| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2005 04:02:41 PM · #426 |
I emailed Alamy to ask about submitting candid photos of people I encountered on my travels and for which I have no model release. I located some similar images by other of their members and asked about the issue of model releases for images of similar content.
They said:
Clients expect any RF image portraying people (This includes tribals,
silhouettes and body parts even if the face is not visible) to be model
released. Should the relevant releases not be available, these images
have to be licenced as "L". Such images cannot be used for advertorial
purposes, although they are fine for editorial usage.
I asked for clarification on whether most articles in magazines such as travel or photography ones would count as editorial:
Yes, images without model releases (where relevant) but
licenced as "L" could be used editorially.
Most articles and write ups in magazines do qualify as editorial.
Anything to do with promotion or marketing of a particular entity would
be considered advertorial.
I didn't ask about what would happen if the purchaser used them inappropriately, I'm afraid but given that Alamy suggest non-model released people pics should only be sold under their L license they would presumably be aware of and able to control this kind of issue.
Message edited by author 2005-10-27 16:03:47.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 11:54:17 PM · #427 |
| Thx Kavey, that all makes good sense. If accepted I will license any such images and leave it at that. |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 12:01:12 AM · #428 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As I suspected, images from my camera require too much upsizing. The good news is they completed the review within a week from the time I mailed the disc from California to Oxfordshire. |
I guess this would go for all my microstock images (3 megapixels) :(
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 12:09:35 PM · #429 |
As requested by someone a while back, I'm just letting you know that my Hurricane Katrina damage images have been accepted onto Alamy. (They were in the queue for 22 days, just for info.) I've keyworded them, but I think it will be 24 hrs before they are actually visible in my catalog. The link is
//www.alamy.com/stock-photography-contrib-browse.asp?cid={5685A746-E8D7-45A3-892F-9927581CC4D8}&name=Doug+Webb
I hope that link works...
Doug
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 12:34:29 PM · #430 |
Link works, but it looks like it will take a bit for the hurricane images to show up.
22 days in the queue! Blech! The queue times are so variable that you really have to wonder what kind of review process they have. (I think it must be staged... initial review, plus subsequent reviews.) I already have a new disk ready to burn and I'd hate to have to redo my QC disk first. |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 12:40:29 PM · #431 |
The fastest I've ever been thru their queue is 15 days. That's from the time they post that they GOT the disk to the time the images are approved. Add to that the mailing time to get the disk to them, and it's not a fast process... :-( But oh well.
Doug |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 02:37:33 PM · #432 |
Queue time isn't too bad, I know it's not as quick as istock etc for uploading-to-online time, but can you upload and get over 170 images online in about 2 weeks on these smaller sites??
I have another DVD on the back of a large seabird currently flying from NZ to add to my collection at Alamy...should make my portfolio up to about 1400+
Backlog of images as of today...Digital= 1200, To Scan and Edit= 5000+
...back to the grindstone
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 11:56:53 AM · #433 |
Got the word from QC at Alamy last night, looks like I'm in. WOot-
Also got accepted tp MyLoupe last week. Woot-Woot!
So, can anyone that has been doing this for a while give me a few pointers on how to best deal with RM images in several places. It's my understanding that since neither outfit has an exclusive requirement I can sell my images in several places at once; but, when someone desires to use one of the RM images exclusively, I will have to make the image unavailable to buyers at other sites while the exclusive license plays out.
Is this correct?
My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but I have had a difficult time with this point and appreciate all the constructive feedback I can get.
Now to keyword the images and get my other disk burned and sent so that maybe one day they will sell a pic and send me a check! |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 01:36:21 PM · #434 |
Yes thats correct. Congrads and good luck, but also remember from the time these images go online, be patient because it's usually around 5-6 months before they are likely to sell.
Message edited by author 2005-11-01 13:37:25.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 02:00:48 PM · #435 |
Thanks Grant.
Gee. Alamy and myLoupe.... I wanna be just like you :)
I'm also attempting to get accepted to Acclaim. At first I was just gonna try Alamy, but after I started the horrendous process of getting 3 years of digital files (from 3 diff cameras no less) all organized and properly cataloged... and then realizing that I would have to keyword each image that I made available for sale... dang, I gotta get some paypack on this labor at some point. Even if it does take a few years.
I'm still streamlining the image submission process, trying to get it down to as few keystrokes as possible so that from this point forward it becomes less of a chore. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 07:26:54 AM · #436 |
I got my email this morning. I'm in! Now the keywording...
None of the images are at Shutterstock or Dreamstime, but I want to use some of those. Guess I need to remove them? Can I still post images to those sites? Should I?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 08:09:04 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I got my email this morning. I'm in! Now the keywording...
None of the images are at Shutterstock or Dreamstime, but I want to use some of those. Guess I need to remove them? Can I still post images to those sites? Should I? |
None of those sites require exclusivity. You're allowed to have them at all the sites if you choose to do so. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 09:15:40 AM · #438 |
Yes, you can still post shots to those sites.
My 'business plan' is to submit RF shots to the micro sites like dreastime, and shutterstock, and submit only RM shots to alamy. I think the RF shots will actually earn more on the micro sites.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 09:27:25 AM · #439 |
Originally posted by leaf:
Yes, you can still post shots to those sites.
My 'business plan' is to submit RF shots to the micro sites like dreastime, and shutterstock, and submit only RM shots to alamy. I think the RF shots will actually earn more on the micro sites. |
Since the RF pays more per shot at Alamy - I'm not sure I agree about earning more on the micro sites. Plus from the workshop I went to at PhotoExpo in NYC - the price for RF photos is going up at the bigger agencies.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 11:28:14 AM · #440 |
Well judging by raw numbers and earnings, my RF shots are doing many times better at the micro sites... $/image/year
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 11:41:08 AM · #441 |
Back to RF VS. RM... Which are you doing? Why? I pulled up a whole bunch of random images and many of them were licensed only. Where is the advantage for sales? Does it depend on what the image is of?
Any help, thoughts, comments, greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 11:42:53 AM · #442 |
I was reading through the "white paper" on RF vs RM last night at //www.stockartistsalliance.org/ and I came away from thinking that a mix of RF and RM is the best way to go. So thats what I am doing.
Also, I think its very bad form to sell the same RF images on a micro site and a more traditional site like Alamy at the same time.
To me it's like setting up two different storefronts for your photos at opposite ends of the mall. At one end you charge $150 for the 11x14 Sunset print, and at the other end you sell the same print (without the $5.00 frame) for $1.50.
Gack!
Message edited by author 2005-11-03 11:45:34. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 11:49:22 AM · #443 |
Thanks for the link.
I wasn't going to sell the same images on micro and alamy. I just wondered about selling images at all on both. Out of 13 I submitted, 1 was rejected for intropolation (sp?) artifacts. But that one sells on shutterstock so I think I'll leave it there.
My thinking is that anything I don't think I can sell on Alamy may wind up at a microstock site.
BTW - I used CS2 for making the image larger and all of them had been sharpened, although very lightly. Just in case anyone is wondering... :)
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 12:01:22 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I wasn't going to sell the same images on micro and alamy. |
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were!
In fact, several posts hit this thread before I posted, and yours was one of them. It was just a topic that that I was responding to in general. |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 12:02:30 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
To me it's like setting up two different storefronts for your photos at opposite ends of the mall. At one end you charge $150 for the 11x14 Sunset print, and at the other end you sell the same print (without the $5.00 frame) for $1.50.
|
That'll just learn you to shop around better! |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 01:01:36 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Back to RF VS. RM... Which are you doing? Why? I pulled up a whole bunch of random images and many of them were licensed only. Where is the advantage for sales? Does it depend on what the image is of?
Any help, thoughts, comments, greatly appreciated! |
Based upon what I learned in New York - it is probably best to have a mix of RF and RM images out there. You chose your RF based upon how often and how many different ways an image can be used. The Rights Mananged images are usually more unique, harder to categorize, and perhaps harder to get.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 01:14:50 PM · #447 |
On the subject of image enlarging...
Many in my field of photo imprinting need very large files to produce quality tile murals. Fairly recently a new program was brought to our attention & the reviews from others I know have been VERY positive.
Internally, this software converts the image to vecter, enlarges to your specifications & then converts back to raster...producing a larger image without producing noticeable pixels. Thought maybe some of you might be interested in it to get your file sizes big enough while keeping quality to submit. I have seen first hand comparisons comparing it to Genuine Fractals & using Photoshop. The "Unlimited" version is said to allow you to go as large as you need. It also doesn't cost an arm & a leg.
Check it out for yourselves & good luck with all your image sales!
//www.imagener.com/
Message edited by author 2005-11-03 13:15:42.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2005 04:04:34 PM · #448 |
From the (somewhat limited) research I've done into the Imagener product it seems to have an extremely impressive "viral marketing" campaign. Almost every mention I can come up with from searches either point directly to their own website or are forum posts. Forum posts are either "how good is imagener pro?" or "it's fantastic, I use it to earn a living" from user "guest" or 2 post newbies, these posts almost invariably link picture examples from the Imagener homepage.
The software may indeed be great, but personally I shall reserve judgement until I have seen a user report or review I can trust. Until that time Extensis pxl Smartscale will continue to be part of my workflow for ease of use and consistency of results. Fortunately I only need to upsize by 50% to reach Alamy specifications, so I could probably get away with almost anything =) |
|
|
|
11/03/2005 07:01:54 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by ZorbaTheGeek:
From the (somewhat limited) research I've done into the Imagener product it seems to have an extremely impressive "viral marketing" campaign. Almost every mention I can come up with from searches either point directly to their own website or are forum posts. Forum posts are either "how good is imagener pro?" or "it's fantastic, I use it to earn a living" from user "guest" or 2 post newbies, these posts almost invariably link picture examples from the Imagener homepage.
The software may indeed be great, but personally I shall reserve judgement until I have seen a user report or review I can trust. Until that time Extensis pxl Smartscale will continue to be part of my workflow for ease of use and consistency of results. Fortunately I only need to upsize by 50% to reach Alamy specifications, so I could probably get away with almost anything =) |
Well, you can see by my profile that I am no newbie or "guest". I'm a paid member & have made over 300 posts to your 8. My report comes from a forum of professionals who are also not posting as "guests". If you care to join the forum (which I have been a member of for about 5 yrs & also am a moderator for) & see the most recent thread with a detailed description (including pictures of their own first hand comparisons) you can find it here.. //dyesub.org/forum/?msg=3964.1
Membership is free. Investigate all you want. I have nothing to do with the company. I was just providing information I thought might be useful to some of the members. They have a free trial version available if you'd like to try it instead of posting things that sound like insinuations. I believe it does not allow you to save...just view the results.
No offense intended if the NYer in me has shown through, it's just how your post came across. Why make a post that sounds like a slam to a company you admittedly know nothing about?
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 01:55:00 AM · #450 |
OK, I have another Alamy question. This is on file naming. I sent my initial CD in with no underscores, no dashes, no nothing but letters and numbers in my filenames. But now that I am accepted, I really need to leave in those Canon underscores and dashes if I can.
For example: CRW-1518.TIF, or 101-1067_CRW.TIF
Should these be ok for Alamy?
Their instructions say alphanumeric which I took to mean letters and numbers, but I'm thinking these filenames are surely acceptable. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:42:30 PM EDT.
