ChrisC

I agree, which us why I joined, I felt Alamy were a fair & equal company. It should be 40/60 in favour of contributors if they sell more than $25k a year, encourage the better photographers and stock experts CC

Good luck Martin, I'm sure plenty will follow CC

That does seem to imply, Alamy's race to the bottom, price wise is bonkers

As I said to Doc, it is shocking those that have put loads of effort and uploaded loads of images and been loyal and also changed so many images to exclusive, my small port is just Alamy, but utterly shocking from PA/Alamy and still waiting for the contract review with almost 100 pages of responses! CC

Great words Doc, Alamy/PA really have misunderstood some of the people like you, who have big collections and have trusted Alamy, it is most likely the PA side, who has made the decision. For the likes of me with small collections, it's not a massive issue, I won't lose much if I move or stop, it's annoying, but for you and others, it really is a massive kick in the teeth & they have failed to understand this, or they know that the people with bigger collections will be loathe to take everything away, almost overnight and will hang on, so they are probably banking on that, but it's a shocking decision to treat you all this way, all for a quick bit of profit, or shareholders or whatever. CC

When I joined Alamy that was exactly how I perceived that Alamy was, ie minimum 50% commission, & unless my memory is going, thats exactly how they “sold it” to Photographers. Obviously the stock industry and camera usage has changed massively in the last 10 years, I’m not saying I’m any good, but it was more about having a professional attitude and ability, but if you thought you could create some decent stock photos and abided by Alamy’s image criteria and upload your images the way they wanted them, you could make some sales. I guess with the massive change and drop in prices, plus PA taking over its now changed its role, which is a shame, but even Alamy have been special lot of time seemingly promoting the idea of “its easy” and “just take a photo & upload it”, in the same why Microstock companies have aimed at the market, but I also guess with all the acquisitions they have made & the amount of images they now have PA/Alamy have decided they can afford to cull the numbers. As has been said before I’d rather they were more transparent about this fact, but it’s the guys who are very good stock photographers who I feel sorry for and who naturally & rightfully are concerned about their future, which PA/Alamy should have thought about or talked to? Or maybe they have? Good luck everyone Chris

That was it! 👍

I wouldn't assume all graffiti was illegal, one went up in Liverpool a few weeks ago and it was an advert and it was being filmed, so that wasn't, some areas of course are allowed, it was just a general question. It doesn't say as much on the link, also you also say you don't know how far down the line it went, but for us it's what affect did it have on the Photographer and is this what Alamy are trying to pass onto us? I certainly don't know But I guess as Alamy's new owners have a lot to do with the newspapers, they are wording things their way, but I still want to know for sure how it affects us as photographers, which is why I'd like someone who has a legal mind or who knows one answer the questions & what scenarios we need to be wary of, if there is one on the forum?

Sorry I meant as in we are taking a photo for Editorial, & maybe I've got this wrong, but I thought Alamy was being careful about how these Graffiti images are used and said Editorial was ok, but because some artists were saying they had breached the Graffiti artists copyright, it couldn't be a photo showing the graffiti as the main part of the image, but it could be part of the image in the background, so I for one have never uploaded any, just in case

Not as good as the other good news on here, particularly with the new contract in the offing, but had my biggest sale since Jan 2019, no sales above $20 dollars until today, but I've had one for $47 for a cover of a book with a small 2,500 run, I've not uploaded much for the last 2 years for several reasons and was about to, until I saw the new contract, so a bit of a strange feeling. I know you have to keep uploading to move forward and like most things last year, things have been quiet, but I might be doing it elsewhere Chris

That wasn't my friends point, he was saying, how could I, as a photographer if I take a photo of some street art, how am I doing something illegal, when the graffiti artist himself has created and illegal work of art. In other words how can the artist sue Alamy and then the Photographer if the graffiti work itself is illegal, when all we are doing is taking a photograph from the streets, capturing to for posterity, which doesn't have any restriction, we are not handling stolen goods, drugs or something in order to take the photo? Also, as was mentioned in the thread, there doesn't seem to be anyone who has been sued for Alamy, so for those who are more legally minded than me, are we worrying for no reason, unless we do something that might be classed as defamation or something legal? Again, this was aimed at people who have a legal mind, who can either reassure people, or not? I do have liability insurance, but I'm waiting for the re-write before getting it checked Chris

I thought that, @geogphotos mentioned some people possibly aren't being as careful as a Photographer should be, when uploading, adding descriptions etc, which is exactly right, we do need to be truthful with how we describe our photos. Like you I did wonder if for example I put photos up on Alamy from another country, I too have images of France etc, where the laws are different and without knowing, one could easily make a mistake, would someone be sued for that? I'm not sure? Alamy has often sent e-mails about various photos that companies have complained about their image being used, such as British Rail, Royal De Luxe, Olympics, Unipart, surely though even the Olympics or a company such as Disney, would ask for the web page, book, article, to be taken down first rather than sued? I don't know much about such matters, but generally, the question is asked first before action is taken? I remember working on a Cirque Du Soleil events job and gave a copy to the company I was working for so they could use it on social media, this was around 10-11 years ago, a few hours after it was uploaded, Cirque du Soleil asked for it to be taken down, as we didn't have permission, the photo was only taken with a cheap camera, the image hadn't ben sold, or misused as such, but they obviously had a serious legal team. So whilst I understand the mistrust, is someone going to sue a photographer, unless he has done something very illegal? I can't imagine what context? Also, with regards to Graffiti artists, I was talking to a friend recently about copyright, I mentioned the stock photography/graffiti debate and as he said, what's the legal aspect for graffiti artists? What hey done is illegal, ie having sprayed paint on someones property Chris

Great photos, I'm sure if you go to some specialist agencies or sell prints, you would do well, hopefully better!

Best Post of the thread so far Thanks Chris

Maybe some are colour blind? most of the red arrows seem odd!