After the images are uploaded you get to "process" them.

is that before the inspection, or after ?

Quote from: Mantis on October 21, 2011, 20:05

Quote from: SNP on October 21, 2011, 19:43

Quote from: Ed on October 21, 2011, 18:56

The smallest size I will submit to Alamy is 3604x2403.  Not sure if that helps you but it's 8.66 megapixel.

thanks. on another submission topic, I read that I can designate RM licenses only on Alamy when I upload. is this correct?

If the images you upload are also on MS, then you MUST license them as RF.  If they are only on RM sites then you can license them RM.

Hey don't blame me folks I didn't open this

Alamy says NO. (don't do it) the other sites say NO, the legal implications say NO, my sense of integrity says No... but I know some people here say, No Problem. 

I agree with RacePhoto.  I am not a lawyer but I would be concerned about a couple of things even if, technically, you could license an image both with RF & and RM licenses. 

1.  Get ready to be sued.  (http://asmp.org/articles/rights-managed-stock-vs-royalty-free-stock.html).  This ASMP piece on licensing clearly states why a purchaser of an RM image could sue you.  They have a RM reason...there are specific rights and expectations when you purchase an RM image.

2. Simply put if the sites say don't do it, then you risk having your account closed if/when they find out.  I wouldn't take that risk as the income I get helps pay my bills and beer tab.

Quote from: Mantis on October 22, 2011, 07:53

1.  Get ready to be sued.  (http://asmp.org/articles/rights-managed-stock-vs-royalty-free-stock.html).  This ASMP piece on licensing clearly states why a purchaser of an RM image could sue you.  They have a RM reason...there are specific rights and expectations when you purchase an RM image.

I read the article linked to above. This is the only thing I could find pertaining to that (I missed where it clearly states why they could sue):
The various forms of exclusivity in the rights license (by length of time, geographic territory, display medium, etc.) are time-proven techniques for eliminating the market overlap that leads to brand confusion.

Does this pertain to all Alamy RM sales? I was under the impression that in order to get any kind of exclusivity, Alamy had to ask the contributor's permission (unless the contributor marked the image as "RM - Exclusive"). Am I wrong about that?

So my impression, perhaps out of ignorance, is that the only reason an RM photo is less likely to show up in a competitor's ad than an RF one is that RM sales are far less frequent. 

I thought this guy had an excellent answer that covered the why and why not, the possible issues and why should I stuble around trying to say the same things, when he does it better?

http://www.youngimaging.com/Article-WhyNotLicenseAnImageAsRFAndRM.asp

Here's the specific answer to people who keep thinking about money and not legal or moral points:  There are no guarantees that RF will make more sales than RM, but it often will, simply because the price is lower. However, RM is still the preferred way to sell image licenses by most experienced stock photographers.

In effect a non-answer, because no one knows for sure.

Homeboy Alamy Thread. I think the mood has changed since 2008, but interesting reading.  http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=1513

Which is best? RF or RM on Alamy? Nice well thought out point and counterpoint style review:

http://www.thephotographybiz.com/photography-business/copyright-for-photographers/licensing-licencing/selling-on-alamy-as-rf-or-l-which-one-is-best/

Maybe that will answer all the questions? 

Actually I think Alamy fails in not allowing us to add license information from other sites (hmm, maybe we can in that area in which we set restrictions). In MyLoupe, this is more clear.

If you license an image directly to a buyer in which he requests exclusivity for, say, one year in Europe, the image can still be licensed to other places during that period. If you ever sold that image as RF before, however, you can never license an image that way because you can not guarantee anything. Also if you sell as RF during that period, you are not being fair with the RM license buyer.

Of course, if an image has never sold as RM or RF yet, it is irrelevant, but you should remove it from RF once it has sold as RM or vice-versa. That's what I do.

^It answers mine; thanks!

After reading these links, I have no issues with UL'ing a file to Alamy as RM that had previously sold as RF. I'd never grant exclusivity, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with doing so.

As already stated, I wouldn't think to sell a file as RF and RM at the same time. That's just wrong, and boneheaded, IMO.

Gee glad I could help, now maybe you can explain it to me. I thought the opinions and websites made a pretty good argument for NEVER creating confusing licenses? Once sold RF always RF, no mixed licenses where one site has it one way, the other another.

What do you see that I don't? Just figure I only saw the obvious?  

It takes six months to remove something from Alamy. So Photo X sells on IS or SS or FT... RF and now for six months it's still on Alamy RM? Or the other case, you sell something RM on Alamy and some Microstock site like DT (six months), Featurepics (two years!) or whatever, claims they can sell your photos, but you just licensed it RM on Alamy.

Legal Storm Warning: Looks like trouble is on the way.  

I wouldn't have RM on alamy that has been or is offered as RF on other sites.  It looks to be against their contributor contract.  If in doubt, why not email them and ask?

"2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites."

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp

Quote from: KB on October 23, 2011, 16:25

^It answers mine; thanks!

After reading these links, I have no issues with UL'ing a file to Alamy as RM that had previously sold as RF. I'd never grant exclusivity, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with doing so.

As already stated, I wouldn't think to sell a file as RF and RM at the same time. That's just wrong, and boneheaded, IMO.

Gee glad I could help, now maybe you can explain it to me. I thought the opinions and websites made a pretty good argument for NEVER creating confusing licenses? Once sold RF always RF, no mixed licenses where one site has it one way, the other another.

What do you see that I don't? Just figure I only saw the obvious? 

I don't think it's me seeing something you don't. It's just my interpreting it differently. To me, the immorality of it is offering the same image under both license types at the same time. That means, if someone buys it from Alamy as RM, they might pay $150, whereas if they had gone over to 123RF they could've gotten it as RF for maybe $10. OTOH, if I used to sell it for $10 RF but no longer do, and likely never will, I don't see a problem with now offering that image for sale as RM.

I wouldn't have RM on alamy that has been or is offered as RF on other sites.  It looks to be against their contributor contract.  If in doubt, why not email them and ask?

"2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites."

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp

I had read that, and it was part of what helped me with my decision. It reads: "... the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites." The important word being "have". It does not say "have or ever had". It does not imply that. It says only that the same image (or similars) can't be available as RF and RM simultaneously.

iStock also has that rule (although not officially stated in the ASA) about similars. I've had that discussion with contributor relations at iStock about submitting different images as RM elsewhere. my concern, again was editorial. because iStock doesn't accept celebrities and a lot of other usual editorial content, I want to sell those files as RM outside of iStock. but they've told me I can't sell any similars or related images as RM, if anything else from those series or similars are sold on iStock.

and of course, the definition of 'similar' is subjective.

I've heard others say this (or maybe it was you, elsewhere; I don't recall). But I feel if it isn't in the ASA, they can say what they want, but I'm not bound by it. I've agreed to the terms of the ASA, but I haven't agreed to necessarily abide by verbal statements by CR reps.

I dug this out of the archives in an effort to understand Alamy Submission Requirements.  I did figure out what they mean by 24MB files but am not sure just how stringent is that requirement?  What if I have a larger file -- much larger?  Does a 50MB file have to be reduced?  What is the Maximum acceptable size?

 24Mb is the current minimum size: until about a year-18 monts ago, the minimum size was 48Mb. Hmmn, I can't easily find a maximum size; but there's a recommended camera list:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp
which isn't exhaustive as new cameras take some time to be added. There's also an 'unsuitable camera list':
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/unsuitable-cameras.asp
If you accidentally submit a file smaller than 24Mb or from an unsuitable camera, it will be 'dropped' during the upload process.

Thank you, Sue.  Glad to find that I am not alone in my confusion.  I do have and have checked the acceptable camera lists.  My submissions will be partly from Nikon and partly Canon DSLR cameras.  Both are on the good list. 

The niche stuff that I am most interested in submitting, however, will be scanned from negatives and slides.  I've scanned it at high resolution, therefore much larger than 24mb.  I'll probably have to downsize it a bit.  I can only hope that being unique will get some of it accepted. 

Thanks for the input.  I'll be gathering the nerve to submit.  I just hate rejection.   

If your slides are old, you might use the archival route, where the technical standards are lower.
http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2010/04/23/4812.aspx
I'm not sure whether you can apply for that straight away or whether you have to wait to be invited to the News/archival uploads route.
I'm sure you could always email memberservices after you get accepted.

If your slides are old, you might use the archival route, where the technical standards are lower.
http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2010/04/23/4812.aspx
I'm not sure whether you can apply for that straight away or whether you have to wait to be invited to the News/archival uploads route.

"News/archival uploads route" - news and archival are two different routes aren't they ?

My account was enabled for uploading to the news feed a while back  (I'm guessing that more or less everyone gets on that automatically sooner or later) - but that seems to be completely different from the archival thing which I think you actually have to apply to.

edit: I think that the news thing has been expanded since the link you posted was fresh. I did not apply - and for now at least news is not on my to-do list. Though obviously I am always interested what the different sites are doing and what opportunities exist.

OK - having just re read the email I can more or less answer this:

Content uploaded to the news feed is live for 48 hours (assuming it is not rejected as not news worthy) before being transferred to the stock collection. After the 48 hours images which are less than 24 MB uncompressed will fail QC automatically (this is from the new feed invite email). i.e. images less than 24 MB uncompressed can live for 48 hours in the news feed but will not transfer to the stock collection.

From this I am fairly certain that archival is a completely different upload route. Although I have never tested the news upload route. But archival images would not make the news feed anyhow. My understanding is that the more relaxed QC requirements around archival content relate to them not necessarily needing to be re touched, spotted for dust etc. So, for example, a company could upload a significant old archive without each image having to be individually retouched. It would be for the buyer to do that.

As I posted - I seemed to more or less get automatically accepted into the news thing. Are you sure you didn't get the same email ? I have only an handful of RM images with them anyhow. And several of those were just me testing the upload process.

I haven't used the news feed yet, but as I'm just going out to see the Olympic Flame (passing less than five miles from my home, would be a shame not to) I'll probably try the news upload system soon. I haven't done it before, as 'newsworthy events' don't usually happen near enough home for me to be able to upload them quickly enough.

So I did, and after they were uploaded to the news feed, and I chose 'news' (from a choice of news, sport or entertainment), I see now that they are live in the news feed, they all say "Reportage/archival image".

Guys,
since you are talking Alamy, I have a question...

Does Alamy send out 1099 misc forms at the end of the year to USA contributors? Is Alamy an European agency?

I've always wondered that.
Monica