Thousands of pictures - Changed to - Sell for editorial only

[M.Chapman]

35 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

The Restricted Images filter has finally just appeared. Perhaps time difference with Australia?

 

In the UK it's been there a while. But, sometimes (browser and screen dependent?) I have to scroll down the list of options to see it.

 

Using a combination of filters (e.g. Restricted images without people or property) can be quite useful for finding any with "rogue" settings

 

Mark 

[geogphotos]

I understood from the OP that his unrestricted images had been switched to Editorial Only if no entry had been made in the Optional area for property and people. Several comments made by others seemed to support this.

 

On re-reading it seems that the above is not the case. That only images marked as being not available for PU have been switched.

 

I see c 2500 Restricted images - restrictions I have placed on artworks etc. Do I conclude that these are the only ones that will be 'Editorial Only'? I have not generally made any other entry in the Optional area.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26 by geogphotos

[Harry Harrison]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Is that what has happened and how can I check if it has happened to me?

You could first check in AIM by selecting 'All on sale' in the Discoverability dropdown and scroll down to 'Restricted' in the Attributes dropdown.

 

However I don't think that you can be confident that this accurately reflects the situation from the buyer's point if view, just doing a bit of spot-checking reveals anomalies.

[gvallee]

49 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

In the UK it's been there a while. But, sometimes (browser and screen dependent?) I have to scroll down the list of options to see it.

 

Using a combination of filters (e.g. Restricted images without people or property) can be quite useful for finding any with "rogue" settings

 

Mark 

 

Yes, I scrolled down and I scrolled down and it definitely wasn't there. I couldn't see any changes either. Now I can. I was using my tablet, so perhaps it has something to do with it. 

 

Thank you for the combo tip, I'm going to give it a go.

 

Edited August 26 by gvallee

[Harry Harrison]

18 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

On re-reading it seems that the above is not the case. That only images marked as being not available for PU have been switched.

 

It's not entirely clear what's going on as the OP states that he has always filled in the Optional People and Property fields but also that his images were restricted as not to be sold for Personal Use and I would take that to also mean all his images. However not all seemed to have been chawnged to Editorial.

Edited August 26 by Harry Harrison

[Kent Johnson]

16 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I understood from the OP that his unrestricted images had been switched to Editorial Only if no entry had been made in the Optional area for property and people. Several comments made by others seemed to support this.

 

On re-reading it seems that the above is not the case. That only images marked as being not available for PU have been switched.

 

I see c 2500 Restricted images - restrictions I have placed on artworks etc. Do I conclude that these are the only ones that will be 'Editorial Only'? I have not generally made any other entry in the Optional area.

 

 

 

 

Alamy have REMOVED the option for not allowing Personal Use, prints etc - it is my thinking that those images were, in my case all changed to Editorial Only, that included commercial images too as I had restricted printing of those images as well. My concern is that all pictures here on Alamy are now in the wild and there is no way to claw back usage - some of my best images I would like to edition, this will not be possible if I do not have a say and a contract about Non-commercial use -for example, anyone being able to print and sell my pictures.

[gvallee]

14 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I understood from the OP that his unrestricted images had been switched to Editorial Only if no entry had been made in the Optional area for property and people. Several comments made by others seemed to support this.

 

On re-reading it seems that the above is not the case. That only images marked as being not available for PU have been switched.

 

I see c 2500 Restricted images - restrictions I have placed on artworks etc. Do I conclude that these are the only ones that will be 'Editorial Only'?

 

 

 

 

 

I have a few batches where I have not entered anything in optional. They do not appear to have been switched to Editorial only. 

 

Earlier today before this new implementation, I had about 450 images set to Editorial only, which I had ticked myself. Now I can see over 10,000. I did not have any Personal Use restrictions.

 

Other images including persons or property with no release, and clearly marked as such in the Optional tab, have not been switched to Editorial only.

 

Make it what you will. 

 

[Harry Harrison]

5 minutes ago, Kent Johnson said:

Alamy have REMOVED the option for not allowing Personal Use, prints etc

Yes, and although they gave notice on the forum that they would do this, and produced a blog page, clearly the majority of contributors won't have known about it until they were powerless to do anything about it. Given what you know now do the numbers of 'Editorial only' images that come up for you make sense in terms of how many had previously been restricted from sale for Personal use or prints etc.

[Harry Harrison]

I'm struggling with this from Alamy from the other thread:

5. You cannot 'opt out' of Personal Use anymore - this would be seen as a 'commercial' use (along with Advertising & Promotion and Consumer Goods). If you make your images available for All Uses (both commercial and editorial) then there will be a 'buy the print' button under those images where customers can purchase a physical print of the image. In essence, there will no longer a 'Personal Use' option for the customer.

 

Is it just that this hasn't been implemented as yet? When logged in looking at images that are not restricted for Editorial Use only (i.e. 'Creative images') I don't see the 'Buy a print' option but I still see the 'Personal use' option.

Edited August 26 by Harry Harrison

[gvallee]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

In the UK it's been there a while. But, sometimes (browser and screen dependent?) I have to scroll down the list of options to see it.

 

Using a combination of filters (e.g. Restricted images without people or property) can be quite useful for finding any with "rogue" settings

 

Mark 

 

I'm going crazy. I have two Samsung tablets switched on at the same time, one older, the other the latest model or so. On the old one, the Restricted Images filter shows, on the new one it doesn't, event after logging out and logging back in. I guess the next stage is to reboot. I'm not going to tear my hair out about this glitch.

 

 

Edited August 26 by gvallee

[geogphotos]

This is what I see for those images which were already marked as Editorial Only ( ie artworks)

 

[geogphotos]

And this for ones that were not Restricted

 

 

 

Personal Use is still available. There is no 'Buy a Print' button,

 

Both screenshots on Safari. I'm in UK

 

I assume that nothing has changed as yet .

[geogphotos]

And this on Firefox

 

 

 

I am totally confused 😵‍💫

[Kent Johnson]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, and although they gave notice on the forum that they would do this, and produced a blog page, clearly the majority of contributors won't have known about it until they were powerless to do anything about it. Given what you know now do the numbers of 'Editorial only' images that come up for you make sense in terms of how many had previously been restricted from sale for Personal use or prints etc.

From my perspective the problem now (assuming what I am seeing is correct) is that if I want to keep my 'print image rights for personal use' (keep control of the image in non-commercial use contexts) then I need to set the image to Editorial - which locks me out  of the more lucrative Commercial picture market. I don't believe as Alamy say that the removal of this option is make to buying process easier to understand,  the Make Prints & 'Buy The Print' looks like a money grab at the photographers expense.

[Sally Robertson]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

And this on Firefox

 

 

 

I am totally confused 😵‍💫

 

Hi Ian, I am guessing you may be logged into Alamy in Safari but not logged into Alamy on Firefox? I find the "Buy the print" option is not there when logged in.

 

I have noticed discrepancies for some time based on whether you are logged in or not in relation to a number of issues. I don't know why the "Buy the print" option disappears once logged in.

[geogphotos]

3 minutes ago, Sally Robertson said:

 

Hi Ian, I am guessing you may be logged into Alamy in Safari but not logged into Alamy on Firefox? I find the "Buy the print" option is not there when logged in.

 

I have noticed discrepancies for some time based on whether you are logged in or not in relation to a number of issues. I don't know why the "Buy the print" option disappears once logged in.

 

 

Yes Sally - you are right. When I log-in with Firefox I get the screen with Personal Use and other options as listed above. 

 

I think it best to wait and see because none of this makes any sense to me at the moment.

[Harry Harrison]

38 minutes ago, Kent Johnson said:

From my perspective the problem now (assuming what I am seeing is correct) is that if I want to keep my 'print image rights for personal use' (keep control of the image in non-commercial use contexts) then I need to set the image to Editorial - which locks me out  of the more lucrative Commercial picture market. I don't believe as Alamy say that the removal of this option is make to buying process easier to understand,  the Make Prints & 'Buy The Print' looks like a money grab at the photographers expense.

Thanks, I absolutely see where you're coming from there but I was trying to get my head round how they have gone about this so wondered if the images of yours that are now 'Editorial only' directly correlate with those that were before restricted by 'Not for sale for Personal Use' given that you have always filled in the Optional fields. In fact Gen (gvallee) seems to have discovered that if you don't fill in the People & Property fields then they are not switched to 'Editorial only'.

 

Incidentally currently, or at least last time I checked, if you are not logged in you can buy a print for any image, including Editorial, as a 'guest'.

Edited August 26 by Harry Harrison

[Harry Harrison]

3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

think it best to wait and see because none of this makes any sense to me at the moment.

It doesn't make sense when compared to what we were told but it still accurately represents the actual situation from the buyer's point of view.

[Sally Robertson]

Just now, geogphotos said:

 

 

Yes Sally - you are right. When I log-in with Firefox I get the screen with Personal Use and other options as listed above. 

 

I think it best to wait and see because none of this makes any sense to me at the moment.

 

Yes, I think that's a good idea to just wait to see how it pans out.

 

I noticed a while back that when logged out, here in Australia at least, the actual date of when the photo was taken changes by one day, contradicting what is in AIM. This is really strange to me as it is embedded in the EXIF data and shouldn't change. I have found other anomalies too over time. Hoping the logic will become apparent soon.

[spacecadet]

12 hours ago, MB Photography said:

I have had a large number of my images converted to Editorial Use. I have a lot of landscapes with no property or people and all the other optional fields were set. The only restriction I had was to prevent ‘Personal Use’.

 

I

Likewise. It was my archival pseudo. But I'm able to untick 'editorial only'. I've done so for property that no longer exists and people now dead.

Fortunately there are less than 200.

But there was no email saying it had been done, the only prompt was this thread.. I'm astounded that this isn't a unilateral change in the contributor contract.

Edited August 26 by spacecadet

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Likewise. It was my archival pseudo. But I'm able to untick 'editorial only'.

 

27 minutes ago, Sally Robertson said:

 

Yes, I think that's a good idea to just wait to see how it pans out.

 

I noticed a while back that when logged out, here in Australia at least, the actual date of when the photo was taken changes by one day, contradicting what is in AIM. This is really strange to me as it is embedded in the EXIF data and shouldn't change. I have found other anomalies too over time. Hoping the logic will become apparent soon.

You're in Australia. Your clock is 12 hours ahead.

[Harry Harrison]

10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I've done so for property that no longer exists and people now dead.

Something has now changed with your images, the archival Las Vegas ones for example, the customer no longer sees that they cannot be sold for Personal Use, as they could up to a couple of days ago.

[spacecadet]

9 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Something has now changed with your images, the archival Las Vegas ones for example, the customer no longer sees that they cannot be sold for Personal Use, as they could up to a couple of days ago.

Yes, that option has gone from AIM. As I said before this had been an experiment with my archive only. Since editorial licences became cheaper than PU it's been moot.

But there are images in there that I'm perfectly entitled to offer as commercial, and taking it away without notice seems high-handed at the least.

[Harry Harrison]

3 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Yes, that option has gone from AIM.

Yes , it went from AIM some time ago but for a long time after that those images were displaying as having a 'Not for Personal Use' restriction to the customer. That has now been corrected. It was an interesting anomaly.

[Kent Johnson]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks, I absolutely see where you're coming from there but I was trying to get my head round how they have gone about this so wondered if the images of yours that are now 'Editorial only' directly correlate with those that were before restricted by 'Not for sale for Personal Use' given that you have always filled in the Optional fields. In fact Gen (gvallee) seems to have discovered that if you don't fill in the People & Property fields then they are not switched to 'Editorial only'.

 

Incidentally currently, or at least last time I checked, if you are not logged in you can buy a print for any image, including Editorial, as a 'guest'.

All my pictures except, my 360 degree panoramas were set to Not for Personal Use - All the 'normal pictures were changed to Editorial - all of them. I've been through everything today and changed the Commercial ones (no property, have model release) back to Commercial and will decide if I will completely remove the shots with - shall we call it 'creative merit' or leave them in. The thing is, sales are too slow anyway.