Additional Information

[Dave Richards]

I put in the following under additional info for my images:-

 

All information (caption, keywords, location etc.) provided with this image is given in good faith, however there may be errors and the information should not be relied on. Any person, company, organisation, publisher etc. intending to use the image should ascertain that the image and the information provided is correct and satisfactory for their intended use of the image before purchasing a licence.

 

Do you think this has an adverse affect on sales?

[Steve F]

Interesting question. I suspect that's very difficult to answer as you can't do a direct comparison with another contributor's sales - you probably need direct feedback from a buyer.

 

Alamy already puts a similar disclaimer at the top of all our images.

[Dave Richards]

11 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Interesting question. I suspect that's very difficult to answer as you can't do a direct comparison with another contributor's sales - you probably need direct feedback from a buyer.

 

Alamy already puts a similar disclaimer at the top of all our images.

Thanks Steve.

I've never seen the Alamy disclaimer. It's probably staring me in the face but I can't see it.

I think I'll experiment and take out this bit to see if that affects anything.

 

All information (caption, keywords, location etc.) provided with this image is given in good faith, however there may be errors and the information should not be relied on. Any person, company, organisation, publisher etc. intending to use the image should ascertain that the image and the information provided is correct and satisfactory for their intended use of the image before purchasing a licence.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Dave Richards

[Steve F]

3 minutes ago, Dave Richards said:

It's probably staring me in the face but I can't see it.

 

It is 😉

 

It's right under your caption for your on sale images on Alamy's website:

Captions are provided by our contributors.

[Dave Richards]

13 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

It is 😉

 

It's right under your caption for your on sale images on Alamy's website:

Captions are provided by our contributors.

Dohhh!! 

Got it, thanks. But it doesn't really say the same thing as my disclaimer????

Edited October 12, 2023 by Dave Richards
added text

[Steve F]

17 minutes ago, Dave Richards said:

Dohhh!! 

Got it, thanks. But it doesn't really say the same thing????

 

Agreed, no it doesn't. It's removing some risk from Alamy and putting it on to the contributors.

 

I believe there are contributors that may have received customer complaints via Alamy about inaccurate captioning/keywording, it's not something I have experience of myself. Not sure about the potential consequences. Companies don't tend to sue individuals.

 

Really not sure about adding a caveat to all images. I personally wouldn't have a problem seeing your caveat as a buyer, I would take it as a given that there's a possibility of mistakes in captioning and that it's done in good faith.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Steve F

[spacecadet]

Your contributor contract requires that you give accurate captions so would override your disclaimer in any case as Alamy haven't agreed to it. It certainly wouldn't form part of the contract with the buyer.

I very much doubt there would ever be any comeback on a contributor unless there were negligence leading to a buyer being sued (probably not even then)- and I'm sure you don't caption negligently.

[Jose Decio Molaro]

I believe we should put accurate information in descriptions and keywords.
The search is carried out using key words and the buyer may feel deceived with information and key words that are not part of the photo
As they say: describe for the blind to see...

[M.Chapman]

Rather than adding your own terms to individual images, take a look at Alamy's Image licence agreements to see if you're happy with clauses they already include.

For example the UK & ROW licence terms https://www.alamy.com/terms/uk.aspx clauses 3.2.4, 3.2.9, 6.1, 6.3.

 

Mark

Edited October 12, 2023 by M.Chapman

[Rebecca Ore]

7 hours ago, Dave Richards said:

I put in the following under additional info for my images:-

 

All information (caption, keywords, location etc.) provided with this image is given in good faith, however there may be errors and the information should not be relied on. Any person, company, organisation, publisher etc. intending to use the image should ascertain that the image and the information provided is correct and satisfactory for their intended use of the image before purchasing a licence.

 

Do you think this has an adverse affect on sales?

 

Yes.  Bad enough when photos with accurate label get fake news labels and then end up with the news agency providing the photos to Alamy banning whole regions from licensing them.  If you're not sure of the whole ID in the photo, use the genus (generally that's safe enough) and sp. for species, or hybrid if that's the case.  I suspect one contributor regularly sell botanical photos because he'd known to be accurate.

[Avpics]

On 12/10/2023 at 14:09, Jose Decio Molaro said:

I believe we should put accurate information in descriptions and keywords.

I do also, but there will be times when we've gleaned such information from elsewhere and it will always be possible for that to be incorrect. I've uploaded many an image of which I initially knew nothing and had to research so as to supply appropriate captions and tags, so I'm relying on the source to be the truth. I've subsequently spotted and corrected my mistakes in a small number and hopefully such are either rare or now totally erased, but I could only say that I've done my best come judgement day.

[Dave Richards]

On 12/10/2023 at 18:00, M.Chapman said:

Rather than adding your own terms to individual images, take a look at Alamy's Image licence agreements to see if you're happy with clauses they already include.

For example the UK & ROW licence terms https://www.alamy.com/terms/uk.aspx clauses 3.2.4, 3.2.9, 6.1, 6.3.

 

Mark

Thanks Mark. I confess I never thought to check out the Alamy terms. Reading through them there seem to be a couple more that cover our backside too.

I will go back through my port and delete my caveat. If anything it will be an interesting experiment to see if my sales, which have been in the doldrums for a couple of months, pick up again once the caveat is gone. Whilst sales have been almost non existent for a couple of months views have been reasonably consistent to what I normally experience. That said, zooms have been almost non existent so my perception is that the caveat has probably affected sales.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Dave Richards
Added text

[Dave Richards]

On 13/10/2023 at 15:13, Avpics said:

I do also, but there will be times when we've gleaned such information from elsewhere and it will always be possible for that to be incorrect. I've uploaded many an image of which I initially knew nothing and had to research so as to supply appropriate captions and tags, so I'm relying on the source to be the truth. I've subsequently spotted and corrected my mistakes in a small number and hopefully such are either rare or now totally erased, but I could only say that I've done my best come judgement day.

I agree.

I always try to ensure the info I provide is accurate but do rely to some extent on the accuracy of information provided from various research resources.

If in doubt I don’t use.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

lawsuits related to commercial (advertising) usage are reported regularly;

lawsuits related to editorial usage are ??rare??;

"friction" related to editorial usage comes with the territory, IMO;

I experience a few examples of the latter yearly & brush them off;

the latest, only couple weeks ago, was image taken years ago of
restaurant server working, used to illustrate article about how diners

are paying lower tips lately -- waiter didn't like being associated with

that issue, agent offered to remove image, waiter never responded further...

 

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

lawsuits related to commercial (advertising) usage are reported regularly;

lawsuits related to editorial usage are ??rare??;

"friction" related to editorial usage comes with the territory, IMO;

I experience a few examples of the latter yearly & brush them off;

the latest, only couple weeks ago, was image taken years ago of
restaurant server working, used to illustrate article about how diners

are paying lower tips lately -- waiter didn't like being associated with

that issue, agent offered to remove image, waiter never responded further...

 

 

 

I am going to respond though I have no personal axe to grind and very much admire the images you create of waiting staff etc. 

 

I do understand that people may be annoyed if you/we take pictures with the intention of making financial gain without giving them the full story.

 

Do you tell them that you are a stock photographer or just act the tourist? 

 

You may be getting away with it.

 

It may also, in my opinion, be explotiative of them.

 

I have often wondered if you have a moral position on this.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by geogphotos

[Betty LaRue]

On 12/10/2023 at 12:27, Rebecca Ore said:

 

Yes.  Bad enough when photos with accurate label get fake news labels and then end up with the news agency providing the photos to Alamy banning whole regions from licensing them.  If you're not sure of the whole ID in the photo, use the genus (generally that's safe enough) and sp. for species, or hybrid if that's the case.  I suspect one contributor regularly sell botanical photos because he'd known to be accurate.

I’ve rejected quite a few of my botanical pictures because I couldn’t be confident of their identification.

[Chuck Nacke]

On 12/10/2023 at 06:08, Dave Richards said:

I put in the following under additional info for my images:-

 

All information (caption, keywords, location etc.) provided with this image is given in good faith, however there may be errors and the information should not be relied on. Any person, company, organisation, publisher etc. intending to use the image should ascertain that the image and the information provided is correct and satisfactory for their intended use of the image before purchasing a licence.

 

Do you think this has an adverse affect on sales?

Dave,

 

Affects on sales is not the question.  Putting the above is a disservice to Alamy and in my opinion as well as many others here is redundant.  I would be surprised if Alamy did not ask or damand that you remove your private disclaimer.  FYI, I have been a professional photojournalist for decades and while I have made mistakes in photo captioning or as it is now known IPTC info.  I do my very best to make sure that accurate information always accompanies any image that leaves my hands or computer.  I also assume that Alamy, acting as my licensing agent also makes sure that the buyer, individual, company or publication knows exactly what they are purchasing and the rights available.  I do believe that a major problem has been created by untrained "citizen Journalists."

 

Chuck

[Dave Richards]

13 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Dave,

 

Affects on sales is not the question.  Putting the above is a disservice to Alamy and in my opinion as well as many others here is redundant.  I would be surprised if Alamy did not ask or damand that you remove your private disclaimer.  FYI, I have been a professional photojournalist for decades and while I have made mistakes in photo captioning or as it is now known IPTC info.  I do my very best to make sure that accurate information always accompanies any image that leaves my hands or computer.  I also assume that Alamy, acting as my licensing agent also makes sure that the buyer, individual, company or publication knows exactly what they are purchasing and the rights available.  I do believe that a major problem has been created by untrained "citizen Journalists."

 

Chuck

Chuck,

 

I thank you and all others who have responded and respect the advice/opinions expressed. My reasoning at the time for adding the ‘clause’ was a reaction to the changes made a while back to the contributor contract and the furore that caused at the time. As I have said previously, since reading the buyers contract I will be taking out the caveat. Not withstanding that, I am feeling a bit argumentative (in a friendly way) and would disagree that my image caveat is a disservice to Alamy. I doubt Alamy would have any concerns, it doesn't contradict anything in the Alamy buyers contract. If anything it is simply a heads-up to any potential buyer.

Like you, I also do my very best to ensure the information provided with my images is correct. I would never knowingly do otherwise.

 

Dave

Edited October 16, 2023 by Dave Richards
Added text

[Phil Robinson]

The additional information, I believe, is for stuff that won't fit in the caption, and things you want to potential buyers to know but don't want coming up in searches. 
For example sometimes I get pictures of the wrong politicians coming up when someone searches for 'Boris Johnson' because in the caption I've put "being interviewed on the day B J became prime minister". That is the sort of thing that should go in 'additional information'.
And as I mentioned in another thread, do a search for any tennis player and the results always bring up other players - because the opponent's name was included in the caption.
 

I once saw an obituary of Elena Baltacha (British tennis player who died tragically young) using a picture of the WRONG PLAYER - because she was the opponent in a match and a lazy picture editor hadn't even bothered to read the caption.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Phil Robinson

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

19 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I have no personal axe to grind...

Nor I, but let's take a moralistic look at your page 1 images:

a. Mountain Warehhouse exterior

did you ask owner(s) permission?

did you ask clothing brand for permission?

did you ask sign maker for permission?

b. touristic pedestrian street with businesses, flats

did you ask people for permission?
(especially couples who may be having illicit affairs)

did you ask businesses for permission?
did you ask apartment owners-renters for permission?
(maybe some don't want your image promoting more tourism)

c. ?public path?
did you ask sign maker permission?
(maybe he-she no longer uses that style, don't want it shown)

d. real estate lease sign

did you ask broker & sign maker for permission?
(& crikey we didn't Photoshop out their bloody phone # but its too late)

 

Let's not go on, let's just agree whatever one moralistically posts
about people images, one must also apply to people's property images...

Otherwise we are being unethical, aren't we...?

PS. there is very short answer for all this, find it, let it sink in, mate...

[Dave Richards]

7 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

The additional information, I believe, is for stuff that won't fit in the caption, and things you want to potential buyers to know but don't want coming up in searches. 
For example sometimes I get pictures of the wrong politicians coming up when someone searches for 'Boris Johnson' because in the caption I've put "being interviewed on the day B J became prime minister". That is the sort of thing that should go in 'additional information'.
And as I mentioned in another thread, do a search for any tennis player and the results always bring up other players - because the opponent's name was included in the caption.
 

I once saw an obituary of Elena Baltacha (British tennis player who died tragically young) using the picture of the WRONG PLAYER - because she was opponent in a match and a lazy picture editor hadn't even bothered to read the caption.

+1. I wonder how many buyers neglect to do that and how many are unaware of the terms in the buyers contract.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Dave Richards

[Bryan]

I generally use the additional info to declare when digital manipulation has been carried out, e.g. cloned out something, but I also use it to provide additional background info occasionally. 

 

With regard to captions, while most contributors do appear to provide accurate info I've seen photos sell in the papers with wholly incorrect  or misleading captions. Probably captioned as a job lot, but saved by the keywords I guess.

[spacecadet]

17 hours ago, Bryan said:

I generally use the additional info to declare when digital manipulation has been carried out, e.g. cloned out something, but I also use it to provide additional background info occasionally. 

 

With regard to captions, while most contributors do appear to provide accurate info I've seen photos sell in the papers with wholly incorrect  or misleading captions. Probably captioned as a job lot, but saved by the keywords I guess.

I see that I conscientiously added a note in the caption when I cloned out a bag of dog poo. Probably above and beyond, as it's in the info I've removed it.

Didn't there use to be a box for "digitally manipulated"?

[phomme]

Buy at your own risk?

 

[geogphotos]

On 16/10/2023 at 14:50, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Nor I, but let's take a moralistic look at your page 1 images:

a. Mountain Warehhouse exterior

did you ask owner(s) permission?

did you ask clothing brand for permission?

did you ask sign maker for permission?

b. touristic pedestrian street with businesses, flats

did you ask people for permission?
(especially couples who may be having illicit affairs)

did you ask businesses for permission?
did you ask apartment owners-renters for permission?
(maybe some don't want your image promoting more tourism)

c. ?public path?
did you ask sign maker permission?
(maybe he-she no longer uses that style, don't want it shown)

d. real estate lease sign

did you ask broker & sign maker for permission?
(& crikey we didn't Photoshop out their bloody phone # but its too late)

 

Let's not go on, let's just agree whatever one moralistically posts
about people images, one must also apply to people's property images...

Otherwise we are being unethical, aren't we...?

PS. there is very short answer for all this, find it, let it sink in, mate...

 

 

First off, I am not going to get into an argument with you.

 

In all the examples you give I am on public ground and so are the people and signs.

 

I think that this is very different from photographing smiling employees in their workplace when you are a customer/tourist and not obviously a stock photographer.

 

They might feel obliged to provide a customer with a smiling picture. You know that you are going to use it for stock but do they? Do you tell them and provide a big tip in return?

 

I'm sure that you can find some occasions where you can find fault with my pictures especially with museum interiors, occasionally general snaps of shop interiors. 

 

Even if you can there is the old saying that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. 

 

Anyway, it's your business and none of mine, but this is a forum for comment and I made mine in response to the comment you made about the 'friction' that comes with what you do.  

Edited October 29, 2023 by geogphotos

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I think that this is very different...

Geog my brother from another mother,

 

Moralistically, people or people's property, there's no difference.

Have no issues with any of your images.

I was being moralistic like your OP, temporarily.

EVERYONE has phone cameras stils-videos now.

Photos of servers on FB, TikTok, Youtube, social media,who knows where.

Some of those images-videos generate income...

Occasionally servers say, "No" to photos, so I don't.

AFAIK we both live in democracies, with similar rules.

There is "friction" in democracies.

One of us, IMO, is eroding democracy just a little bit...?

Now I'll go back to being less pedantic-moral-eristic.

There are others who can speak much more eloquently than I on this..