Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

fotoDogue , are you sure it's $ not £? 

 

Yes I'm sure. I'm in the US so the calculator shows me US Dollars.

 

Buy this stock image now…
Share ▼
 

Choose a license from the list below that suits your needs.

Personal use
$ 9.99
Presentation
$ 9.99
Website
$ 24.99
Magazines, newsletters and books
$ 69.99
Marketing package: Small business
$ 59.99
Marketing package: Large business
$ 199.99

 

 

 

I'm still showing $14.99

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some years ago there was a big USA publisher that admitted in court that they always purchased a cheap license, and then use the image in any way they wanted. So misuse, to save money, is not limited to the small guys, and is a well known fact industry wide.

 
 
“In a deposition taken in response to Wood's infringement claim, HMH senior vice-president of product development Donald Lankiewicz  said that the 40,000 copy limit of licenses "became a sort of boilerplate number" and "just an industry convention" that didn't really limit publishers to print runs of 40,000 copies. - See more at: http://www.pdnonline.com/news/After-Flouting-Print-1163.shtml#sthash.nmJKdgSt.dpuf”
 
We should keep in mind that today the photo library competition is allowing FREE personal use for some images. However they are images that that library owns outright.
 
I think there is a duty of care here, and a universal “opt out of personal use button” would do it for me.
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to suggest it even, but perhaps the time has come for a referendum on personal use opt-out.

 

Would anyone like to start an "are you for or against an opt-out option" poll?

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can beat the previous suspect sale example ...

 

 

Two images just sold for personal use ($6 each). 

 

Both zoomed on the 9 June and they are both of Kate McCann!!!!*

 

C41Y0E.jpg  C41Y2A.jpg

 

C41Y0E                              C41Y2A

 

 

Really? 

 

* for non-UK readers she is the mother of Maddy McCann who went missing in Portugal aged 6. Received significant press coverage at the time and still five years later.  

Why on earth is there a personal use option anyway?

 

Was it requested?

 

I hope that Alamy realise that it is something which is being abused, and is probably antagonising enough photographers that they will cause untold damage to the Alamy reputation by discussing their anger in the many forums for stock photographers.

 

I have had one PU licence and the people in the picture could have asked me for a print via phone, so I'm not sure if it was for personal use!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever wondered HOW people would know that Alamy sells pictures for PU?

Hell, do you even know "normal souls" - who are not in the photography business - who ever heard of Alamy? :wacko:

 

You don't need to be a genius nor Sherlock Holmes to figure out who those - ahum - "clients" are  :angry:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

I suppose you're correct. The tribe has already spoken, but the chiefs aren't listening.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put personal use restrictions on all my images last week,  i feel that i have done the rite thing,  as a professional photographer, i like to at least have the feeling that my work is being purchased and their right respected by professional buyers.

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the real kicker is that when you restrict the images from Personal use at 9.99 they are then available for presentation use at 9.99, and from what I can see there is no way of restricting this other low revenue channel. Anyone found how to restrict presentations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever wondered HOW "normal souls" - who are not in the photography business - would know that Alamy sells pictures for PU?

Hell, do you even know "normal souls" - who are not in the photography business - who ever heard of Alamy? :wacko:

 

You don't need to be a genius nor Sherlock Holmes to figure out who those - ahum - "clients" are  :angry:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

I would think that the personal use licences may just coincide with Alamy images starting to show up on Google search,where everyday people search all the time, as quite possibly do editors or others looking for cheap licenses. When I was searching for an image (this was before I joined Alamy) of a horse and dog together for my website, google images was the first place I went. (Never did find one I liked).

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Philippe

 

Problem is - as Jill rightfully mentioned - that you have to put that restriction on all your images.  If you do, then none of your images will be available through distributors.

 

I agree, however i have enough distributor schemes running elsewhere,  to be honest i find distributor sales less than rewarding.

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

I put personal use restrictions on all my images last week,  i feel that i have done the rite thing,  as a professional photographer, i like to at least have the feeling that my work is being purchased and their right respected by professional buyers.

 

Paul.

 

Problem is - as Jill rightfully mentioned - that you have to put that restriction on all your images.  If you do, then none of your images will be available through distributors.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

That may be changing, the new contract has changed the wording of the clause 11.2 to imply that restrictions may not preclude distribution. It may be that some restrictions are less worthy of keeping one out of distribution than others.... it might just be a typo!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual wording of the current contract - effective 15 June 2016 is

 

11.2 Images which have any restrictions in place may be excluded from the Distribution scheme at Alamy's discretion.

 

So unless a distributor is actively licensing images for personal use there's a possibility images with Personal Use restrictions won't be excluded.

I guess the only way to know for sure is to add restrictions and see what happens.

Edited by fotoDogue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The actual wording of the current contract - effective 15 June 2016 is

 

11.2 Images which have any restrictions in place may be excluded from the Distribution scheme at Alamy's discretion.

 

So unless a distributor is actively licensing images for personal use there's a possibility images with restrictions won't be excluded.

I guess the only way to know for sure is to add restrictions and see what happens.

 

The problem before was restrictions being honoured by third parties, it makes sense that there are some restrictions which are less important if they are not adhered to, as opposed to those that could have legal implications - sort of 'restrictions-lite'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the real kicker is that when you restrict the images from Personal use at 9.99 they are then available for presentation use at 9.99, and from what I can see there is no way of restricting this other low revenue channel. Anyone found how to restrict presentations? 

 

I find presentation use to be more legitimate than personal use, but it is of course open to the same abuses as personal use. Current price for presentation use is too low IMO.

 

I've licensed images on my own for presentation use at $25 with no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I have dejavu feeling that one more time we scream to the empty wall with only echo effect...?  :rolleyes:  It started in April and who knows how many of our emails are ignored with the same useless answer! Looks like there's nobody in Alamy interested in our problem. Money is money, and why ever care about good cooperation with trust and satisfaction for both sides? Our posts and future threads are useless again. We all know about the problem, nobody reacts, nobody cares... Writing here is wasting time only.

 

Ignored... Disappointed... Lost my trust... Lost motivation to support this agency anymore... Seriously.

Thank you Alamy for showing us how we can be treated like, after all this years... I'm so sorry that we are forced to start threads like this and to opt out our work agains working together... Unbelievable how much you changed your behaviour in last year!  :blink:  You used to be helpfull, treating photographers with respect, listen to us and talk in a professional way... What is going on now?!! 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Arletta

 You used to be helpfull, treating photographers with respect, listen to us and talk in a professional way... What is going on now?!! 

 

I have noticed this with all of the agencies "image suppliers" over the past 2 years,  we as photographers are nothing more than a source for images,  most of us have come to realise this over the years as the industry has gone through it's changes.

 

The only way to correct this low image payment system would be for all agencies "image suppliers" to pull together with a standard sufficient minimum price for images then go from there,  but of course it is a dream, the only way it might happen is if we were all under the same umbrella with union control and started dictating to the buyers and not the other way around.

 

Just my thoughts!

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiddling around with different licence types isn't going to address most photographers concerns, particularly with a general downward trend on prices. All it does is create a situation where it could be even more difficult to pursue infringements.

 

I've suggested this before, but I think the answer is for contributors to be able to specify a minimum price for a licence. The exact details of how it could work would need to be thought through, but there would seem to be two main options:

 

1. If the price the photographer specifies is below the 'standard' price for that type of licence then that licence option is not shown to the buyer

 

or 

 

2. The price for any licence is the minimum of the 'standard' price or the contributors minimum price.

 

 

Minimum prices could be specified at both the Pseudonym level and the individual image level. The highest minimum value that applies would always be used. If no minimums are specified then it reverts to standard pricing/behaviour.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those placing restrictions on personal use, I would advise you to beware of an annoying anomaly with batch editing.

 

Whereas with all other fields, no changes are made if the box is left unticked; with the Restriction field, any subsequent batch edit will automatically remove restrictions already in place - unless you redo them.

 

I couldn't understand why my restrictions kept disappearing until I identified this annoying problem.

 

Ian D

Edited by IDP
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when Alamy used to have meetings with photographers in London. They were recorded and put out for everybody tp watch. Then there was the CEO on video, maybe once a year, giving us updates. Now there is nothing at all, nothing!

Rolf

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I have dejavu feeling that one more time we scream to the empty wall with only echo effect...?  :rolleyes:  It started in April and who knows how many of our emails are ignored with the same useless answer! Looks like there's nobody in Alamy interested in our problem. Money is money, and why ever care about good cooperation with trust and satisfaction for both sides? Our posts and future threads are useless again. We all know about the problem, nobody reacts, nobody cares... Writing here is wasting time only.

 

Ignored... Disappointed... Lost my trust... Lost motivation to support this agency anymore... Seriously.

Thank you Alamy for showing us how we can be treated like, after all this years... I'm so sorry that we are forced to start threads like this and to opt out our work agains working together... Unbelievable how much you changed your behaviour in last year!  :blink:  You used to be helpfull, treating photographers with respect, listen to us and talk in a professional way... What is going on now?!! 

 

Sorry to read that you feel this way. Looking through all the communications you've had with us via email, we can see various members of staff, including senior management, have replied to your emails and you certainly haven't been ignored. Implying that you are being ignored is a little misleading here. 

 

We've stated numerous times that if anyone has specific concerns for a personal use licence, you can let us know and we will actively investigate it and work with our sales teams to follow up where appropriate. 

 

The forum is not the most appropriate place for us to always answer questions as we have to concentrate our resources in other areas but we will respond from time to time. This is set out in the 1st rule of the forum.

 

 

 

 

Arletta

 You used to be helpfull, treating photographers with respect, listen to us and talk in a professional way... What is going on now?!! 

 

I have noticed this with all of the agencies "image suppliers" over the past 2 years,  we as photographers are nothing more than a source for images,  most of us have come to realise this over the years as the industry has gone through it's changes.

 

 

We certainly don't view things that way and always aim to provide the most responsive and friendly service in the industry. 

 

 

I remember when Alamy used to have meetings with photographers in London. They were recorded and put out for everybody tp watch. Then there was the CEO on video, maybe once a year, giving us updates. Now there is nothing at all, nothing!

Rolf

 

We'd love to still hold the meetings Rolf, but with the volume of photographers and images at record levels it's just not been possible recently.

 

We produce at least one contributor focused blog per week where we try and cover a mixture of inspirational, informative and opinion posts and hopefully you've had a look at these. We're also as active as possible across social media.

 

We're currently growing the team here that provides contributor support via email and we've created a new team dedicated to responding specifically to legal and copyright queries. 

 

We pride ourselves on having one of the most, if not the most, responsive teams for photographer support in the business.

 

Best,

 

Alamy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy, And what was your answer finally? How did we resolve the problem?

 

I'm sorry to read this but this is just not true what you are saying here... Since April I'm still waiting for your help and answers after sending you few emails. Yes, some people from Alamy responded to me by email, one time each to give me the same equivocal and indirect answer as other contributors get... You still didn't answer the most important question - how can we stop this madness and opt out fast of PU problem, without beeing opted out of distribution and without need to clicking on every piece of work... Can you imagine Philippe or anyone with dozens thousands of images wasting time on fixing your mistake? Tell us the way to opt out of the ridiculous cheap price and we all will be happy, I believe.

 

Why do you force us (people who support you with the images) to sell licenses for extremly cheap price if you see so many people are against it and that we beg you to stop this? You even lowered the price more in last days... This plus no serious answer by email IS IGNORING.

 

20th of June I sent you my last email with the same question and still waiting for your help... There is NO help. So sad, that we have to put it all out here in public to make you finally react anyhow...

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be helpful would be to know if putting restrictions on personal use or presentation affects distribution.

 

Since they say "may affect" it probably means that certain restrictions will affect distributor sales, but not all.  If we knew that, it would certainly help.

 

Jill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We've stated numerous times that if anyone has specific concerns for a personal use licence, you can let us know and we will actively investigate it and work with our sales teams to follow up where appropriate." 

 

May we know HOW you are going to investigate the use of PU high resolution images? I believe you can't ......... except take their word for it. Anyway, I let Alamy know and still didn't receive an update about their investigation.

Why no explanation about the refusal of offering us an easy way to opt out concerning PU (and presentation) licenses? As you could read, the majority (if not all of us) want to opt out without losing the distributor sales.

Why are presentation and website images downloadable in high resolution?

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

As you know Philippe, with any stock licence sale there is (and always has been) an element of trust involved. We always rely on customers using the images in a way that they purchase a licence for, indeed if they do not then they know that they would be in breach of the terms and conditions and vulnerable to legal challenges down the line, either from the photographer directly or the selling agency.

 

The personal use licences work on the same values of trust, however we can follow up on suspicious licences (like we can with any licence) by contacting the client to obtain more details on the exact use, reverse image searching to locate mis-use and also monitor other buying activity from the client. There are other tactics we can use, but we will not be publishing these on this public forum. These investigations take our sales staff time but they are all tracked and you should get a response to anything raised after a month. If it goes beyond this, then please let us know. 

 

The idea of offering a personal use licence means that the image is available for a print and its important to customers that they have the highest resolution possible. We need to be able to provide a file that could be printed for personal use at a large enough size - this doesn't mean that the customer always downloads the highest size. This is why we do not limit the file size that can be downloaded. 

 

Alamy, And what was your answer finally? How did we resolve the problem?

 

I'm sorry to read this but this is just not true what you are saying here... Since April I'm still waiting for your help and answers after sending you few emails. Yes, some people from Alamy responded to me by email, one time each to give me the same equivocal and indirect answer as other contributors get... You still didn't answer the most important question - how can we stop this madness and opt out fast of PU problem, without beeing opted out of distribution

 

As we stated, it's not currently possible to opt out of personal use sales whilst at the same time guaranteeing that the same images will be available via distribution. In cases where we can extend restrictions to distributors, we will as stated within the new clause in the contract that has been referenced above.

 

We appreciate this isn't the answer you want to hear but that is the answer to your question. If you would like to place a restriction on your images for personal use, just let the MS team know and they'll arrange that for you.

 

To re-iterate again what we said earlier, we can't provide direct support and answers to all questions on this matter via the forum so this will be the last post on the issue here.

 

Thanks

 

Alamy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what was the problem to give me that answer by email... since April? That you can do this for me (us all) as I asked about any option like that? 

Then please, do place a restriction on all my images for PU and let's not waste our time anymore  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Ps. However, it's still disappointing to see what is going on with Alamy... never expected to find things going in that direction. The air smells very bad around after all.

Edited by Arletta
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just asked Alamy MS to place restrictions for personal use against all my images.

 

Allan

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.