Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Anybody else getting emails from them? I received one complaining about a bunch of files that they thought had people in them with no releases.

 

The pictures were of car parts! bonnets and engines, not a person in sight!

 

We all make mistakes but it took me an hour to go through them and then email back, I could have been sleeping for that hour.! :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else getting emails from them? I received one complaining about a bunch of files that they thought had people in them with no releases.

 

The pictures were of car parts! bonnets and engines, not a person in sight!

 

We all make mistakes but it took me an hour to go through them and then email back, I could have been sleeping for that hour.! :D

 

Me too, mate.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Alamy is employing robots and car parts look like people to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else getting emails from them? I received one complaining about a bunch of files that they thought had people in them with no releases.

 

The pictures were of car parts! bonnets and engines, not a person in sight!

 

We all make mistakes but it took me an hour to go through them and then email back, I could have been sleeping for that hour.! :D

Mine said RF with no property or people releases. It was of Times Square so fair enough. Are you sure they are not concerned about property release for the car?

 

Anyway, they switched mine to editorial only, so no work to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got one too. Read the mail on my Android phone which doesn't display the new image manager very well so can not check the image until later. They changed it to editorial only; as far as I can remember it is a photo of a bridge about to be replaced and I annotated it as no release as the structure could be someone's copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got one too, regarding  a few of my recent RF images, which they had changed to editorial only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got it too - human error on my part! All ones, I tagged, just as the new Alamy Image Manager was introduced. Working on my laptop, as I add more key words the RM/RF part moves down and off the screen. As it's set to RF it is so easy to miss. In my opinion - a design layout fault - as the RF/RM should be up higher the page!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got it too - human error on my part! All ones, I tagged, just as the new Alamy Image Manager was introduced. Working on my laptop, as I add more key words the RM/RF part moves down and off the screen. As it's set to RF it is so easy to miss. In my opinion - a design layout fault - as the RF/RM should be up higher the page!

 

I agree Lynne, I have done the same thing it's an easy mistake to make!

Michael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way I'm glad Alamy takes a look at their own archive. I had the impression lately that everything passed with flying colours as long as the picture quality was OK. Now if they could also take a look at the massive spamming  <_<

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

Indeed, this is great news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am pleased that Alamy are checking this and making changes.  I had a few myself which had gone on sale as RF when I first got the new IM and I hadn't realised that was the default.  I have now changed them to RM.

 

There are way too many images on Alamy which should never be RF but they will only be picked up if the contributor has correctly annotated the images in the first place.  Now that images can go on sale without answering the people/property questions I suspect there will be many more.

 

Pearl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine has been marked for deletion for some time and had no keywords. The remaining two similars are both RM. The one marked for deletion has to my knowledge always been RM. Maybe I checked a box when hitting the deletion button?

Let's hope it's not the IM again, getting a mind of it's own.

 

HAL, is that you?

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is of some concern to me is having received the email I was surprised at some images marked as RF which I clearly had designated RM. I mean, a beach full of people as RF!

 

Having checked my RF image total I see I (now) have some 800 images marked accordingly. This is staggering. I have a pseudo dedicated to RF and it reads 350 which is correct. The remaining 450 are certainly not of my doing!

 

Is this happening to others? A new glitch maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is of some concern to me is having received the email I was surprised at some images marked as RF which I clearly had designated RM. I mean, a beach full of people as RF!

 

Having checked my RF image total I see I (now) have some 800 images marked accordingly. This is staggering. I have a pseudo dedicated to RF and it reads 350 which is correct. The remaining 450 are certainly not of my doing!

 

Is this happening to others? A new glitch maybe?

 

Is there any chance that you could have set those to RF in a very early batch operation under the new AIM?

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is of some concern to me is having received the email I was surprised at some images marked as RF which I clearly had designated RM. I mean, a beach full of people as RF!

Having checked my RF image total I see I (now) have some 800 images marked accordingly. This is staggering. I have a pseudo dedicated to RF and it reads 350 which is correct. The remaining 450 are certainly not of my doing!

Is this happening to others? A new glitch maybe?

 

Is there any chance that you could have set those to RF in a very early batch operation under the new AIM?

 

wim

I tend to adjust my images individually and only batch similars from the same shoot. As such, I doubt batching is the culprit. What is ironic is that apart from the above people on a beach ALL the RF images I NOW see are indeed RF capable.

 

I'm wondering if the system is seeing this and adjusting? Look at the OP and car parts only !

 

P.s. It's definitely the system. There are RF tags on images of my home interior and my teenage daughter. These I would NEVER license as RF. Because I indicated releases in hand they've been picked out...... I'm sure.

Edited by ReeRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't usually set pictures as editorial use only even if there are people/properties without release. That's because AFAIK restricted pictures are automatically excluded from distribution. I set them as RM and specify there are people/properties without release in the Image Manager. Am I doing things in the wrong way? Should I mark them as editorial use only? Third parties distribution might be very relevant to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only had 11 images to look at. These are all legacy images that I had worked on.

I think each mis-marked image was my fault. When doing this, I think after a time (few hours) I got brain fog, and forgot to tick the "editorial only" box when changing some to RF.

 

I think this is a great feature by Alamy to catch these.

 

Good job, Alamy team.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy sent me a pretty long list.  I realized most of them were from early submissions using the new AIM which defaulted to RF.  I haven't seen anyone mention that you can change the default license type from RF to RM in the default settings menu, page 24 of the instructions.  For me its better to default to RM. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a fairly long list today, mainly of images that I recently converted to RF.

 

It made me realize that my understanding of what constitutes "property" in RF images is as foggy as it ever was.

 

For instance, someone owns this hedge, don't they? It should be RF editorial, no?

 

FR4FPN.jpg

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy sent me a pretty long list.  I realized most of them were from early submissions using the new AIM which defaulted to RF.  I haven't seen anyone mention that you can change the default license type from RF to RM in the default settings menu, page 24 of the instructions.  For me its better to default to RM. 

 

 

Thanks Johnnie5, I've never seen these instructions!! I've obviously just been working blind but did watch the video! I have now changed my default to RM which is very helpful for me.

 

Thanks again 

Lynne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 out of 20K+ images  is not bad going I guess - unless I've got further e-mails coming

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "most likely" what has happened has happened because:

 

Default was set to RF

 

When working on legacy or new images not noticing license

 

Failure to tick the Editorial Only box when setting RF (my problem with a few legacy images)

 

I made mistakes initially with the new AIM. I had made a couple of submissions before I noticed the people, property, and whatever section. Didn't notice the "tell us more about your image" line, either. I was just noticing the category. Unfamiliarity breeds mistakes or omissions.

Plus I've done my new work on my iPad, where everything is smaller and easier to miss.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was e-maied in error, but I am glad that they are checking. Sometimes a square for editorial can be missed, or the wrong license can be chosen. However, they only seem to check the consistency of your data, not the images themselves. For instance if you marked that there are people, and the image is available RF but the editorial box is not marked, they will e-mail you, even if there are no people in your photo. 

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.