Author Topic: Submission Question Please (Read 29563 times)

SNP · « **on:** October 21, 2011, 14:48 »

I'm preparing some images for submission to Alamy for the four "test" images. The following submission guideline is not clear, are they asking for files larger than 24MB. of course they want jpegs which are not uncompressed and most of my jpegs after processing are on average about 10MB.

"Uncompressed file sizes of more than 24MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 24MB. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file of over 24MB then leave it that size."

thanks for additional clarity...

bunhill · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2011, 15:46 »

In the Image Size dialogue in PS you can see the open (uncompressed) file size.

So - suppose you have been editing an compressed tif in PS. And you have done all your work and have then converted it to 8 bit . The Image Size dialogue will show you the file size in MB - 24MB for the sake of argument.

Then you save it as JPEG and it is much smaller on your disk. But open that JPEG again in Photoshop and look in the Image Size dialogue. The open file size should be the same size as the open tif.

pancaketom · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2011, 15:52 »

Actually I found some images that PS said were 24MB weren't big enough for Alamy. What they require is over 8.4 megapixels. (as best I can determine). Why they continue to insist on their bizarre uncompressed file size description when they don't want uncompressed files is completely beyond me, perhaps it is an artifact of the days when all their images were scans.

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2011, 15:58 »

Like pancaketom i've some problem with files with 24 and 24,1 MB on alamy.

Actually work fine with 3600*2400 ( 24,7 MB ), around 8,6 mpx

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** October 21, 2011, 16:00 »

Quote from: pancaketom on October 21, 2011, 15:52

Actually I found some images that PS said were 24MB weren't big enough for Alamy.

Saving the image as an uncompressed tif would settle the issue one way or the other

IIRC SNP shoots a 5DMKII so this is not an issue.

Maybe aim at 25MB as a minimum just to be certain.

PS - me too looking to submit there btw. But mine are scans.

Mantis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 21, 2011, 16:36 »

Quote from: SNP on October 21, 2011, 14:48

I'm preparing some images for submission to Alamy for the four "test" images. The following submission guideline is not clear, are they asking for files larger than 24MB. of course they want jpegs which are not uncompressed and most of my jpegs after processing are on average about 10MB.

"Uncompressed file sizes of more than 24MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 24MB. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file of over 24MB then leave it that size."

thanks for additional clarity...

It means this. Open a file in Photoshop CS series (I am not sure about Elements or any other software). Click the menu "image" then "image size". At the top of the dialog box it says "Pixel Dimensions". That is the number they are talking about. If that number for you is over 24 then you are good to go. If not, you have to upsize your image (they do accept uprezzed images). If you upsize, click on the bottom drop down menu and select bicubic smoother (best for enlargement). Then switch your pixel dimensions to percent and play with a percent greater than 100 until that number reaches just at or over 24. With a 10 meg JPG you have plenty of gusto and shouldn't have to upsize.

Hope that helps.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #6 on:** October 21, 2011, 17:33 »

Quote from: SNP on October 21, 2011, 14:48

I'm preparing some images for submission to Alamy for the four "test" images. The following submission guideline is not clear, are they asking for files larger than 24MB. of course they want jpegs which are not uncompressed and most of my jpegs after processing are on average about 10MB.

"Uncompressed file sizes of more than 24MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 24MB. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file of over 24MB then leave it that size."

thanks for additional clarity...

Since in RGB each pixel takes 8 bits per colour, and 8 bits = 1 Byte, and considering the uncompressed size before jpg compression:

24 MB / (3 Bytes / Pixel) = 8 Mpixels

Actually, about 8.4 Megapixel for the reason below.

Quote from: pancaketom on October 21, 2011, 15:52

Actually I found some images that PS said were 24MB weren't big enough for Alamy. What they require is over 8.4 megapixels. (as best I can determine). Why they continue to insist on their bizarre uncompressed file size description when they don't want uncompressed files is completely beyond me, perhaps it is an artifact of the days when all their images were scans.

It may be due to a different definition of K as used in Megapixels (K=1000) or in MB (K=2^10=1024)

Your best guess of 8.4 Megapixel means probably 8*1024*1024=8,388,608 instead of 8*1000*1000=8,000,000

Yes, it's weird - but then what is not bizarre in stock?

SNP · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2011, 18:35 »

thanks everyone. glad it wasn't just me being a twit. appreciate the info. so if my pixel dimension number is 54.6....is that large enough? I shoot Nikon D3X

Mantis · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2011, 18:41 »

Quote from: SNP on October 21, 2011, 18:35

thanks everyone. glad it wasn't just me being a twit. appreciate the info. so if my pixel dimension number is 54.6....is that large enough? I shoot Nikon D3X

Ha..twice as much

SNP · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2011, 18:47 »

okay, thank you. didn't want to go to the trouble and have problems over something stupid like not following directions.

Ed · « **Reply #10 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.

SNP · « **Reply #11 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?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #12 on:** October 21, 2011, 19:53 »

Quote from: CoisaX on October 21, 2011, 15:58

Like pancaketom i've some problem with files with 24 and 24,1 MB on alamy.

Actually work fine with 3600*2400 ( 24,7 MB ), around 8,6 mpx

Yes when it was 48 I had to do 48.2 to make sure the difference in the math and reality were not causing a problem. The file size is checked by a computer...

Yes, Elements and CS both show the file size in the lower left corner. It's always there! No magic or clicking around.

Default I believe is Document Dimensions, > click the arrow and change it to Document Size.

They both show it as you are editing.

Yes if your camera takes bigger pictures, leave them larger. Advantage is you can crop, and with the little box in the lower left, see if you are 24.2 (the minimum you want to try to squeeze past)

Yes you can choose the license type, one or the other, I don't think you can offer files as both? That would be a contradiction and conflict, especially on the same site.

No you can't change the license once it's been set and approved.

I think their partner thing may be "Special Use" I know they have a 20% reduction for "Distribution Commission" so they have outside partners and they are called Distributors.

Personally I don't have any restrictions, if someone wants to pay for a picture, fine with me, I'll take the money. Some people do block certain countries because I believe they have so lower license points. Too much time wasted clicking all those restriction boxes, I don't care.

pancaketom · « **Reply #13 on:** October 21, 2011, 19:55 »

After the images are uploaded you get to "process" them. At that point one of the options is what type of license you want - that is where you would designate it RM, you can also put more restrictions on it for example geographic restrictions. Once it has been designated RM or RF, you can't change that as far as I know.

I don't know if they have any sorts of partner programs, but you can designate if you want to take part in "special offers" - which seem to mostly be deep discounts for students etc? - I am not so sure of that, and you might only get to designate that during a specific period of the year.

SNP · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2011, 19:59 »

thanks everyone, appreciate the quick replies. racephoto, yes, that's where I see the info....also when I look at image size....cheers

Mantis · « **Reply #15 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.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #16 on:** October 21, 2011, 20:13 »

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #17 on:** October 21, 2011, 20:14 »

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. This is the quandary. You pick the license you want to use with each upload. But if your pics are on microstock then you are obligated to license them as RF or hope you don't get caught licensing them as RM, if that floats your boat.

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** October 21, 2011, 20:15 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 21, 2011, 20:13

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.

That's because they haven't been caught.

SNP · « **Reply #19 on:** October 21, 2011, 20:22 »

any images I would license on Alamy would not be anywhere else. they would be editorial that iStock won't accept and that I'm not sending to news wires. if Alamy's new breaking news format seems to work well, I might even supply there instead of elsewhere. but I'd never supply the same content as RM if it is already sold as RF. my sense of integrity wouldn't allow me to do something like this either.

iStock's exclusivity contract won't let us license anything as RF, no matter what it is. even if it isn't admissible on iStock. so I'm looking for a cozy home for my unpublished editorial images as RM.

Mantis · « **Reply #20 on:** October 21, 2011, 20:33 »

Quote from: SNP on October 21, 2011, 20:22

any images I would license on Alamy would not be anywhere else. they would be editorial that iStock won't accept and that I'm not sending to news wires. if Alamy's new breaking news format seems to work well, I might even supply there instead of elsewhere. but I'd never supply the same content as RM if it is already sold as RF. my sense of integrity wouldn't allow me to do something like this either.

iStock's exclusivity contract won't let us license anything as RF, no matter what it is. even if it isn't admissible on iStock. so I'm looking for a cozy home for my unpublished editorial images as RM.

I know about all that above stuff, but your work should do very well under non-RF terms, including editorial. Have fun with it.

SNP · « **Reply #21 on:** October 21, 2011, 20:35 »

thank you...getting my ducks in a row first, then I'll update once I get going on my submissions.

KB · « **Reply #22 on:** October 21, 2011, 23:17 »

I understand why it "feels" wrong (to me) to license something on Alamy as RM if it's available as RF elsewhere. That feels 100% wrong.

But what if it is not available as RF elsewhere, but had been sold a few times under an RF license? As long as it is not currently for sale as RF, why is it wrong to offer an image as RM? Yes, one of the RF buyers might use the image again. So? As long as you do not ever, ever, ever sell it as RM exclusive, what's the big deal with selling it as RM after it's sold as RF?

I'm not trying to open that can of worms, just trying to understand the issue.

SNP · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2011, 23:41 »

Quote from: KB on October 21, 2011, 23:17

I understand why it "feels" wrong (to me) to license something on Alamy as RM if it's available as RF elsewhere. That feels 100% wrong.

But what if it is not available as RF elsewhere, but had been sold a few times under an RF license? As long as it is not currently for sale as RF, why is it wrong to offer an image as RM? Yes, one of the RF buyers might use the image again. So? As long as you do not ever, ever, ever sell it as RM exclusive, what's the big deal with selling it as RM after it's sold as RF?

I'm not trying to open that can of worms, just trying to understand the issue.

it's my understanding that the price associated with an RM license is determined by the usage. for example, an RM file doesn't have a fixed price, but would be priced based on the projected revenue scale of the project it is being used in. the photographer keeps all copyright and ownership of the image. exclusive RM is self-explanatory. therefore if the same file is being sold simultaneously as RF, usage would not be as clearly prescribed or limited. thus the two licenses compete directly.

this is a good resource explaining RM vs RF http://danheller.blogspot.com/2007/01/rf-vs-rm-which-is-more-profitable.html

RacePhoto · « **Reply #24 on:** October 22, 2011, 00:30 »

This answer:

Quote from: sjlocke on August 22, 2011, 10:25

Oh yeah, well, I thought that was apparent in the part that said "exclusive agent"...

Quote
Sean, could you kindly give us an example where in your opinion one and the same image should be uploaded as RF to one agency and as RM to another.

I'm not saying anyone _should_ do it. Just that as long as nothing in whatever locations' agreements prohibits it, you could if you want to. In general, there is nothing that says you can't do it. RM and RF are just groups of rights you are selling. You just can't offer history or exclusivity if an image was RF.

from this thread, http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-rm-or-rf/

and I don't understand it.

There's the can and the worms. Good luck.

Maybe Sean will expand on the dual license part where I get the impression he's saying that if an item is sold or for sale RF, it's legal to sell it somewhere else as RM. Just the simple question, of licensing the same image two different ways?

bunhill · « **Reply #25 on:** October 22, 2011, 03:11 »

Quote from: pancaketom on October 21, 2011, 19:55

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

is that before the inspection, or after ?

Microbius · « **Reply #26 on:** October 22, 2011, 03:16 »

after they pass QC

Mantis · « **Reply #27 on:** October 22, 2011, 07:53 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 21, 2011, 20:13

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.

KB · « **Reply #28 on:** October 22, 2011, 23:06 »

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.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2011, 10:38 »

Quote from: KB on October 22, 2011, 23:06

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?

KB · « **Reply #30 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.

madelaide · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2011, 17:57 »

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2011, 19:41 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 23, 2011, 17:57

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.

Well said, but what you are saying is that you will monitor your images that haven't sold, and when one does sell as either RF or RM you will go delete all the conflicts?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #33 on:** October 24, 2011, 00:01 »

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?

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #34 on:** October 24, 2011, 04:38 »

Quote from: Mantis on October 23, 2011, 19:41

Well said, but what you are saying is that you will monitor your images that haven't sold, and when one does sell as either RF or RM you will go delete all the conflicts?

Yes, but that means just one website in which I have images as RF and can delete them promptly (Shutterpoint), and they are not sold there at microstock prices. And I don't have all images from my RM Alamy portfolio there either, just some.

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** October 24, 2011, 04:53 »

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

SNP · « **Reply #36 on:** October 24, 2011, 07:26 »

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.

KB · « **Reply #37 on:** October 24, 2011, 17:02 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 24, 2011, 00:01

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.

Quote from: sharpshot on October 24, 2011, 04:53

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.

Quote from: SNP on October 24, 2011, 07:26

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.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #38 on:** June 07, 2012, 17:37 »

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?

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** June 07, 2012, 17:48 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 07, 2012, 17:37

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.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #40 on:** June 07, 2012, 18:47 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** June 07, 2012, 18:55 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 07, 2012, 18:47

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.

Colette · « **Reply #42 on:** June 08, 2012, 04:56 »

In this thread on the Alamy forum you can find answers to your question:
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12956

bunhill · « **Reply #43 on:** June 08, 2012, 05:16 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 07, 2012, 18:55

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** June 08, 2012, 05:23 »

Quote from: bhr on June 08, 2012, 05:16

Quote from: ShadySue on June 07, 2012, 18:55
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.

Hard to say. The blog referenced above is from 2010, but is still 'live'. It says:
"Images uploaded via this route should be at least 5MB (uncompressed) and each group of images uploaded must fit into one of the following 3 categories:
News (taken in the last 48 hrs)
Reportage
Archival/Historical"

bunhill · « **Reply #45 on:** June 08, 2012, 05:42 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #46 on:** June 08, 2012, 05:53 »

Quote from: bhr on June 08, 2012, 05:42

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 did get the same email, and that particular invitation was for news only, so I didn't reference that to the OP.

On the Alamy forums, it's still often refererred to as the news/archive route.
From what I've heard, it's not that archicival images don't need to be spotted etc. I'd imagine they'd still have to be spotted etc, but they will make allowances for older cameras not up to today's technical standards, and the images can be as low as 5Mb uncompressed.

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.
Added: 90 mins to go, and it's going to rain any minute.

No change there, then.

ShadySue · « **Reply #47 on:** June 08, 2012, 19:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2012, 05:53

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".

Ed · « **Reply #48 on:** June 08, 2012, 19:49 »

Sue...your images will be active on the feed for 48 hours. That means that they will be visible until Saturday night/Early Sunday morning. After that they will disappear.

What you can do, while they are live, is go into "Manage My Images" and do the appropriate keywording, descriptions, etc. This way they will go live in the database as soon as the next search engine update is enabled (Tuesday at the latest).

Note that any changes to the caption will be reflected immediately in the news feed.

I find this necessary and point it out because not only are there news agencies that publish images immediately, but you also have weekly publications that may be interested and the less "drop off" time you have, the more advantageous. I've found this to be an anomaly on weekends.

sweetgirll · « **Reply #49 on:** June 09, 2012, 20:34 »

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

Metsafile · « **Reply #50 on:** June 09, 2012, 22:53 »

Quote from: sweetgirll on June 09, 2012, 20:34

Is Alamy an European agency?

Seems to be based in the U.K.

ShadySue · « **Reply #51 on:** June 10, 2012, 04:54 »

Quote from: sweetgirll on June 09, 2012, 20:34

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

Alamy is a UK agency, with IIRC an office in the US. I have no idea about 1099, but I'm not American. Maybe someone, who is, knows? I've never seen it mentioned in the forums. They don't send out any UK tax stuff, but as they don't employ us, there would be no need for them to.

Mantis · « **Reply #52 on:** June 10, 2012, 07:48 »

Quote from: sweetgirll on June 09, 2012, 20:34

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

They do not 1099 in USA.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Submission Question Please (Read 29563 times)

microstockphoto.co.uk

Ed

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

Microbius

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

Ed

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors