"Personal Use" as option when buying an image

[chrumu]

I just noticed that Alamy added Personal Use as straight-up buying option on both RM and RF images, for the same price as the Presentation sale, i.e., £9.99.

 

What do you think about this?

 

 

I don't like it. The license terms clearly state "Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only. Not for resale" but will this be honored? While I'd like to sell postcards and framed prints and the like, I don't feel comfortable handing out a full-sized original image to an individual end consumer for such a discount price so they can print it themselves. This is a bit a generalisation, but in my opinion private persons don't care about copyright and license terms. If consumers freely share downloaded music and videos without caring about copyright, why should I expect them not to redistribute my images to their family and friends? Soon they would be uploaded to social networks. And chasing infringements by private persons is usually useless, at least in my experience.

[NYCat]

Oooooo. Sounds bad. Is $14.99 in dollars. I had a sale recently for personal use...$25. Did not make me very happy. Terms said "Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use". Price falling already from February.

 

Paulette

[losdemas]

Couldn't agree more.  The pessimist in me (realist?) says that such a license is unlikely to be respected.

[John Mitchell]

My biggest concern is that it undercuts greatly the same images we also offer to POD sites where they are sold for a lot more money.

I think it would only be fair if we could opt out for these "personal use" licences.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

I agree. My lowest sale so far this month ($13.48 gross) is for personal use: "Personal prints, cards and gifts." That covers a heck of a lot of ground, and one wonders just how "personal" the use will end up being (and also what happened to the $25 price).

[fotoDogue]

My biggest concern is that it undercuts greatly the same images we also offer to POD sites where they are sold for a lot more money.

I think it would only be fair if we could opt out for these "personal use" licences.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

Actually we can set restrictions against Personal Use. When I tried it had to go through a series of restrictions which seemed so complex I was afraid it would scare editorial clients away.

[dustydingo]

Why is everyone so focused on licenses for "personal use"?

 

There's naught to stop anyone buying any license and using it how they wish . . . after all, "presentation" licenses cost the same as "personal use" licenses, and judging by some of the reported fees here, folk can gain legal access to an image for even lower amounts and still use it as they wish . . . the question "how do we know they're only using it for the stated purpose" applies to every single license sale here, without exception.

 

I'm actually happy that there is a legal process for honest users who only want an image for personal use.

 

dd

[Arletta]

I agree, the price is seriously to low! 

My prints are starting from $20 (net) for the smallest size and most of my sales are medium-large for over $100-200 net (what I get, not medium-agency). So Alamy's price for personal use is clearly undercutting my earnings a lot. 

 

I'd be glad if I could set up my own pricing at least for this option, to not compete with myself... 

[Callie]

The price is way below what I sell for personal use elsewhere, so yes I would want to opt out. Or maybe A could actually start charging a realistic personal use price.

[Keith Douglas]

I think that the only way is to maintain a clear separation between images you are selling to others in electronic form and images you are using as the basis for your own products e.g.prints or cards.  Once you make the high resolution image available you have lost control of how it is used.

[Arletta]

I think that the only way is to maintain a clear separation between images you are selling to others in electronic form and images you are using as the basis for your own products e.g.prints or cards.  Once you make the high resolution image available you have lost control of how it is used.

 

Eee? Then what is RM licensing for? The reason I have chosen the RM is to keep better control over where and how my work is used. What am I missing in your post?

[spacecadet]

 

I think that the only way is to maintain a clear separation between images you are selling to others in electronic form and images you are using as the basis for your own products e.g.prints or cards.  Once you make the high resolution image available you have lost control of how it is used.

 

Eee? Then what is RM licensing for? The reason I have chosen the RM is to keep better control over where and how my work is used. What am I missing in your post?

 

If you want to use your own images in merchandising, don't license them in any other way?

[TokyoM1ke]

My take on this is that people are worried that buyers may exceed their licensed usage and do something else with the image.  Of course that's true, I've seen umpteen threads asking for advice regarding double usage (one live one running at the moment) and other infringements. This is much the same as the problem the music and film distributors face; once it's out there, it's out there! To my mind there are a couple of "protections" in selling on Alamy:

1. they only sell JPG files which only have an 8 bit colour depth, markedly different from the 12 bit colour depth I get from my camera. If you want the highest-quality print you cannot get it from the Alamy image.
2. Alamy don't actually print it for them. If people want a personal print, going to a POD site or otherwise getting it printed is much easier and more reliable, the cost probably isn't greater than doing it yourself, if you're not experienced in printing.  I actually think that it's a bit of an odd bird that wants to buy an Alamy image to print for themselves. On the other hand, if they're making their own wallpaper or something then... well, good luck to them!

I do sell prints (infrequently but at good prices) but I tend to be a little selective as to which of those I also put on Alamy.  If someone's printing it for private use I really can't see that you can do much unless they inadvertently invite you for Sunday lunch and you spot it on their wall.

 

[rucksack off, sorry if I was rambling a bit]

[Betty LaRue]

I will immediately be pulling my dozen or so artistic images on Alamy that competes with my POD sites where they sell quite nicely.

[John Mitchell]

I will immediately be putting my dozen or so artistic images on Alamy that competes with my POD sites where they sell quite nicely.

 

Interestingly, the $13.48 (forget $25) personal use sale that I mentioned above is very much an editorial image, not one one that I would have thought of putting on a POD site. I could, however, see it being used to promote a volunteer program or some other non-profit project, which wouldn't exactly be "personal" use. There's no way of telling how the image will actually be used, of course.

[losdemas]

Just took a quick look at my sales history before hitting the sack. My first ever sale on a Saturday :
 
"Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale. Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use"
 
It's precisely the kind of image likely to sell as a card/print/canvas.  Let's hope it is "Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use"

[Paul Mayall]

The down side to having images managed by so called agencies is the lack of control,  Callie (jw) said that she would consider to opt out, i think to opt out would be to withdraw completely from all distributors and only have images with concerns like PD.

 

Yes folks it is a concern.

[Guest]

Why is everyone so focused on licenses for "personal use"?

 

There's naught to stop anyone buying any license and using it how they wish . . . after all, "presentation" licenses cost the same as "personal use" licenses, and judging by some of the reported fees here, folk can gain legal access to an image for even lower amounts and still use it as they wish . . . the question "how do we know they're only using it for the stated purpose" applies to every single license sale here, without exception.

 

I'm actually happy that there is a legal process for honest users who only want an image for personal use.

 

dd

 

Have to agree completely. Alamy shouldn't have to care if people put their images on POD sites as well, that's up to the contributor, not Alamy.

 

Users of stock imagery have changed in recent times, it's something that micro has served and now Alamy is recognising that there is a demand from non-traditional users.

[Keith Douglas]

 

I think that the only way is to maintain a clear separation between images you are selling to others in electronic form and images you are using as the basis for your own products e.g.prints or cards.  Once you make the high resolution image available you have lost control of how it is used.

 

Eee? Then what is RM licensing for? The reason I have chosen the RM is to keep better control over where and how my work is used. What am I missing in your post?

 

 

The point I was making is that if you have an image that is particularly suitable for use in a product (prints, cards etc.) and maybe you are also using it in that way, it doesn't make sense to me to expose those images to the risk of someone else downloading the high resolution image for a small 'personal' fee and then doing what they want with it. Unfortunately there will be some people who will not be too concerned about the fine details of an RM licence, and it may not be possible or cost effective to pursue any infringement.

 

I recently did a design for some table mats and coasters that has proved very successful, and I've made more from it in a couple of months than I've earned on Alamy in 6 months. I had a request for a copy of the high resolution image so that someone could produce a print for 'personal use'. I politely declined. We never got to the point of discussing a price but even if we had it would have been way more than I am sure they would have been willing to pay, and certainly many, many times more than £10. 

[hdh]

maybe stupid question:

I have just had a look in restrictions and "Personal Use" can be excluded as the last line of the Usage drop down. 

Does that not help if one wanted to exclude this? 

[Guest]

 

 

Why is everyone so focused on licenses for "personal use"?

 

There's naught to stop anyone buying any license and using it how they wish . . . after all, "presentation" licenses cost the same as "personal use" licenses, and judging by some of the reported fees here, folk can gain legal access to an image for even lower amounts and still use it as they wish . . . the question "how do we know they're only using it for the stated purpose" applies to every single license sale here, without exception.

 

I'm actually happy that there is a legal process for honest users who only want an image for personal use.

 

dd

Have to agree completely. Alamy shouldn't have to care if people put their images on POD sites as well, that's up to the contributor, not Alamy.

 

Users of stock imagery have changed in recent times, it's something that micro has served and now Alamy is recognising that there is a demand from non-traditional users.

 

 

That's a completely different business AND UNDERCUTTING a completely different market. Is Alamy going to ruin a market (by offering products at a fraction of the normal price) as microstock did with the whole stock business?

You think the 600 agencies submitting here are happy with this new offer? Why do we have to find out by checking our sales reports? I would have liked to be informed on beforehand about this change.

You really think those downloads will be used to print ONE postcard or poster for themselves? Maybe ......... or will they start a little business (obviously without paying taxes) offering selfmade table mats, mouse mats, birthday calendars and coasters as Keith rightfully mentioned above. If photographers struggle with the exact meaning of RF and RM, imagine how complicated it must be for non-photographers IF they do the trouble to read all that.

 

Just give people the choice to opt in or out. What's so complicated about that?

 

Cheers,

Philippe (again, not amused)

 

 

I've assumed that the wall decor option which has been around in agencies for many years was used to print one poster or print for a wall..... it's nothing new. Allowing a wider version might be good or bad business...... we/Alamy don't know yet.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

Why is everyone so focused on licenses for "personal use"?

 

There's naught to stop anyone buying any license and using it how they wish . . . after all, "presentation" licenses cost the same as "personal use" licenses, and judging by some of the reported fees here, folk can gain legal access to an image for even lower amounts and still use it as they wish . . . the question "how do we know they're only using it for the stated purpose" applies to every single license sale here, without exception.

 

I'm actually happy that there is a legal process for honest users who only want an image for personal use.

 

dd

Have to agree completely. Alamy shouldn't have to care if people put their images on POD sites as well, that's up to the contributor, not Alamy.

 

Users of stock imagery have changed in recent times, it's something that micro has served and now Alamy is recognising that there is a demand from non-traditional users.

 

 

That's a completely different business AND UNDERCUTTING a completely different market. Is Alamy going to ruin a market (by offering products at a fraction of the normal price) as microstock did with the whole stock business?

You think the 600 agencies submitting here are happy with this new offer? Why do we have to find out by checking our sales reports? I would have liked to be informed on beforehand about this change.

You really think those downloads will be used to print ONE postcard or poster for themselves? Maybe ......... or will they start a little business (obviously without paying taxes) offering selfmade table mats, mouse mats, birthday calendars and coasters as Keith rightfully mentioned above. If photographers struggle with the exact meaning of RF and RM, imagine how complicated it must be for non-photographers IF they do the trouble to read all that.

 

Just give people the choice to opt in or out. What's so complicated about that?

 

Cheers,

Philippe (again, not amused)

 

 

I've assumed that the wall decor option which has been around in agencies for many years was used to print one poster or print for a wall..... it's nothing new. Allowing a wider version might be good or bad business...... we/Alamy don't know yet.

 

 

The agencies I work with also offer posters BUT via POD subagencies so the client receives the actual poster and NOT a high resolution file which they can (ab)use as they like..

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

G for example have long had wall decor as one option.... I've sold licenses for that use a long time ago. Strangely i didn't assume they were going to do anything other than get a print made for their office.......

 

You might care to take a moment and back off on your continual assumptions about Alamy's clients and their intensions. I don't assume they are anything other than legitimate in their uses unless proved otherwise. This is a public forum and indexed by Google etc...... if you really want to slag off the very people who make a contribution to your income, perhaps take it in to a private forum or address MS privately.

[spacecadet]

 

 

 

 

I joined Alamy to do business with companies NOT private persons. I join POD sites for that. And no, I don't trust private customers. Call me paranoid.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

I don't know about Belgium but here there is no legal distinction between the self-employed and their businesses unless they are incorporated. Most Alamy contributors will be in this category.

I like 'private customers' because they pay cash, usually in advance, certainly on delivery.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is everyone so focused on licenses for "personal use"?

 

There's naught to stop anyone buying any license and using it how they wish . . . after all, "presentation" licenses cost the same as "personal use" licenses, and judging by some of the reported fees here, folk can gain legal access to an image for even lower amounts and still use it as they wish . . . the question "how do we know they're only using it for the stated purpose" applies to every single license sale here, without exception.

 

I'm actually happy that there is a legal process for honest users who only want an image for personal use.

 

dd

Have to agree completely. Alamy shouldn't have to care if people put their images on POD sites as well, that's up to the contributor, not Alamy.

 

Users of stock imagery have changed in recent times, it's something that micro has served and now Alamy is recognising that there is a demand from non-traditional users.

 

 

That's a completely different business AND UNDERCUTTING a completely different market. Is Alamy going to ruin a market (by offering products at a fraction of the normal price) as microstock did with the whole stock business?

You think the 600 agencies submitting here are happy with this new offer? Why do we have to find out by checking our sales reports? I would have liked to be informed on beforehand about this change.

You really think those downloads will be used to print ONE postcard or poster for themselves? Maybe ......... or will they start a little business (obviously without paying taxes) offering selfmade table mats, mouse mats, birthday calendars and coasters as Keith rightfully mentioned above. If photographers struggle with the exact meaning of RF and RM, imagine how complicated it must be for non-photographers IF they do the trouble to read all that.

 

Just give people the choice to opt in or out. What's so complicated about that?

 

Cheers,

Philippe (again, not amused)

 

 

I've assumed that the wall decor option which has been around in agencies for many years was used to print one poster or print for a wall..... it's nothing new. Allowing a wider version might be good or bad business...... we/Alamy don't know yet.

 

 

The agencies I work with also offer posters BUT via POD subagencies so the client receives the actual poster and NOT a high resolution file which they can (ab)use as they like..

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

G for example have long had wall decor as one option.... I've sold licenses for that use a long time ago. Strangely i didn't assume they were going to do anything other than get a print made for their office.......

 

You might care to take a moment and back off on your continual assumptions about Alamy's clients and their intensions. I don't assume they are anything other than legitimate in their uses unless proved otherwise. This is a public forum and indexed by Google etc...... if you really want to slag off the very people who make a contribution to your income, perhaps take it in to a private forum or address MS privately.

 

 

I joined Alamy to do business with companies NOT private persons. I join POD sites for that. And no, I don't trust private customers. Call me paranoid.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

I have no issue with your paranoia, you can easily restrict personal use...indeed I'm sure as an agency, MS will do that for you.......

 

Stock has changed, started a long time ago when non-traditional buyers started using RF DVDs/CDs etc and continued with micro. Alamy has often tried to address this change......

[spacecadet]

Very well but I'm sure most contributors are under the VAT threshold so don't need to register.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I joined Alamy to do business with companies NOT private persons. I join POD sites for that. And no, I don't trust private customers. Call me paranoid.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

I don't know about Belgium but here there is no legal distinction between the self-employed and their businesses unless they are incorporated. Most Alamy contributors will be in this category.

 

 

By "companies" I mean those who are VAT registered.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

Sorry but that means nothing, lots of SEs are not registered for VAT. Alamy can't just say, sorry but one of our contribs doesn't like dealing with you. Do you really want to drive potential clients to other sites.