hi all, just started in alamy..and just realise keywords in alamy is a time-consuming job..

so my first questions is, is it possible to edit your keywords and other informations once submitted?

seconds question is.. as RM licensed images, is shouldn't be sold as RF before right?

To answer your first question, use their batch image management tool.  It should simplify your life.  And yes, you can edit the keywords after upload using that tool.

Question #2 - No, you can't sell an image RM if it has sold RF. 

Don't be discouraged if it takes awhile for you to start getting regular sales on Alamy.  It has taken me well over a year to start seeing regular sales there, but with the (generally) higher prices it is worthwhile doing. 

Quote from: lisafx on July 17, 2010, 19:41
To answer your first question, use their batch image management tool.  It should simplify your life.  And yes, you can edit the keywords after upload using that tool.

Question #2 - No, you can't sell an image RM if it has sold RF. 

Don't be discouraged if it takes awhile for you to start getting regular sales on Alamy.  It has taken me well over a year to start seeing regular sales there, but with the (generally) higher prices it is worthwhile doing. 

Lisa;
do you shoot images specifically for Alamy?  I mean knowing from the time you start the setup that you are sending these to Alamy?

In theory you can't sell an image RM if it has sold RF, however huge numbers of people do.

If your pics are on micro as RF, then there should not be a problem selling the same ones RM on Alamy. Some people will quite rightly argue this is not the way to go about things, but it is what lots of people including top microstockers do.

What I am trying to say here is don't panic, if you think your pics would do best as RM on Alamy, do that.

Rgds

Oldhand

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 17, 2010, 19:59

Lisa;
do you shoot images specifically for Alamy?  I mean knowing from the time you start the setup that you are sending these to Alamy?

Not so far.  Mostly it's my micro portfolio on Alamy - selling RF, not RM

Quote from: Oldhand on July 17, 2010, 20:54
In theory you can't sell an image RM if it has sold RF, however huge numbers of people do.

If your pics are on micro as RF, then there should not be a problem selling the same ones RM on Alamy. Some people will quite rightly argue this is not the way to go about things, but it is what lots of people including top microstockers do.

You may be right, Oldhand, but I certainly thought that most people who sell the same images on the micros and on Alamy (like me) are selling Royalty-free in both locations.

Quote from: Oldhand on July 17, 2010, 20:54
In theory you can't sell an image RM if it has sold RF, however huge numbers of people do.

If your pics are on micro as RF, then there should not be a problem selling the same ones RM on Alamy. Some people will quite rightly argue this is not the way to go about things, but it is what lots of people including top microstockers do.

What I am trying to say here is don't panic, if you think your pics would do best as RM on Alamy, do that.

Rgds

Oldhand

Uhhhh what?

Let me read THIS again:

Quote from: Oldhand on July 17, 2010, 20:54
...If your pics are on micro as RF, then there should not be a problem selling the same ones RM on Alamy. ...

I thought the former discussions were about the moral or ethical part of business regarding offering our images as RF for $1 on the micros and $300 on Alamy (as RF).

RF on Alamy naturally does not guarantee the exclusive or limited use of an image, the same as in Microstock.

RM regulates the use of an image for a specific purpose (one license for print ad, one license for TV commercial, one license for online ad ...). Every use requires a license.
In some cases the buyer even requires exclusive use of the image for the required period of time.

How on earth do you justify offering Microstock images at Alamy as RM? 

I can't believe I'm reading this here.

While I respect the opinion of contributors saying it's unethical to offer the same image for $1 on the Micros while offering it also at Alamy for $300, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of offering a Microstock image as RM at Alamy.

Those are two completely different types of licensing. I'm not ignoring the fact that some people do that (RF Micro and RM Macro) but to suggest that on a photographers forum, is a bit "not right" (biting on tongue until it falls off...).

Wow, just wow.

Please tell us that you are yanking our chains...

Quote from: click_click on July 17, 2010, 21:27
I can't believe I'm reading this here.

I am also surprised about such statements (and others have this odd understanding as well). I was raised in another planet, I guess.  

I mean Microstock has turned the stock image industry upside down as it is.

But to come along and support the idea of offering the same image as RF and RM (not even to mention the mix of Micro and Macro) will sooner or later end up in major distrust of buyers across the board.

Not to mention that Getty and other Macros will give you the boot once they find out.

Good luck for your "professional" career as a stock photographer... 

Quote from: Oldhand on July 17, 2010, 20:54
In theory you can't sell an image RM if it has sold RF, however huge numbers of people do.

If your pics are on micro as RF, then there should not be a problem selling the same ones RM on Alamy. Some people will quite rightly argue this is not the way to go about things, but it is what lots of people including top microstockers do.

What I am trying to say here is don't panic, if you think your pics would do best as RM on Alamy, do that.

Rgds

Oldhand

I am sure this isn't true.  I know an agency accidentally put Yuri's micro RF portfolio on alamy as RM but I think he made them change that as soon as he found out.  I am also sure alamy don't want people selling the same images as RF on micro and RM on alamy.  There is something in their rules about this.  Go and ask the question in their forum

Quote from: click_click on July 17, 2010, 22:01
I mean Microstock has turned the stock image industry upside down as it is.

But to come along and support the idea of offering the same image as RF and RM (not even to mention the mix of Micro and Macro) will sooner or later end up in major distrust of buyers across the board.

Not to mention that Getty and other Macros will give you the boot once they find out.

Good luck for your "professional" career as a stock photographer... 

Like you, I just can't believe what I'm reading here and in the other thread.

hi all, i  think maybe oldhand just make a mistake of his statement, why don't wait for his confirmation?

I think he may mean if the image had been sold as RF in microstock, it can still be sold in alamy under RF license.

i think one should not try to sell same images as different license, not because of price or fairness to buyer, but it is because basically the RM license needs certain of exclusive in usage, like if a company used a image for a promotion poster, it may not want to see same photos to be used in another competitor website.

It always surprised me that people want to maximize their profits, even at the risk of harming their reputation. My concepts of photography as a business were formed before the internet, learnt from professional photographers, even if by then I had no business intention at all.

hi all, guess we can settle with what alamy thinks..

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp

there is a statement
solely features a logo, trademark or copyrighted building - this is a copyright or trademark infringement. Note, images where the logo, trademark or copyrighted building is incidental (e.g. it's visible but isn't the central focus) can be submitted as Royalty Free.

i think it is something new for some microstocker, since most microstock rejected any visible copyright item even isn't the central focus.

have 1 more questions,

can we submit an image as RM for editorial without model release, but change it after to RM with model release after we got the model release successfully?

Hi all

My apologies for stirring up a hornets nest. Mtkang - take the other people's advice where it won't cause you a problem.

I used to work for the devil as far as cut your throat and sell your mother business practices went in photography. Here the line was blurred between RM and RF as long as a sale was made. Ethics aside all was well until someone complained (never happened), then it was profuse apologies and no harm done.

My colleagues experience on the forum remain at odds with my long involvment in the macro world. They are kind, courteous and well informed. I on the other hand should keep dubious practices to myself as this is no place for them.

Please accept my apologies, but I really don't relish a long debate on the issue. Now I'm off back into the seedy world of smoke and mirrors.

I bid you good day!

Oldhand the chastized would be whistleblower

Quote from: mtkang on July 18, 2010, 05:07
solely features a logo, trademark or copyrighted building - this is a copyright or trademark infringement. Note, images where the logo, trademark or copyrighted building is incidental (e.g. it's visible but isn't the central focus) can be submitted as Royalty Free.

This is grey area to me, because in fact I don't think there should be anything wrong if you have a travel agency selling a trip to London and show the London Eye on it in a general view of the Thames in that area. It's not like you are using the London Eye or British Airways to sell anything. The London Eye is part of London, simply that. I mean, there are uses in which showing a logo should not be a problem.

Is there RF Editorial at Alamy? I really don't know, as I am basically uploading RM there.

One thing they never clarified to me is that we have to choose if a release is required or not, and in many cases we don't know (I'm talking about buildings/landmarks). All I can say is that I don't have a release. If I go on the safe side and always choose that a release is required or set the only allowed use as editorial, this may throw a buyer away. I have asked them with some real examples and their answer was evasive.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=162221&page=1

Hi all, i notice that there is a 'more(numbers)' more by this photographer under the some images that got up in search, it seems that group all similar or same events photos from that photographer.

I can't see how to add similar photos together..anyone got an idea?

I think the grouping is done automatically according to the keywords and/or description. I've seen that happen even with images uploaded separately.

i read this somewhere that's their policy if 1 image isn't accepted, the whole batch will be rejected without reviewing the rest. I wonder is it true? doesn't sound logical to me.

Quote from: mtkang on July 20, 2010, 17:57
i read this somewhere that's their policy if 1 image isn't accepted, the whole batch will be rejected without reviewing the rest. I wonder is it true? doesn't sound logical to me.

It is true, although they don't always review all pending batches so if they review 3 pending batches with 10 pictures in each batch they might only actually review the first 5 images of the first batch. If they are ok all batches will pass. If one ore more out of the 5 reviewed images has a problem they will fail all batches (30 images).

oic..thank you for your reply. So does it mean they don't even check what is the remaining images? so you may get unlucky got whole batch rejected because of a mistake, or you may get lucky got whole batch approved because of a good shot?

what is the logic behind? would like to understand so know what i can do..so can we resubmit? and i read that they are reviewing 'technical quality' so no rejection on poor light, bad composition?

Quote from: click_click on July 20, 2010, 18:59

Quote from: mtkang on July 20, 2010, 17:57
i read this somewhere that's their policy if 1 image isn't accepted, the whole batch will be rejected without reviewing the rest. I wonder is it true? doesn't sound logical to me.

It is true, although they don't always review all pending batches so if they review 3 pending batches with 10 pictures in each batch they might only actually review the first 5 images of the first batch. If they are ok all batches will pass. If one ore more out of the 5 reviewed images has a problem they will fail all batches (30 images).

Quote from: mtkang on July 21, 2010, 03:40

what is the logic behind? would like to understand so know what i can do..so can we resubmit? and i read that they are reviewing 'technical quality' so no rejection on poor light, bad composition?

you can look at them as the mid-stock agency for "grown ups". that is, they expect you to be photographically competent and know what is good lighting and good technical quality. so they're giving you the benefit of the doubt about your technically excellent photos and not really checking the entire batch. however, if they catch even one, then they think you've not really done your homework on the rest.

however, you'll never get a photo rejected for bad composition for they don't care about its aesthetic quality nor its subject matter. if this is just too vague, you can always go back to the handholding of the micro sites.

ok, quite surprise the way of quality review, i will assume the whole rejected batch idea is to keep away people from uploading 'quantities' of their portfolio. So it sounds like uploading little quantity batch by batch is the way to go.

Quote from: ap on July 21, 2010, 06:12

Quote from: mtkang on July 21, 2010, 03:40

what is the logic behind? would like to understand so know what i can do..so can we resubmit? and i read that they are reviewing 'technical quality' so no rejection on poor light, bad composition?

you can look at them as the mid-stock agency for "grown ups". that is, they expect you to be photographically competent and know what is good lighting and good technical quality. so they're giving you the benefit of the doubt about your technically excellent photos and not really checking the entire batch. however, if they catch even one, then they think you've not really done your homework on the rest.

however, you'll never get a photo rejected for bad composition for they don't care about its aesthetic quality nor its subject matter. if this is just too vague, you can always go back to the handholding of the micro sites.

Hi,
I have to say that is not true, at least not in my case.
It used to be that way but lately Alamy changed it, if there is problem with the image in the batch they will only reject that image and accept rest.