Alamy's New licensing Model

[Reimar]

Is it true that if I have no restrictions on any of my images, I don't need to do anything?

I don't think I ever check "editorial only" since I set images without releases as RM, thinking the sales team will set the customer right depending on usage.  Can I leave it at that?

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

Some others may be in this position;
large collection, all unreleased, with & without people;
too many images to individually categorize;
but willing to let commercial clients bear 100% responsibility;
(commercial, as in, advertising usage)
how would we handle this upcoming change…?

 

general forum suggestion: each post assigned a number, #1 #2 #3,etc.,

so one can refer to a previous post #...
if my question previously asked, one can say "see post #X"

[geogphotos]

Just thinking that all these fields are Optional, so there is no obligation to add any restriction on any images. 

 

I think I will just leave things as they are. Alamy can decide to do what it wants. 

 

We don't get paid enough for all this busy work.

 

 

Edited July 30 by geogphotos

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

as several contributors have images that are ok for commercial use, but haven't filled in the PR and MR section either way

 

I've been good, I have actually been through and done this for myself, in other words marked all my images in the Optional tab in AIM according to how many people and whether there is Property and whether I have any releases (I don't). But then I have less than 3000 images.

 

I keep repeating myself on here but as far as I can see a contributor has no way of finding images where they haven't actually gone in and entered this information themselves in the Optional tab. Is there a way they can do that in fact? The only way seems to be to look at each image in turn. Could there not be an Attribute filter, or several, to help with this?

 

The csv is some help because it records 'Y' if you have said there is Property (rather than 'N' of course). Similarly for People it records 1,2,3,4 or 'MORE' according to what you have entered. However if nothing has been entered in Optional is still records 'N' for Property and 'O' for People which is the same as the default, the data exported is incorrect.

 

Now we know that your system does know, the database records it and images are treated differently according to whether the contributor has entered 'O' and 'N' for People and Property compared to if they have not done so. With this new change to the Licensing surely this has become even more important.

 

 

[geogphotos]

14 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

I've been good, I have actually been through and done this for myself, in other words marked all my images in the Optional tab in AIM according to how many people and whether there is Property and whether I have any releases (I don't). But then I have less than 3000 images.

 

I keep repeating myself on here but as far as I can see a contributor has no way of finding images where they haven't actually gone in and entered this information themselves in the Optional tab. Is there a way they can do that in fact? The only way seems to be to look at each image in turn. Could there not be an Attribute filter, or several, to help with this?

 

The csv is some help because it records 'Y' if you have said there is Property (rather than 'N' of course). Similarly for People it records 1,2,3,4 or 'MORE' according to what you have entered. However if nothing has been entered in Optional is still records 'N' for Property and 'O' for People which is the same as the default, the data exported is incorrect.

 

Now we know that your system does know, the database records it and images are treated differently according to whether the contributor has entered 'O' and 'N' for People and Property compared to if they have not done so. With this new change to the Licensing surely this has become even more important.

 

 

 

 

Harry,

 

They were about to christian me as David Ian Murray ( DIM) before they realised ( thanks Mum and Dad)and switched the christian names.

 

So excuse me but could you please explain why it 'has become even more important'?

 

Thanks

 

IDM

[Betty LaRue]

The Optional page is one where some contributors didn’t see spending the time doing it as worth the time spent, as I’ve read in the forums before. I can understand the time saved for prolific contributors. After all, it does say “optional”. I’ve always filled it out to future proof for changes just like this.

 

That said, I’m at a loss to understand if my portfolio needs anything addressed or if I’m safe letting it be.

[John Mitchell]

I think this change is a good move. It's something that should have been in place from the start IMHO.

 

However, I foresee a lot of confusion ensuing at this late stage in the game.

 

 

Edited July 30 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

5 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

The Optional page is one where some contributors didn’t see spending the time doing it as worth the time spent, as I’ve read in the forums before. I can understand the time saved for prolific contributors. After all, it does say “optional”. I’ve always filled it out to future proof for changes just like this.

 

That said, I’m at a loss to understand if my portfolio needs anything addressed or if I’m safe letting it be.

 

Just check the new "I'm at a loss" box in AIM. 🤪

 

 

Edited July 30 by John Mitchell

[Harry Harrison]

20 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

So excuse me but could you please explain why it 'has become even more important'?

 

Thanks

Because they treat these images differently, but we have no way of seeing that they are different apart from examining each and every one in AIM, in Sophie's reply to Martyn she seems to be acknowledging this but otherwise it has been their secret, never acknowledged and never dealt with despite requests from me to do so, James A did at least agree that it was a problem in a post back in 2019. It could for example affect an image's ranking if they wanted it to, it already means that images won't go into Vital unless you have actually specified that there is No Property and 0 People in 'Optional', so their system considers those images unsafe, because Vital is promoted to buyers as containing images that have been vetted to be safe to use.

 

"But I don't care if my images don't go into Vital" you might say, but Alamy clearly think that there is an important distinction between the status of the two types of images. The whole Creative Collection stuff means very little to us but it clearly means a lot to Alamy, and so presumably to their buyers.

Edited July 30 by Harry Harrison

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, Harry Harrison said:

Because they treat these images differently, but we have no way of seeing that they are different apart from examining each and every one in AIM, in Sophie's reply to Martyn she seems to be acknowledging this but otherwise it has been their secret, never acknowledged and never dealt with despite requests from me to do so, James A did at least agree that it was a problem in a post back in 2019. It could for example affect your ranking if they wanted it to, it already means that images won't go into Vital unless you have actually specified that there is No Property and 0 People in 'Optional', so their system considers those images unsafe, because Vital is promoted to buyers as containing images that have been vetted to be safe to use.

 

"But I don't care if my images don't go into Vital" you might say, but Alamy clearly think that there is an important distinction between the status of the two types of images. The whole Creative Collection stuff means very little to us but it clearly means a lot to Alamy, and so presumably to their buyers.

 

 

Thanks Harry. It is this sort of convoluted Alamyesque  stuff that helped me decide back in 2012 that the best way to get more income was to go non-exclusive. rathe than playing constant Alamy catch-up games. 

 

Agencies contributing to Alamy won't be doing all this - they just send their image in. 

[Martyn]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks Harry. It is this sort of convoluted Alamyesque  stuff that helped me decide back in 2012 that the best way to get more income was to go non-exclusive. rathe than playing constant Alamy catch-up games. 

 

Agencies contributing to Alamy won't be doing all this - they just send their image in. 

 

Absolutely. I've just had a nosey in AIM at some of my very early images submitted and those are images I've never gone back to and revised after the change from the old system to the new AIM, despite the change being a complete dogs breakfast ... and I see that all of those early submissions have the optional fields completed as well ... do I really want to spend forever going through each and every one of those images ticking the editorial only box ... nah ...

Edited July 30 by Martyn
spelling error

[geogphotos]

11 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

 

Could it be "even more important" because lawsuits have become more common these days? 🤔

 

Your parents did the right thing. When I was teaching, a colleague had identical twins named Bim and Bo in her class. However, I believe they were from Vietnam (English wasn't their first language), so their parents knew not what they had done to the poor girls. 🙃

 

 

 

Any lawsuit that comes my way I will argue ( correctly) that at very stage I complied with all Alamy rules and regs. 

 

Agencies like to act as though they can shove responsibility away from themselves onto contributors but I doubt that in reality.

 

Who are they going to go after, who has the money? Who set up the system etc

 

And over the last 22 years of my involvement has anybody been sued who has conformed to Alamy rules?

Edited July 30 by geogphotos

[Richard Tadman]

Just as an aside, I'm heartened by the fact that Alamy customer relations seem to be on the ball in responding to genuine enquiries from contributors and personalising the responses.
Irrespective of the merits of the changes, it's encouraging Alamy is addressing genuine concerns and legitimate queries swiftly and clearly.
Let's hope this marks a continuing trend.

[geogphotos]

3 minutes ago, Richard Tadman said:

Just as an aside, I'm heartened by the fact that Alamy customer relations seem to be on the ball in responding to genuine enquiries from contributors and personalising the responses.
Irrespective of the merits of the changes, it's encouraging Alamy is addressing genuine concerns and legitimate queries swiftly and clearly.
Let's hope this marks a continuing trend.

 

 

Great reminder Richard.

 

The people in Contributor Relations are on my Xmas card list.

 

They are great!

Edited July 30 by geogphotos

[Martyn]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

Any lawsuit that comes my way I will argue ( correctly) that at very stage I complied with all Alamy rules and regs. 

 

Agencies like to act as though they can shove responsibility away from themselves onto contributors but I doubt that in reality.

 

Who are they going to go after, who has the money? Who set up the system etc

 

And over the last 22 years of my involvement has anybody been sued who has conformed to Alamy rules?

 

Again, I fully agree with what you are stating. We have seen the ever growing list of subjects that are verboten, National Trust, Network Rail, Graffiti, Passport covers etc etc, all banned to "protect us" but oddly, none of Alamy's competitors seem to have this concern and these image subjects appear regularly in newspapers, magazines, calendars etc. Now we have this to contend with ... I would put it to Alamy that the vast majority of clients know exactly what they want to use the image for, they can see whether it contains people or property and they know whether it requires releases for their intended use ... more onus needs to be placed on the clients, not us contributors who are doing the best we can.

Edited July 30 by Martyn
spelling error

[Michael Ventura]

1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

 

 

That said, I’m at a loss to understand if my portfolio needs anything addressed or if I’m safe letting it be.

Me too.  I have always done the optional page but now confused if I need to do anything more.

[ReeRay]

6 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

Me too.  I have always done the optional page but now confused if I need to do anything more.

Same here

[geogphotos]

Personally I was always suspicious of the 'Optional' and when it would come 'Operational'.

Edited July 30 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

8 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

Me too.  I have always done the optional page but now confused if I need to do anything more.

 

I complete the optional page as well. However, whether or not to check the "editorial use only" box has always been confusing. Same goes for the "property" box in a lot of cases. I'm just going to leave things as they are and wait to see what Alamy has to say, assuming that they send an email of some sort.

[Rubens Alarcon]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I complete the optional page as well. However, whether or not to check the "editorial use only" box has always been confusing. Same goes for the "property" box in a lot of cases. I'm just going to leave things as they are and wait to see what Alamy has to say, assuming that they send an email of some sort.

I have always filled the "optional" fields for all my images also, but I have not checked the "editorial use only" box because I judged it was not necessary after specifying if I had or not releases for people/property. Waiting for Alamy to tell us if we need to do anything else.

[gvallee]

2 minutes ago, Rubens Alarcon said:

I have always filled the "optional" fields for all my images also, but I have not checked the "editorial use only" box because I judged it was not necessary after specifying if I had or not releases for people/property. Waiting for Alamy to tell us if we need to do anything else.

 

Ditto.

 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

all of my following Optional boxes are blank AFAIK:
boxes seen below as " __ "
does this mean I need to do nothing nada zilch...?

Sell for editorial only __

Restrictions 

1. Don't sell for advertising and promotion __
2. Don't sell for consumer goods __
3. Don't sell for editorial __
4. Don't sell for personal use including single copy, non-retail wall art prints __

[Betty LaRue]

I looked at my images with the filter “restrictions” I had over 4,000 with “editorial only” ticked & most of those with “do not sell for PU” ticked. I used my iPad to do this & selected 20 or so images at a time & removed all restrictions & saved. Sounds horrible, doesn’t it? Well …I can’t say it was fun but I got through all of them in something like an hour.

So first, use the restrictions filter so you can see how many of your images have restrictions, then decide if you want to do what I did or forgetaboutit.

Maybe I have OCD & didn’t realize it.

Edited July 30 by Betty LaRue

[Betty LaRue]

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Just check the new "I'm at a loss" box in AIM. 🤪

 

 

🤣😁🥴

[Martin L]

I have always filled in the optional fields and if I have answered yes to people and/or property I always tick 'Sell for editorial only'.

 

With the changes seems like I might not have much to do 🤞