|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ShadySue
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 624
376
« on: May 18, 2021, 04:31 »
Meanwhile, although on the distribution page, it says you can't opt out til April, you actually can, they have apparently extended the ability to opt out for three months.
Can you tell me where to find that option? I've searched anywhere, but can't find it. Never bothered me all that much before, but with yet another commissionc ut I'd like to opt out.
https://www.alamy.com/distribution-terms.aspx
For me this page says, "you can opt out again in April" .
The entire contract is unbelievable. Alamy has no liability of anything and the contributor is liable of everything. They (and their distributors) can use our images free for marketing, etc. (11.5 and 15.1)
Indeed it says you can opt out again in April, but apparently they have extended it by three months and in fact we can opt out now. You can't believe what they say! It's moot with the new clauses anyway., which allow them to sell license however they want, without restrictions.
377
« on: May 17, 2021, 14:40 »
Higher rpd this month, so one of my better months by current standards.
378
« on: May 17, 2021, 10:22 »
In case, here's Alamy director's Linkedin. I think she may want to know personally what we're thinking of such things...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/emily-shelley-0b71a149/
She could hardly have expected us to be pleased. Almost everyone on lower sales; really nasty contract clauses.
379
« on: May 17, 2021, 09:59 »
Meanwhile, although on the distribution page, it says you can't opt out til April, you actually can, they have apparently extended the ability to opt out for three months.
Can you tell me where to find that option? I've searched anywhere, but can't find it. Never bothered me all that much before, but with yet another commissionc ut I'd like to opt out.
https://www.alamy.com/distribution-terms.aspx
380
« on: May 17, 2021, 09:38 »
While all the fire at the moment is understandably on the commission cut, some of the other clauses bear close scrutiny, especially when we remember how semi-innocent-sounding clauses ended up being used by Getty.
For example:
"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamys ability to license the Content;" which would grant them the right to sell images we designated RM as RF, which obviously conflicts with RF-exclusive contracts elsewhere.
"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."
I don't see how that can possibly be legal, but presumably PA have had their lawyers look over the new contract.
Wonder if this means that there is no disabling Personal Use?
Who knows what they are intending? But they are certainly widening their options for that to happen. Meanwhile, although on the distribution page, it says you can't opt out til April, you actually can, they have apparently extended the ability to opt out for three months.
381
« on: May 17, 2021, 09:23 »
382
« on: May 17, 2021, 07:51 »
Check out some of the other clauses too. Not good.
383
« on: May 17, 2021, 07:42 »
While all the fire at the moment is understandably on the commission cut, some of the other clauses bear close scrutiny, especially when we remember how semi-innocent-sounding clauses ended up being used by Getty.
For example:
"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamys ability to license the Content;" which would grant them the right to sell images we designated RM as RF, which obviously conflicts with RF-exclusive contracts elsewhere.
"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."
I don't see how that can possibly be legal, but presumably PA have had their lawyers look over the new contract.
I have read 4.1.5. A few times. I am not sure what it is saying. Is it not matter how the content is licensed they can change it to suit themselves?
That's what I said. It also means they could designate content to be 'free content' for any purpose which suited them. We are dealing with PA now, not the old Alamy.
384
« on: May 17, 2021, 07:26 »
While all the fire at the moment is understandably on the commission cut, some of the other clauses bear close scrutiny, especially when we remember how semi-innocent-sounding clauses ended up being used by Getty.
For example:
"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamys ability to license the Content;" which would grant them the right to sell images we designated RM as RF, which obviously conflicts with RF-exclusive contracts elsewhere.
"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."
I don't see how that can possibly be legal, but presumably PA have had their lawyers look over the new contract.
385
« on: May 16, 2021, 07:24 »
I forgot to explain:
My intention is to get traffic from the website to my POD-sites, secondary to Stocksites like pond5 and Alamy (maybe Zoonar and photocase).
Good luck! I've been working on a WordPress site (on my own webspace, which I was already paying for anyway. (Wordpress has a free offering, but you get ads you can't control) - after a flurry of posts for a couple of weeks to get content up I'm now doing a post a day, not as a blog, just as a website. I have no idea how to get traffic onto my site, though, and I was hoping to use it to drive traffic to my Pixels (FAA) site. No point in posting on Fb, my friends and acquaintences there aren't buyers, and I don't want to annoy them. I'm not sure buying ads is much good, from the experience of others which I've heard or read. Not claiming my site is any good; but whether it is or isn't is irrelevant I'm not getting visitors. To be honest, I'm losing interest, and am already recycling some early posts.  Of course, YMMV, especially if you already have some 'qualified buyers' that you know about.
386
« on: May 12, 2021, 13:44 »
I did track down a PERSON at Alamy. 
Seems the 10 cent sales are for Distribution - formerly Novel Use I seem to recall?
I thought I had these turned off and had never seen any before, so wonder if the default has been reset to permit these....
Anyway, for info.
Apparently 'Distribution' and 'Novel Use' can still be opted out of, separately. (I don't remember them ever being connected.) Distribution is where other agencies have sold the images, like a subcontractor, so we only get 30%, and some of the sales can be very small, especially if a bulk rate is applied by the distributor. We can separately opt 'in' or 'out' of individual countries in the distribution network. It's hard to remember all the ins and outs. When I went to look, I saw I had opted into 'Image Options' in 2017, and I had to look up what it meant!
387
« on: May 11, 2021, 17:06 »
I don't sell video; but from a stills perspective, it just meant more low-value sales (usually) not more sales or earnings overall.
388
« on: May 10, 2021, 05:34 »
... Or even Napalm girl, the South Vietnamese-born Canadian woman best known as the nine-year-old child depicted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph.
Thank you for reminding me of that powerful image. It made me find this, which is very interesting reading - information I didn't know before, for example that the photographer took the girl and the other children to a hospital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTzlZGY2Mc
389
« on: May 08, 2021, 05:45 »
Also remember that in London in particular, and also other cities and towns, many 'public' streets are actually privately owned, where your rights aren't as you might expect. E.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map"UK Law
On the whole, UK law doesn't prevent photography in public places. The UK has relatively liberal laws regarding photography compared with many countries. Although there are some exceptions, the key principle is that you can photograph people and buildings without needing permission, providing you are in a public place.
As long as you're not causing any harassment, you're allowed to photograph other people if they are in a public place.
Public vs. Private
Many of the incidents in which photographers come into difficulty is that many places which you instinctively think are public are in fact privately controlled. This includes some shopping centres, car parks, some parks and play areas (depending on the attitude of the landowner) and various private structures, for example, Millennium Wheel on the South Bank in London. There is a trend for public places to become private, particularly in town centres which are developed with new shopping centres. "
https://www.blpawards.org/competition/photo-rights
390
« on: May 06, 2021, 09:22 »
Alamy has recently started a subs package deal offering to larger buyers, but not right down to current micro prices. Can't find a link atm, but it seems that that's what three sales I've had in the past week which were zoomed and notified on the same day were (that didn't happen before except Personal Use, there's usually a long waiting time.)
Whether having the same images on micro is harmful is moot. You'll read different experiences about that.
Don't only consider what some people say on the Alamy forum. Many have a hatred for micro, which is fair enough and understandable, but no experience whatsoever of micro. In the Golden Days of micro, some of them would have made far more on micro than they ever did on Alamy, but they refuse to believe that.
I'd say that Alamy is a different market, and traditional micro stuff doesn't do as well there, but that's only going by anecdotal experience I've read, nothing scientific.
I only have exclusive RM images on Alamy and I don't sell much there. What's particularly difficult is working out what sells: for me, it seems totally random.
People I know personally who supply live news do well there; in fact, for two of them, it's their livelihood
A couple of forum regulars do well with very 'pictorial' images.
391
« on: April 29, 2021, 12:07 »
I haven't had that email, and previously they've often been 'less than helpful' when I've reported infringements, so we'll see how this pans out. It would be great if they'd really get a grip on repeating offenders for a start.
392
« on: April 29, 2021, 09:54 »
Yes, I've been paid Acceptances take 24-72hrs IME, I think non-exclusives can be a bit slower. You should take out a support ticket as your files could be 'stuck'. Also if you reached $100 by payout date. (This week my problem has been getting sales - 3 (three, sic) since Sunday.  )
393
« on: April 27, 2021, 17:38 »
I was twice refused by Alamy because I was using a compact camera.
Nowdays I look at their site to pick-up ideas for photos to load to their rivals who are not so pedantic about which camera you use.
Alamy have always had a list of unacceptable cameras such as compact cameras and phone cameras
most of my accepted images (3500) at alamy are with 'unacceptable cameras'
Really? I uploaded only one, by an honest mistake, and it was 'dropped' at the upload stage with a message that the camera wasn't approved. That was years ago, though.
394
« on: April 27, 2021, 03:40 »
They sold all my portfolio of 2440 vectors for 10.8336$ !!!!!!!! 0.0044 RPD 
Yes, same with us all. Most of these images weren't used. It's explained in the sticky at the top of the March Sales thread on their forum.
395
« on: April 22, 2021, 16:12 »
...I once tried to explain this to a friend: so the agency is called iStock but it's actually owned by Getty, but you have to use Deepmeta to upload, ...
Very nice, I'll add a little?
For fairness you can also upload using another outside developed software, that also does stats. qhero.com
For extreme fairness, you can also upload directly within ESP, which is what I do.
396
« on: April 22, 2021, 04:59 »
 Bitter? Why no. Because some people made a stand against this agency crap of pennies and sub pennies unlike some others who help support the abuse, reduction in earnings and then have the temerity to crow about how great it is 
Where are you submitting now?
397
« on: April 21, 2021, 18:51 »
I just got the separate remittance but no per image info available yet. About the same as last month...just a few $ more.
I'm well up on last month, and above the last two Marches (I must have got a 'jackpot' sale) but of course the month's earning is well below my previous weekly average from the GoDs. "It is what it is". To be fair, the money hit Paypal yesterday (BST) the 21st, and their target date is 24th.
398
« on: April 21, 2021, 15:26 »
Hard to believe all other agencies can tell me instantly what I have sold but iStock/Getty - with decades of experience - is not able to issue a monthly statement.
iStock used to report in real time. And with lots more sales in those days, it was really fun!
399
« on: April 21, 2021, 13:39 »
Am I remembering correctly that March is the month where they do a huge Connect report, where more or less every one of our images has sold for a fraction of a cent - even though there are also some Connect reports monthly. It's all smoke and mirrors.
400
« on: April 21, 2021, 08:39 »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
