mickfly Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Great picture of a green cat on the news feed, but Alamy have put it on their FB page with a tiny watermark in a place where it can be cropped easily and no cross through the picture. Is this intentional to make the picture viral? It will make the picture an orphan. http://www.alamy.com/zooms/e229a351854f40b6bcfe10f88e451dd8/varna-bulgaria-4th-december-2014-green-cat-wanders-streets-of-varna-EBR6HY.jpg No cross through the cat on the Alamy FB page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 And FB can distribute it themselves for money WITHOUT recompense to the photographer (or Alamy) according to their terms edited to correct my assertion - I meant to say without not with recompense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 And 2048 on the longest side so very usable - at least the metadata is still there, for the moment... What is Alamy thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 I'm not sure that's quite true Martin, but it will be nicked anyway as it's 2048px x 1376!Edit, Oops, cross posted with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Under fb's terms of use, how can any photographer or photo agency use facebook to showcase and market their images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Under fb's terms of use, how can any photographer or photo agency use facebook to showcase and market their images? They shouldn't, I have also corrected my original statement about that, it should have read "without recompense" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Under fb's terms of use, how can any photographer or photo agency use facebook to showcase and market their images? For stock it makes little sense to use FB in that way and, like a few colleagues/agencies, I've stopped using FB for showing new work. Currently my empty photo page account is in process (finally) of being deleted. However, there are ways to monetise your work that requires the use of an audience and to build that audience FB can be a very valuable tool. FB can also be very useful for networking with models so you would need to showcase some work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Under fb's terms of use, how can any photographer or photo agency use facebook to showcase and market their images? For stock it makes little sense to use FB in that way and, like a few colleagues/agencies, I've stopped using FB for showing new work. Currently my empty photo page account is in process (finally) of being deleted. However, there are ways to monetise your work that requires the use of an audience and to build that audience FB can be a very valuable tool. FB can also be very useful for networking with models so you would need to showcase some work. Even there the secret is to link to an image on your own site, not load them into FB and give carte blanche for FB to use them as they see fit. Do you want FB, of one of its cronies/customers using a photograph of a model where you agreed limited uses - e.g. just to promote you and not for wider publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Even there the secret is to link to an image on your own site, not load them into FB and give carte blanche for FB to use them as they see fit. Do you want FB, of one of its cronies/customers using a photograph of a model where you agreed limited uses - e.g. just to promote you and not for wider publication. That makes sense to me, since I believe fb only has claim on images your post on your wall, not linked images. Also if they aren't public I don't think they can touch them. But it's hard to do marketing if the public couldn't see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Just to put things straight in my own mind- if you post to FB yourself you grant a licence, but if anyone else does it, FB gain no rights over your image. The Alamy licence forbids sublicensing as well, not that it's relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstw Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 The image was used by a few media outlets today, but not from Alamy. From REX. I fail to see the point in uploading the same images to multiple agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Under fb's terms of use, how can any photographer or photo agency use facebook to showcase and market their images? For stock it makes little sense to use FB in that way and, like a few colleagues/agencies, I've stopped using FB for showing new work. Currently my empty photo page account is in process (finally) of being deleted. However, there are ways to monetise your work that requires the use of an audience and to build that audience FB can be a very valuable tool. FB can also be very useful for networking with models so you would need to showcase some work. Even there the secret is to link to an image on your own site, not load them into FB and give carte blanche for FB to use them as they see fit. Do you want FB, of one of its cronies/customers using a photograph of a model where you agreed limited uses - e.g. just to promote you and not for wider publication. IMO, there's too many people who worry too much about this or that possiblity when it comes to FB. It's a useful place for posting images and getting a following, you won't do that by dragging people off your FB page. As for a model limiting my uses of the images, I wouldn't hire that model so moot point....why would anyone agree to that scenario. I always pay models, I don't do TF shoots for promo...why would I?? Most models are quite happy to plaster their images over FB....it's how they find some work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 The vagaries and pitfalls of posting images on FB have been well covered above . . . but no one has mentioned the fact the image is a sham (or at least the given "reason" for the cat's colour is a sham). The colour has been photoshopped in, and on close inspection, not very skilfully. I hope it was marked as "digitally altered" . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 The image was used by a few media outlets today, but not from Alamy. From REX. I fail to see the point in uploading the same images to multiple agencies. Very simple reason, not every buyer has accounts at all agencies. If they have an account with Corbis but not Alamy, the Alamy cat will not be bought by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 The image was used by a few media outlets today, but not from Alamy. From REX. I fail to see the point in uploading the same images to multiple agencies. Very simple reason, not every buyer has accounts at all agencies. If they have an account with Corbis but not Alamy, the Alamy cat will not be bought by them. But isn't Corbis exclusive? Cheers, Philippe Sometimes yes, sometimes no.....same as Getty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstw Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I fail to see the point in uploading the same images to multiple agencies. Euh ....... more sales? Lots more sales? Cheers, Philippe That's not been my experience. In my transition from Alamy News to Demotix/Corbis I was uploading to both for better coverage. I seem to remember a while back being advised that uploading to multiple agencies tends to annoy picture editors. I picked one and stuck to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Under fb's terms of use, how can any photographer or photo agency use facebook to showcase and market their images? For stock it makes little sense to use FB in that way and, like a few colleagues/agencies, I've stopped using FB for showing new work. Currently my empty photo page account is in process (finally) of being deleted. However, there are ways to monetise your work that requires the use of an audience and to build that audience FB can be a very valuable tool. FB can also be very useful for networking with models so you would need to showcase some work. Even there the secret is to link to an image on your own site, not load them into FB and give carte blanche for FB to use them as they see fit. Do you want FB, of one of its cronies/customers using a photograph of a model where you agreed limited uses - e.g. just to promote you and not for wider publication. IMO, there's too many people who worry too much about this or that possiblity when it comes to FB. It's a useful place for posting images and getting a following, you won't do that by dragging people off your FB page. As for a model limiting my uses of the images, I wouldn't hire that model so moot point....why would anyone agree to that scenario. I always pay models, I don't do TF shoots for promo...why would I?? Most models are quite happy to plaster their images over FB....it's how they find some work. I shouldn't answer for someone else (I never learn!!) but my reading of Martin's post was alluding to the fact you could hire a model and get a model release which the model would have limits on, for example, not to be used to advertise smoking. In this case, Alamy could load it to FB who then picks it up to use in a smoking campaign on FB ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 My original point wasn't about where it was posted, rather that it was posted at all by Alamy with an easily cropped, or clone outable (is that a word?) watermark. The picture will lose value as it gets passed around the internet now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 The vagaries and pitfalls of posting images on FB have been well covered above . . . but no one has mentioned the fact the image is a sham (or at least the given "reason" for the cat's colour is a sham). The colour has been photoshopped in, and on close inspection, not very skilfully. I hope it was marked as "digitally altered" . . . dd Have you seen the video? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 The vagaries and pitfalls of posting images on FB have been well covered above . . . but no one has mentioned the fact the image is a sham (or at least the given "reason" for the cat's colour is a sham). The colour has been photoshopped in, and on close inspection, not very skilfully. I hope it was marked as "digitally altered" . . . dd Have you seen the video? wim I most definitely have . . . I saw the video before I posted the above . . . have you had a close look at the image, and also the closeups toward the end of the video? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 . . . at 100%, look at the cat's ears. At 200%, even blind Freddie will be convinced. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 There is a chemical company near us and I saw many very colourful bunnies down there in the 1980's so maybe not a scam, as cats can probably show colour if they are near coloured compounds. The workers at the chemical works all looked like the Simpsons due to working with Picric acid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.