Personal use sale

[pierre rochon]

Hi,

 

I just got a personal use sale for an image which was zoomed yesterday.

 

Am I wrong to think that Alamy only recorded data from regular customers and that a ''regular customer''  doesn't usually buy images for personal use?

 

 

[John Mitchell]

Not long ago, a buyer licensed two of my images (at decent prices) for editorial use and then purchased a third one from the same set for PU, so regular customers do sometimes buy images for personal use, perhaps to hang on their office walls (?).

[Dyn Llun]

Maybe I'm overly suspicious and cynical but I would guess that client realised they can get a full size image to do whatever they want with for peanuts and for ever if they click 'personal sale' when they licence it. Having paid for two at editorial rates they probably decided 'buy two, get one (very) cheap' was a good option. 

Pete Davis

www.pete-davis-photography.com

http://peteslandscape.blogspot.co.uk

[spacecadet]

All my PUs so far have been plausible, and none has turned up in GIS. Alamy have what they call "systems" to check for abuse, apparently.

[losdemas]

I recently found two (very obvious) abuses of images licensed as PU and used for business websites.  Awaiting Alamy's investigations.

 

EDIT: at the same time, I found a third image licensed for presentation and used for a business website.  So opting out of PU isn't very useful if they can find another license for the same price and abuse that!  In any case, opting out of PU denies you the opportunity to gain sales via any distribution channels.

[Panthera tigris]

11 hours ago, losdemas said:

..........  In any case, opting out of PU denies you the opportunity to gain sales via any distribution channels.

I never realized that - are you referring to the distribution network (i.e. 3rd party agents/sellers)?

 

[losdemas]

1 hour ago, Panthera tigris said:

I never realized that - are you referring to the distribution network (i.e. 3rd party agents/sellers)?

 

Yup. Alamy have said that.

[Thyrsis]

5 hours ago, losdemas said:

 

Yup. Alamy have said that.

 

I thought that was the case but I've just checked with Alamy as I couldn't find any reference to it on the website. Their reply says:

 

"This information is not part of our contributor help pages but it is explained under clause 11 of the contributor contract which you can find here:

 

‘11.2.  Images which have any restrictions in place may be excluded from the distribution scheme at Alamy’s discretion.’"

 

So as we have opted out of PU we are no longer in the distribution scheme.

Confusing because on our dashboard page it says 'Distribution IN'

 

[wiskerke]

39 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

 

I thought that was the case but I've just checked with Alamy as I couldn't find any reference to it on the website. Their reply says:

 

"This information is not part of our contributor help pages but it is explained under clause 11 of the contributor contract which you can find here:

 

‘11.2.  Images which have any restrictions in place may be excluded from the distribution scheme at Alamy’s discretion.’"

 

So as we have opted out of PU we are no longer in the distribution scheme.

Confusing because on our dashboard page it says 'Distribution IN'

 

 

That's pretty simple: with a restriction you're excluding that single image from distribution.

With opting IN or OUT of distribution you're excluding all your images from distribution.

 

wim

 

[Thyrsis]

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

 

That's pretty simple: with a restriction you're excluding that single image from distribution.

With opting IN or OUT of distribution you're excluding all your images from distribution.

 

wim

 

Exactly.

We are technically still  opted IN to distribution but because we've put the PU restriction on all of our images they are "removed from the distribution pool".

[RWatkins]

My last PU sale was of Jason Bradbury presenting at The Gadget Show Live. I thought it was an odd subject for personal use until I later found out it was bought by .... Jason Bradbury to put on his Twitter feed.

[spacecadet]

Just now, RWatkins said:

My last PU sale was of Jason Bradbury presenting at The Gadget Show Live. I later found out it was bought by .... Jason Bradbury to put on his Twitter feed.

That's not PU. Send him a bill.

[Bill Brooks]

“‘11.2.  Images which have any restrictions in place may be excluded from the distribution scheme at Alamy’s discretion.’"

 

To me this says if you place restrictions on images they MAY be excluded from the distribution scheme AT ALAMY’S DISCRETION. Alamy MAY also decide to place restricted images IN the distribution scheme.

 

I assume Alamy distributors may have different abilities to restrict images. That may preclude placing restricted images with some distributors, but not all distributors. Some distributors may not have the ability to restrict images, so restricted images have to be excluded at those distributors. So you may be partially in the distribution scheme, with restricted images at some distributors, if the particular distributor can handle the restriction.

[Thyrsis]

10 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

“‘11.2.  Images which have any restrictions in place may be excluded from the distribution scheme at Alamy’s discretion.’"

 

To me this says if you place restrictions on images they MAY be excluded from the distribution scheme AT ALAMY’S DISCRETION. Alamy MAY also decide to place restricted images IN the distribution scheme.

 

I assume Alamy distributors may have different abilities to restrict images. That may preclude placing restricted images with some distributors, but not all distributors. Some distributors may not have the ability to restrict images, so restricted images have to be excluded at those distributors. So you may be partially in the distribution scheme, with restricted images at some distributors, if the particular distributor can handle the restriction.

 

Unfortunately that is not the case. From what Alamy have told me, any images with restrictions are out of ALL  distribution.