Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Update regarding Novel Use and Limited Use

Permalink Comments (19)8 July 2008 at 09:35 by Alan Capel - Head of Content
Posted under News

It has quickly become clear that we should be providing greater flexibility to our contributors with regards to Novel Use. We have had feedback from many contributors who see the value in the scheme but do not want to commit their entire Alamy collection to this model. As a result we are currently looking at how we can make sign up to Novel Use available on a per image and/or a per pseudonym basis. We are in the early stages of determining how this will work but it is firmly in our plans. When we have clear timescales we will share them with all of you, via email and in this blog.

We have also considered the feedback and discussion on the file sizes currently available through 'Limited Use'. We are now looking to provide a maximum file size which is more relevant to the specific usage. We can't make these things happen overnight but we are committed to this change.

Top

Add your own commentComments (19)

  1. 08 July 2008 at 10:07 Kevin

    Good that you are addressing some of the issues members have brought to your attention, despite it being after the introduction of the Limited Use schemes.

    Perhaps one more to add to the list is the licensing discrepancy the scheme introduces. That Rights Managed "L" images in my view shouldn't be sold in the LU scheme as they then become Royalty Free under LU licensing. Many people see this as selling the same image with two conflicting licenses in tandem. More to take into account are the editorial RM images that contain people which will in effect be sold as RF through the LU scheme. I find this a rather incongruous set up and feel it should be on top of Alamy's list or at least incorporated into the changes Alamy wishes to introduce.

    By many accounts a rather fickle affair.

    Kevin

  2. 08 July 2008 at 10:08 IanMurray

    Fantastic news and much appreciated. I'm very keen to support Limited Use but have the very concerns that you are now addressing.

    Excellent news! Alamy at its best.

  3. 08 July 2008 at 10:24 shel

    An inevitable move, but nonetheless welcome. Now if only the LU was somehow presented as a product separate from Alamy "normal" . . . .

    Shel

  4. 08 July 2008 at 10:46 Tony lilley

    This is good news from Alamy. If the file sizes are limited could Alamy accept reduced file size pictures submitted specifically for the LU licence? I have many of these and I'm sure many other contributors have too. This would of course have to be a separate collection from the top quality images.

  5. 08 July 2008 at 14:51 phil crean

    Great news...

  6. 08 July 2008 at 15:27 Bill brooks

    Good news as I want to sign up some of my images for novel use as a test. One of the attractions of Alamy is that it gives me the ability to run my own stock business online. Giving me more control over Novel Use is a step in that direction

  7. 08 July 2008 at 17:50 David Wei

    Glad to see that Alamy has been reading the forum discussions. I had originally signed up for NU but recently opted out when concerns were raised. I will certainly consider making some of my images available for LU.

  8. 08 July 2008 at 21:34 m-images

    A selection by pseudonym is the preference in my case.

  9. 08 July 2008 at 23:18 Fabian gonzales

    That's great news. I certainly welcome the changes, and will consider signing up for Novel Use with some of my images once the changes are in.

  10. 09 July 2008 at 01:22 Carol Buchanan

    Thanks for listening Alamy! Opt in by image or pseudonym is very attractive and will surely make a lot more images available.

    Reduced file size would be great too.

    But most of all - if the novel use collection could somehow be separated from the current Alamy collection, I feel that you'd make a huge number of contributors very happy indeed.

  11. 09 July 2008 at 09:50 Ian M Butterfield

    Please DONT do the selection by pseudonym, do it by a flag of some description. Having got an above average AlamyRank with my pseudonym I hate to have that reduced to average for all the images I wanted to add into the LU scheme. Also whatever the use I want the credit to be Ian M Butterfield and not some other name - it is all part of my brand awareness.

  12. 09 July 2008 at 09:58 Clive rowley

    As an original 'opter in' who became an 'opter out' I would be happy to put some of my images (both present and future stock)into the novel use scheme and could easily do this by creating a new pseudonym.

    However, I would prefer these images to be available only as novel use images so that I don't have the same image available in both formats. But I think this might fly in the face of the idea behind the Alamy Novel Use Scheme.

  13. 09 July 2008 at 18:56 Scott Hortop

    There are many other things that need to be dealt with, for example....

    I bought 2 of my own images a month ago on my credit card. Payment went through instantly. You have the money but items still show as unpaid!!!!!

    What I would like to know is, is this happening with other real world sales?

    Just my $2 worth (that I'd like to get back).

    Scott Hortop

  14. 10 July 2008 at 09:37 Scott hortop

    Just heard from Alamy re the last post. The position on ALL credit card sales whether NU or otherwise is that they hang onto the funds for 45 days before reporting them as cleared. This is to take care of things that can go wrong, deal with credits etc.

  15. 11 July 2008 at 06:18 Daniel Geiger

    You still do not address a critical issue, namely, revenue potential from use.

    Case A): Personal rambling blog where the blogger actually has expenses from running blog.

    Case B): Blog, where blogger receives sponsor endorsements, banner revenue +++, i.e., makes a living off that blog.

    I think the wording "Images cannot be ... used for advertising or promotion" should be reworded to "Images cannot be ... used for OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH advertising or promotion", which should exclude endorsement/sponsor revenue and banner adds.

    Same for lecture notes: Providing a public highschool teacher with cheap image material, fine. But someone at Eaton or Cambridge with multibillion endowments and thousands of dollars/pounds in tuition fees? Having taught classes at private University, I know that many are cash cows for the institution, particularly the GE type classes.

    Hence, revenue restriction must be applied to permission to use images in NU scheme. One solution might be to have more selective categories where each contributor can opt in/out, as with sensitive issues for regular images. For instance have categories: all education, public schools only (in the US sense), only K-12, ...
    Any blog, blogs without revenue only, blogs with maximum of xxx reads per unit time, ...

    Furthermore, as far as I understand the law in the US, academic use is exempt from copyright. So academics can use any image material freely.

    Electronic media: most digital projectors are now 1024 x 768 pixels, hence old VGA size is not suitable for full screen use.

    Last but not least, your M category description is confusing: A6 printout ~ 10x15 cm but 20x29cm [=A4] @150dpi. Either A4 or @300dpi. Sorry, I'm on the editor board with a few science journals, so notice these kinds of things.

  16. 13 July 2008 at 06:32 John Mitchell

    I'm still not sold on the Limited Use scheme, but it is encouraging to see Alamy responding to contributors' concerns. One of the main reasons I have not opted in to the LU scheme is because I have similar questions to those of the first poster (Kevin) on this thread. It would help if Alamy could clarify how Licensed (L) images can be used as Limited Use, when the latter appears to be a restricted form of Royalty Free.

  17. 14 July 2008 at 10:18 Anders blomqvist

    Alamy becomes a microstock agency. This is crap news if any. We have become picture farmers harvesting images for the coorporations. I didn't invest my life and savings into becoming a photographer just to get paid a dollar per picture.
    Anybody submitting images to microstock is directly responsible for the collapse of the stock image market as a means of making an honest living. Nobody can make a living submitting their work to microstock but it's a great way to destroy the living for hundreds of thousands of professional photographers.
    I will never in my life submit any of my work to any form of microstock and I suggest that you all opt out.

  18. 14 July 2008 at 10:47 Michael Howard

    "I will never in my life submit any of my work to any form of microstock and I suggest that you all opt out."

    Agreed, but the vast majority have already opted out so Alamy now are going to change the rules allowing contributors to divide their work into (put simply) bad and good. Thereby they may end up with rather better numbers to offer at micro prices.

    But is opting out of the microstuff enough? While that 60p option is on the site and appears to relate to us all I don't see how serious MR photographers can stay in Alamy.

    I am thinking of changing to an assumed name with a reduced collection, but that really would be pathetic.

  19. 28 July 2008 at 08:19 Bill Wymar

    I'm with Anders on this 100%. Just remember Alamy haven't lost the plot. They are just a company trying to maximise THEIR profit. We are producers of a comodity we supply to them. They have no interest in photographers/contributors. They just need enough suckers to wait months to get pence. (if ever)
    It costs a hell of a lot more than pence to make a photograph. Value your time and your work. Vote with your feet and say no to microstock, even when it's called Novel Use.

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.