pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy's Version of Disambiguation  (Read 12794 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 23, 2007, 17:23 »
0
Alamy has been introducing a lot of interesting and controversial concepts over the past week.  It started with the "Novel Use" scheme (which I akin to trying to compete with Getty's PhotoDisc collection) and today, when I logged in, I noticed changes in the "manage files" area.  Looks like we have to prioritize some keywords, add where images were taken, and the date (or just year) the image was taken.  Looks like you can also distinguish between a photograph and an illustration as well as mark images as being digitally altered.

I presume more changes to come!


« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2007, 17:48 »
0
Also noticed that if there is a person in the image (recognizable or not) and the image is Royalty Free, and you mark there is a person in the image but have no release, then you get a warning that your image will be deleted or changed to RM.  I've written to Member Services to get a clarification on the policy - just want to make sure a person that is not recognizable does not need a release.

jsnover

« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2007, 18:18 »
0
I think there's the potential for these changes to be very valuable in the long run, but there's an immediate need to be much more specific about what each of these new fields means so that everyone's working from the same standard.

With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered? I don't want to exclude my images from consideration for editorial use (which I assume will be the case if I mark it as digitally altered).

Taken too strictly, digitally altered could mean that I cleaned up the sensor spots, but I'm sure they don't really want to go that far...

It would also be helpful if they'd read more IPTC fields from Photoshop so this information (except for the split into 3 groups for keywords) could be saved with the image - less to do online.

« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2007, 21:03 »
0
I agree - my assumptions with relation to the "digitally altered" area are that it relates to more newsworthy (secondary market) than anything else, but I think the consensus is we need more info.  The blog has the announcement indicating it will be a "week or so" before it makes a difference which doesn't give us much time.

Interesting times......

« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2007, 02:08 »
0
I think there's the potential for these changes to be very valuable in the long run, but there's an immediate need to be much more specific about what each of these new fields means so that everyone's working from the same standard.

With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered? I don't want to exclude my images from consideration for editorial use (which I assume will be the case if I mark it as digitally altered).

Taken too strictly, digitally altered could mean that I cleaned up the sensor spots, but I'm sure they don't really want to go that far...

It would also be helpful if they'd read more IPTC fields from Photoshop so this information (except for the split into 3 groups for keywords) could be saved with the image - less to do online.

My opinion would be anything done in the RAW converter or in photoshop Lightroom is OK (ie, no pixel editing - except spots) stuff like taking out power lines is not ok.

grp_photo

« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2007, 03:24 »
0
It's explained just click the link on the page. Only major manipulation means digitally altered.
I think there's the potential for these changes to be very valuable in the long run, but there's an immediate need to be much more specific about what each of these new fields means so that everyone's working from the same standard.

With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered? I don't want to exclude my images from consideration for editorial use (which I assume will be the case if I mark it as digitally altered).

Taken too strictly, digitally altered could mean that I cleaned up the sensor spots, but I'm sure they don't really want to go that far...

It would also be helpful if they'd read more IPTC fields from Photoshop so this information (except for the split into 3 groups for keywords) could be saved with the image - less to do online.

grp_photo

« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2007, 03:36 »
0

« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2007, 06:16 »
0
Oh no not again! While I can see the potential benefit of separating the keywords in order of importance this will be a major task to separate them in the three groups.  I think it will be more time consuming than the IS disambiguation, which took me months to complete.  Wonder what will happen to those images that are not updated? They will probably not show in searches at all.  I would rather spend more time uploading new images rather than spending hours updating existing images.

« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007, 15:55 »
0
Question (I know we're not Alamy here, so can't give a definitive answer but I'm looking for opinions) ...

Is a panorama, stitched together from several images, 'digitally altered'?

grp_photo

« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2007, 05:45 »
0
Question (I know we're not Alamy here, so can't give a definitive answer but I'm looking for opinions) ...

Is a panorama, stitched together from several images, 'digitally altered'?
No you can shoot a panorama by stitching images or use a special camera like a roundshot,horizon etc. The image remains the same. look at the example at alamy makes it pretty  clear what they mean by digital altered.

jsnover

« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2007, 01:17 »
0
...look at the example at alamy makes it pretty  clear what they mean by digital altered.

I think Alamy does not make it clear at all if you read the text. I agree that the images make it appear that only composites would be covered. But the end of the first paragraph reads:

 "This includes adding, moving, or removing items and major changes to saturation, contrast and levels."

If a change to saturation and contrast - whatever a "major" one would be - counts as digital alteration, then all the greener grass and bluer skies fixes would count as altered.

IMHO (which doesn't count as it's Alamy's standard to set), if it isn't "altered" when you put a polarizing filter on the camera lens, then it isn't altered when you do the same sort of thing but in Photoshop.

« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2007, 02:40 »
0
Boy - what a mess... if you ask me.

They have almost 10 million images and now they want the info changed for ALL of them... er well they say we don't have to do it if we don't want to, it is really up to us BUT.....

Quote
    * Your images may appear higher up search results for relevant search terms if you add the most important words to the new keyword fields.
    * Your AlamyRank can improve if your images are seen when they need to be and less relevant terms do not negatively influence your rank.
    * Customers will have additional information including, location, the date the photograph was taken and whether the image is a cut-out, digitally altered, or illustration.
    * You will be able to sell your images in the commercial market if you identify images which have the required releases.


basically saying if you want to sell images, you better 'annotate' your images.

I still haven't fought through the istock disambiguation.... 3/4 done.


What a pain for submitters, but i guess i will be a benefit to the buyers.  Sorting through 10 million images can't be easy.  Perhaps they will become more of a news agency as well.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2007, 02:44 by leaf »

« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2007, 02:43 »
0
...look at the example at alamy makes it pretty  clear what they mean by digital altered.

I think Alamy does not make it clear at all ...


The trouble is that Alamy does not make a lot of things clear.

The other big question I have is about model releases. One question on their new form is: How many people are in this picture?

If you indicate that there is a person (or more) in the picture, you have no model release and the image is RF then you get an awful warning in red:

This image cannot be Royalty Free because it does not have the necessary model and/or property releases. If the image has not sold, it will be changed to Licenced within 3 months, and will remain on sale. If it has sold, it will be deleted within 3 months. To sell it as Licenced you will have to resubmit.


I have quite a few RF pictures on Alamy with a completely unidentifiable person in ... the sort of pictures that any of the micros (who are extremely cautious) would happily accept without a model release. But, I can't indicate they contain a person on Alamy and still keep the image as RF.

But, at the same time, on their help pages, they write:

You should seek to get a signed model release any time that your photos contain recognizable images of people ...

So, I'm taking that question as reading

How many recognizable people are in this picture?

I've written to their Members Services asking for clarification, but haven't got a response yet.

« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2007, 02:45 »
0

I still haven't fought through the istock disambiguation.... 3/4 done.


Yeah ... I'm still ploughing through my iStock disambiguation too.

I think it's a plot to stop photographers swamping them with pictures   ;)

« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2007, 02:46 »
0
let us know what you find out bateleur (alamy release thing)

-glad to know i am not the only one not finished the istock disambiguation :)

« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2007, 07:57 »
0
Bateleur - I sent Alamy the very same question on Sunday evening (after the new features went up and I tried to start working on it).  I still haven't received a response from member services.  I'm thinking a telephone call if I don't hear from them by Friday.

Please keep us posted and if I hear anything I'll post it as well.

I guess the good news is that in the meantime you can work on your RM images.  Can't work on RP because of the same issue  ::)

Thanks.

« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2007, 07:31 »
0
With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered?
Does it really make a difference for them?  Would they know it had been altered?  It's a kind of stupid rule...

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2007, 07:58 »
0
With digitally altered, for example, if I remove a power line from the sky or a few stray branches from a tree, does that count as altered?
Does it really make a difference for them?  Would they know it had been altered?  It's a kind of stupid rule...

Regards,
Adelaide

well if you are selling it as a newsworthy image - it DOES make a big difference.

Remember that guy who 'edited' a little extra smoke coming out of buildings after a bombing..... he wasn't too popular.

« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2007, 08:19 »
0
But this is an example in which you are actually changing your subject.  I don't see a problem if you clone out a bird in the sky or a head in the corner of the image, like in jsnover's examples. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2007, 08:23 »
0
Alamy is selling to the secondary editorial market - if there is a bird in the sky, the bird needs to stay in the sky.

Photoshelter just started up (see the other thread) and you can market the same images there that you market at Alamy.  If you'll notice in their "tutorials" they subscribe to the same code of ethics as the NPPA and they expect the same from their photographers.  Alamy is no different.

There was a recent case (not as sensationalized as the cloned clouds in the Iraq images) where a reporter was fired because he cloned out some feet that were behind a banner stretched across a chain link fence.  I think this happened in Philadelphia.  Bottom line is if it's a news image, then don't clone anything out or "alter" the image.  You have to be as honest as you can.  It's very different than commercial stock.

« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2007, 16:25 »
0
Bateleur - I sent Alamy the very same question on Sunday evening (after the new features went up and I tried to start working on it).  I still haven't received a response from member services.  I'm thinking a telephone call if I don't hear from them by Friday.

Please keep us posted and if I hear anything I'll post it as well.

I guess the good news is that in the meantime you can work on your RM images.  Can't work on RP because of the same issue  ::)

Thanks.

Here is the response....

Quote
   Images containing people, regardless of whether or not they are recognizable, should not be used in any promotional material without a release. Having an image listed as RF suggests to the customer that it is available for any use so there is a danger that a client could use the image for promotional use.

   To be sure of no legal issues, unreleased images should not be used for any promotional material so should therefore be listed as licensed only.

   The same is also applicable to images containing properties.



Kind Regards,

Luke
Member Services
Alamy

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2007, 16:41 »
0
I've several images of Barak Obama on both Alamy and Shutterstock.  Needless to say, there's no model releases on these.  All are selling well on SS as editorial images.  I doubt Alamy would appreciate these being changed to RM if they are already selling elsewhere as RF.  Guess I'll also drop a note to member services, but if they stick to the RM on these types of images, even though this particular type of image can't be used for anything other than editorial, I guess I'll just have to take them down.

« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2007, 21:34 »
0
I agree.  I could be wrong but honestly, I don't know of any news agency that accepts images from private citizens where they don't require RF usage.  This includes CNN, FOX News, BBC, etc.  If you give them images to use, you grant them a RF license.  If you subsequently try to sell them, then they have to be RM?  Doesn't make sense.

The most recent case that comes to mind is a student that published images (for free) through various agencies, then was offered money for exclusive use.  The NPPA publicized the accomplishment

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/08/bridge01.html

I hate to rock the boat (I'm sure many who have been in this business for any length of time would be up in arms) but the outcome, or insinuation, appears to be that per Alamy it is ok to license images previously licensed as RF as RM Editorial - the assumption on Alamy's part is they will not be requested for exclusive use.

Very strange.

« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2007, 04:26 »
0

Alamy is selling to the secondary editorial market - if there is a bird in the sky, the bird needs to stay in the sky.


Trouble is ... I've had images rejected by Alamy for dirt/dust issues when there wasn't any. I suspect it was a distant bird   :)

No reply from Member Services to my 'recognisable people' question, though I did have a very prompt reply to another issue I raised (about images not showing up in searches) and which I've mentioned in another thread. That one has been sorted now, I think.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
5506 Views
Last post April 12, 2007, 23:43
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
5395 Views
Last post December 09, 2007, 22:51
by ChrisRabior
1 Replies
2274 Views
Last post February 07, 2016, 17:41
by Mantis
0 Replies
1909 Views
Last post May 15, 2017, 16:47
by joshuarainey
4 Replies
3928 Views
Last post September 09, 2018, 10:58
by PZF

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors