categories.

 

I have taken your comments on board, I thank you for that and will review my lifestyle tags.

 

Regardless whether we are talking about a category or tag, the exact same advice applies.

 

Best,

 

James

[meanderingemu]

51 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

With respect, I might not have been clear but my question to you was should I delete 'lifestyle' as a tag? Nothing to do with categories.

 

I have taken your comments on board, I thank you for that and will review my lifestyle tags.

 

 

though this might not be the definition Alamy wants it to be, there are 300+ search for Lifestyle quite a few not fitting Alamy's view, so you would possibly penalize yourself by not using the keyword.  Also plenty of images that seem to fit what Alamy thinks but for some reason they think are better directed to Uncut

Edited November 23, 2022 by meanderingemu

[Alamy]

39 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

Also plenty of images that seem to fit what Alamy thinks but for some reason they think are better directed to Uncut

 

Uncut is built according to metadata rules, not aesthetics. If those images have not got the people info or model release info attached then they will not be in vital. It is not the case of us thinking “they are better directed to uncut”.

 

James

 

 

[wiskerke]

To find out whether your images are lifestyle, just put in something like stock photo lifestyle travel in Google Images.

Try lifestyle travel in AoA.

And as a search in All.

Then decide if it's wise to include it as a tag.

 

wim

[NYCat]

6 hours ago, Alamy said:

 

  

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you, I've got some insight for your previous question about seemingly very similar images in nature appearing across Uncut and Vital.

 

First off I need to explain that I am not able to divulge all the detail and intricacies of how our search engine operates - it would be too commercially sensitive for me to do so and I would really appreciate your understanding on this. I will give as much info as I can though to provide clarity.

 

Your situation in the examples you cite are quite unique, because your images contain keywords that will affect whether or not your images end up in vital or uncut. The Vital collection is the more commercially safe collection of images for those customers that need extra levels of indemnification and images less likely to have legal issues when it comes to commercial use.  For this reason, in addition to the other metadata rules like release information, age of image etc, there are some keywords that, if present, remove an image from Vital. I can't provide a list of these words, but they might be as you expect - brand names, certain locations or certain themes that we know can generally be problematic when it comes to commercial use. This step is taken to help protect you and the end user of the image from potential future legal issues. It means that these images could be taken out of Vital and end up elsewhere, such as uncut, which has less strict rules.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind though that again, the vast majority of wildlife imagery searches happen in ALL so you shouldn't be overly concerned with which collections your images are directed to (or not).

 

To get to your examples:

• FA4XAR people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• JBP09F people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• W9EKP4 people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago = VITAL
• ERM67T people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "BANK" = UNCUT
• K2WFXN people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "TOWER" = UNCUT
• MBTFDX people value 0, property value No, taken less than 10 years ago, contains a stop word for vital such as "NATIONAL PARK" = UNCUT
• W9EKPD people value not filled in, property value not filled in, no restrictions and uploaded through stock route = UNCUT

 

I hope this provides some clarity - to be absolutely clear once again, the best approach for any contributor to Alamy is to submit their best work and keyword thoroughly and accurately - let us work on directing the customers (and the images) to the right place, based on wealth of data we have available. Many approaches can never be perfect but they are constantly reviewed and implemented to maximise suitability for the majority of situations.

 

All - this will likely be the last post from me in this thread, please keep any future comments on topic and direct any questions to contributors@alamy.com - the team will be happy to help.

 

Cheers

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

Thank you, James. Very helpful. I had wondered if the India pics were considered unsafe because they are in a National Reserve. We had paid extra for better access and that may or may not have included the right to sell the images. I don't think I'd want to chance it anyway because they had a way of surprising us with their "rules". It was a great trip but India can be problematic. So I think I understand now. 

 

Paulette

[meanderingemu]

16 minutes ago, NYCat said:

 

Thank you, James. Very helpful. I had wondered if the India pics were considered unsafe because they are in a National Reserve. We had paid extra for better access and that may or may not have included the right to sell the images. I don't think I'd want to chance it anyway because they had a way of surprising us with their "rules". It was a great trip but India can be problematic. So I think I understand now. 

 

Paulette

 

this is an interesting matter, because if you only put the name of the Park then in gets assigned to Vital.  so i guess it is now important to have National Park in the Keywords. 

[gvallee]

2 hours ago, wiskerke said:

To find out whether your images are lifestyle, just put in something like stock photo lifestyle travel in Google Images.

Try lifestyle travel in AoA.

And as a search in All.

Then decide if it's wise to include it as a tag.

 

wim

 

Got it now, thank you Wim. I had about 550 images including 'lifestyle' as a tag, I have now deleted this tag in almost all of them. And changed the category (which I did not ask about).

 

The 'lifestyle travel' results in All are broadly what James described but the first page also includes a pesky single kangaroo (x6), flower pots, a pair of shoes... A right mess.

[Harry Harrison]

15 hours ago, Alamy said:

W9EKPD people value not filled in, property value not filled in, no restrictions and uploaded through stock route = UNCUT

Thank you for what certainly has been very valuable information, the 'stop words' explain a lot of the anomalies that I was seeing. You've confirmed above for this image that if we don't fill in the optional information for People & Property in AIM then these images are excluded from Vital. This raises the question of how we might find these images, should we have any, without going through each image one by one in AIM.

 

I've frequently raised the issue of the incorrect information in the downloaded csv on here. Last night I uploaded 7 images of poppy fields, no people, no property. On some I deliberately didn't enter people or property details completely, on others I did, the latter went into Vital, the former stayed in Uncut. However on the downloaded csv the details for 'Number of People', 'Model Release', 'Is there Property in the image' & 'Property Release' is as follows:

 

0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
 

i.e. all the same irrespective of whether we have filled in Model or Property details.

 

On November 8th I was told the following by Admin on here "We have taken a look at the csv report and if you haven't filled in the data; model release or property release, the field will be labelled as N/A. If you do fill in the data, the field will be labelled as Yes or No. " Clearly this isn't correct with respect to whether we haven't filled in '0' People or 'No' for Property, surely this field should be blank if we haven't actually filled it in. I was then asked to supply your IT team with details. Surely the IT Team can see what is wrong here, it can't just be happening to me?

 

If this csv worked as it should and provided the correct information then we would have a means of finding these images and it would also seem to be safer legally as I think you acknowledged on here some time ago. Shouldn't these Model & Property questions be mandatory rather than optional, as they are on the sister phone app?

Edited November 24, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[Alamy]

10 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

Got it now, thank you Wim. I had about 550 images including 'lifestyle' as a tag, I have now deleted this tag in almost all of them. And changed the category (which I did not ask about).

 

The 'lifestyle travel' results in All are broadly what James described but the first page also includes a pesky single kangaroo (x6), flower pots, a pair of shoes... A right mess.

Hi All,

 

This is a good example of why it's important to make sure that your captions and tags are accurate, as specific details will be more often what a customer is searching for. For example it's less likely that a customer with a specific project in mind will search under such generic terms such as 'lifestyle travel' but rather '(man or woman) travel thailand'. Or for example they may not search 'food lifestyle' but rather 'couple cooking together at home' or 'family picnic' as they'll likely have an end product in mind. Having said that adding the term 'lifestyle' as a concept word (where relevant) to a search is helpful to refine the results for those that may perhaps want to distinguish between a shot of locals working in Thailand and something more focused on a Model Released tourist on holiday. They then may or may not use any number of other filters in place such as date, orientation, number of people to help drill down their search. Just as using these filters when searching in 'All' may or may not mean some of your images aren't included as the results get refined, the same applies to the Create collections - some customers will search in Ultimate or Vital or Uncut or Foundation because of the needs of their project.

 

We know you know this but think it's worth mentioning because it does seem as though some contributors are concerned about whether their images are in one of the Create collections or not, as though one is more important than another, based on the optional data filled in. The Create collections are important to those customers who need it, as would be the case for any search or filter, while other customers will still be searching in 'All' as they have done in the past. James has explained about how images get put into Vital or not based on the metadata rules in each image, but what is important and also mentioned before is accuracy in the captions and tags of your images, with the optional fields helping the customer make more informed choices about whether an image is appropriate for their usage or not. Customers too have responsibilities on ensuring that the image they buy is appropriate for their usage/license in terms of rights and releases, as well as aesthetics/age of photo etc. needed for their project. So it's worth remembering the many other factors that go into whether a customer finds and then purchases an image.

 

We think the Create collections should be seen as extra tools for customers, for those that need it, just the same any of the filters that have been in place for a long time are also there to help refine searches and navigate the images on site.

 

It's great to hear that the contributors here on the forum do want to make sure that the information on their images is correct and up to date. We're open to suggestions if you wanted us to create a blog providing more specific advice about metadata and how it should be applied, if we have not already covered it previously in the help pages or blog.

 

Thanks,

 

Sophie

[Alamy]

3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thank you for what certainly has been very valuable information, the 'stop words' explain a lot of the anomalies that I was seeing. You've confirmed above for this image that if we don't fill in the optional information for People & Property in AIM then these images are excluded from Vital. This raises the question of how we might find these images, should we have any, without going through each image one by one in AIM.

 

I've frequently raised the issue of the incorrect information in the downloaded csv on here. Last night I uploaded 7 images of poppy fields, no people, no property. On some I deliberately didn't enter people or property details completely, on others I did, the latter went into Vital, the former stayed in Uncut. However on the downloaded csv the details for 'Number of People', 'Model Release', 'Is there Property in the image' & 'Property Release' is as follows:

 

0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
0    NA    N    NA
 

i.e. all the same irrespective of whether we have filled in Model or Property details.

 

On November 8th I was told the following by Admin on here "We have taken a look at the csv report and if you haven't filled in the data; model release or property release, the field will be labelled as N/A. If you do fill in the data, the field will be labelled as Yes or No. " Clearly this isn't correct with respect to whether we haven't filled in '0' People or 'No' for Property, surely this field should be blank if we haven't actually filled it in. I was then asked to supply your IT team with details. Surely the IT Team can see what is wrong here, it can't just be happening to me?

 

If this csv worked as it should and provided the correct information then we would have a means of finding these images and it would also seem to be safer legally as I think you acknowledged on here some time ago. Shouldn't these Model & Property questions be mandatory rather than optional, as they are on the sister phone app?

Hi Harry,

 

We're still aware of the csv issue not reflecting the correct metadata on releases and it's still being looked at. Apologies for the delay, but please bear with us and we'll get back to you with an update as soon as we hear more.

 

Thanks

 

Sophie

[Harry Harrison]

46 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi Harry,

 

We're still aware of the csv issue not reflecting the correct metadata on releases and it's still being looked at. Apologies for the delay, but please bear with us and we'll get back to you with an update as soon as we hear more.

 

Thanks

 

Alamy

Thank you very much, I really wasn't sure that it was something you were going to look at but I am very grateful that you will be.