Until I find something more persuasive I'll stick with the idea that he's probably succeeded largely through contacts and marketing and self-promotion

He succeeded initially by making pictures which instantly communicated a very subjective, more or less signature, perspective. Pictures which were typically about class and the social order. His picture stories and spreads looked great in the national and international weekend supplements of that era - but the body of work he built up also made intelligent sense in a gallery. It was often about how England looked at that time. His approach was both indie and yet also mainstream.

Technically he was innovative too. Specifically for example his early use of medium and large format color negative and fill flash in a reportage context - where natural light, 35mm and black and white was the norm for "serious" photography.  And serious color almost invariably meant transparency film in those days - which looked very different. Other people were shooting color neg too - I am not saying he invented that approach.

an "argument from authority"

Like nearly all good art of lasting value, his evolving body work is very clearly part of an existing tradition but has also taken that tradition forward.

He's got a few bits on Magnum, though goodness knows why, with his snapshots with wonky horizons.

Are you serious ? He is one of the most significant British photographers of the past 40 years. And has also done a huge amount to promote British photography - in particular the work of Tony Ray Jones.

ETA: personally I am not so interested in his work - but I can understand its important place in the evolution both of British photography and of Magnum. And I love listening to him talk.

And the sales threads in there are sad to read. People with 33K images whooyaying over 1500$ gross.

It's only sad if those are 33K inherently useful images and which could reasonably be expected to be selling in greater numbers.

If you have got editorial content which is likely to be useful then it definitely can be worth it. That means either a specific subject which nobody else has got - or else a more likely to be used shot of something which is going to be a story. The more dynamic and interesting the picture the better. I think it is about looking at the world in terms of what might be the story.

Suppose you have a good useable shot of something about a specific company which becomes news (perhaps there is a take-over bid or a new stock issue). That picture is going to earn you much more at Alamy than it will on RF subscription.

IMO churches, castles, street furniture, protests, the village f�te, red carpet,  steam trains, famous tourist attractions, old cars etc - is a numbers game and possibly a waste of time unless you are doing that anyhow.

Good keywording, including how the words are grouped, definitely matters. You can see that by looking at the All Of Alamy sample data provided.

even a giant archive of photos taken in Asia aren't going to sell too much at Alamy

I recently sold a shot I took in Saigon. I have very few shots of Saigon.

When I was a kid, I used to listen to music for free on the radio and tape it.  I don't see streaming as much different

Subscription streaming (eg Spotify) allows you to play any piece of music which you want to listen to. In this way it is different from radio.

There is no longer really any need to 'own' a music collection - whether virtual or physical (excluding arguments about fidelity, tone etc)

The site is built on stolen content.

Under US law copyright violation is not theft. That is the legal position.

they also face the reality that the demand for mid-stock is not as big to justify any sudden U-turn in their sales strategy.

I think that the main business will be the IPO and growing repeat subscriptions. I think that they will be prepared to cannibalize everything else for that.

Honestly IStock has no one to blame but themselves for the keyword spamming on the site ... all the spam should drive more buyers away

But the default search results are typically very good. Which is what matters to the subscribers. I think that iStock is working great for Getty and the subscribers.

they can delete your image from their collection as punishment.

There is no suggestion that this is a "punishment". And - it says that they "may", not that they "will", delete it.

My guess is that the decision to delete would relate to images which, under the Alamy system,  should not have been listed as RF in the first place. ie there are potential rights / release issues which the client request has brought to light.

IMO Alamy are too cool to be bothered to punish people for choosing how their work is licensed - provided that it has been listed properly in the first place. They just are not like that as people.

Now lets check section 17.

"If and to the extent you are submitting Content to iStock as an authorized representative of the applicable copyright owner(s), you acknowledge and agree that (a) you will ensure that such copyright owner(s) comply with the terms of this Agreement where necessary; and (b) to the extent Royalties are paid to you in such capacity, you will be solely responsible for compensating the copyright owner(s) where applicable."

Let's put that into simple English. What it is saying is ..

"If you are contributing content on behalf of the copyright holder (eg you represent another photographer) - then it is your responsibility to ensure that they are playing by the rules - and it is up to you to make sure that you pass on their royalties."

I am not sure how section 17 is relevant here.

There are certain parts of the agreement which make me uneasy. But not section 17.

Unless someone can show me where, in their contract with me, that this type of sale is an exception I maintain the view that that are in breach.

Here is the agreement. Which part of it are they in breach of ?

Quote from: bunhill on February 15, 2015, 10:52

Quote from: heywoody on February 15, 2015, 07:10

The argument is total bollox anyway, the image in question is 100% risk free

No image is 100% risk free from the end user perspective.

No?  What percentage chance is there that the isolated tomato will take a law suit?

Suppose the image of the tomato has been stolen.

The point is that they are, as far as I can tell, breaching their own  supplier contract.  I have some degree of experience arguing the toss on contractual minutiae but am open to anyone pointing out a legal basis for their position.

I am no fan of current iStock. But I have no doubt that Getty legal trumps your "some degree of experience".