Jump to content

Alamy

Administrators
  • Content Count

    1,098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Alamy

  1. Hi All

     

    We are currently experiencing some ongoing technical issues with Alamy Measures due to a large amount of data processing on our servers. Our IT team are working on fixing this as soon as possible but we apologise for the inconvenience caused.

     

    In addition to this, from the 30th of Sept, there will be some technical backend changes to the site which means we're expecting the recorded zooms in measures to be reduced by about 20% - this will be across the board. We anticipate this reduction in the recording of data to be in place for no longer than 3 months, after which it will return to normal levels. This is purely a technical requirement whilst essential upgrades are implemented through the site and will not actually affect zooms or sales.

     

    Thanks,

    Alamy

    • Thanks 3
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  2. 12 hours ago, kay said:

    Thanks James, but does this also include 'admin errors' in not billing for usages by a large account that uses alamy images on their instagram feed but never seems to get billed for them unless it is raised by us?  A known problem.  A problem that has been known about for a couple of years.  It has taken me several emails over 12 months to finally get paid for 14 usages going back to March 2020 - meaning that I got 40% rather than 50%?


    That is a different situation and we have to go by time of billing rather than time of use. 
     

    The case you refer to is complex in nature and I’m sorry you have had a prolonged time in trying to get a resolution. I’ll look into it personally to see if we can improve things for you with the outcome.

     

    James

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 3
  3. 4 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

    So either James didn't understand Betty's original post when he posted his first reply or there's been a policy U-Turn? 


    I didn’t post the original response.


    No policy U-Turn, just a genuine misunderstanding of the issue at hand which is now clear.

     

    We’re working to correct it as soon as possible.

     

    James A

    • Thanks 1
  4. 1 minute ago, Alamy said:

     

    It gets corrected to the original sale date because the refund/rebill is according to the orginal sale. I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself but my previous answer detailed exactly that :)

     

    Also, if you're gold/platinum at 1st of July that doesn't get reviewed again until the following year.

     

    If you drop to silver you go straight to gold once you hit $250 regardless of when in the year.

  5. Just now, meanderingemu said:

     

     

    With numbers, and easy numbers

     

    July 2021-June 2022

     

    Sale 1 $200 on Jan 1, 2022

    Sale 2 $100 on June 15th 2022

     

     

    So as of July 1, 2022 the person would qualify as Gold, with $300 of sales in the Period

     

    On July 7, 2022, the June 15 Sale, is refunded, and relabelled July 7, 2022  So now the contributors total sales for July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 is only $200

     

     

    What happens to their Level for the 2022-23 Year?

     

    It gets corrected to the original sale date because the refund/rebill is according to the orginal sale. I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself but my previous answer detailed exactly that :)

     

  6. 3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

     

    i am always surprised how a significant portion of these affect forum contributors.  Based on report in this thread it would seem about 40% of these cases were regulars.  Considering the volume of Alamy i doubt that we represent even 1% of the base, so this is always curious

     

    As previously stated:

     

    We're just confirming how many sales this has affected but with this particular set it's looking like around 20 or so. You can expect to see the difference returned into your accounts shortly

    • Thanks 1
  7. 9 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

     

     

    This has nothing to do with commission rate, this has to do with Alamy's moving definition of sale, which is not contractual as mentioned. 

     

    Again the example

     

     

    Sale originally date June 15, 2022, which takes the contributor over $250 in total licencing fee, gets relabelled later by Alamy and becomes a July 7, 2022 sale, bringing the contributors total licences for July 1, 2021- June 30 2022 below the $250 threshold, What happens to the Level for the 2022-23 year? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I'm not quite following you, sorry - I'm trying to answer both your posts here in one as simply as possible.

     

    If a refund and rebilling situation causes you to be:

     

    - Out of pocket

    or

    - Dropped to a lower rate due to it dipping you under $25k or $250 in the revenue year

     

    ....then we will correct it. You'll get the commission rate due to you at the time of billing and you'll be placed in the appropriate commission tier as if the sale was made within the revenue year. 

     

    Frustrations about the standard drop in commission aside (which I fully understand), we are in no way going to unfairly leave you out of pocket in any sense due to admin errors with billing/refunding either on our part or the customers.

     

    Best

     

    James

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  8. 10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

    Hmm. The other day it was this, now it's something else.

     

    There is a difference between the billing time coming into effect at a new commission rate and something that was previously billed at one rate, cancelled and then rebilled at another. 

     

    The response given earlier this week wasn't appropriate to cover both situations - we'll correct any amounts that have meant a contributor has lost out due to an invoice needing to be re-processed (rebilled).

     

    Best,

     

    James A

     

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1
  9. Hi everyone,

     

    Sincere apologies for this - clearly an admin error on our part where some invoices have had to be re-issued.

     

    We'll make sure that anyone who has had an image billed at one rate but then cancelled and rebilled at a different rate will not end up out of pocket. We're just confirming how many sales this has affected but with this particular set it's looking like around 20 or so. You can expect to see the difference returned into your accounts shortly. 

     

    As always if you spot anything that doesn't look right, please drop us an email via contributors@alamy.com and we'll do our best to resolve.

     

    Best, 

     

    James A

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1
  10. 27 minutes ago, Jools Elliott said:

    @Alamy

     

    Remember this response to me on Twitter Mr Allsworth:

     

    I think it’s exactly this kind of response which makes engaging on these issues pretty redundant - happy to look into the specifics on this one tomorrow when I’m back in the office but needless to say it won’t be “Full RF” - far from it.

     

    This in response to the selling of a RM image as near RF. 

     

    I'm still waiting for the response to this. Tomorrow was about 2 months ago. For me it shows just how engaged management are with the very people who provide content and ultimately pay their wages. As @geogphotos says, how would you feel seeing your wages cut? The reality is that it's not going to happen but it will to us.

     

    Such a sad sad way to go about business and completely unnecessary.


    Of course I remember! It was actually in response to you saying you don’t need to bother asking as the answer will be “waffle” - not in response to the selling of an RM image as RF.

     

    The conversation is public on my Twitter feed where I eventually ducked out of the conversation (after saying so) due to the fact that I felt you were being increasingly hostile to each one of my replies.

     

    The limited, single electronic editorial use licence of the RM image you raised in that conversation claiming to be RF was far from being so, as detailed in the licence itself. “Perpetuity” in that case refers to the archive rights which is pretty standard these days.

     

    Raising this issue within this topic though is really not relevant to the discussion here.

     

    You are talking about lack of engagement, however we’ve just finished 4 days at a photography trade show (with no other stock libraries in attendance) where we’ve invited any existing contributors to come and speak with us.

     

    You are also referencing a Twitter thread where I replied to you numerous times from my personal account.

     

    Engagement and dialogue is great, but has to be based upon basic professionalism. 
     

    I had some really great conversations with contributors at the photography show, I’m sorry I didn’t get to meet you to discuss some of these points face to face.

     

    For any questions or concerns you have for any of your Alamy licenses or images, please get in touch with the team who will be happy to help.

     

    Best,

     

    James

     


     

     

  11. 4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

     

    I wasn't referring to that. I'm talking about the images that aren't being uploaded because there is little incentive to take them in the first place. 

     

    I'm sure you have stats that show you have more uploads than ever but I'm not taking about that either. 

     

    You can't endlessly syphon revenue from contributors. Can you???


    (Last post from me in this thread)
     

    You're right - uploads, registrations and (significantly for this discussion) uploads from existing (not new) contributors are up.

     

    Of course our intention is not to “endlessly syphon revenue from contributors” and we feel that we are building towards an end goal that will ultimately be advantageous to our contributors as well as our customers.

     

    Best,

     

    James A

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  12. 15 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

     

    So why oh why did Alamy remove a key incentive for us to stay exclusive (i.e. higher commission)??

     

    Mark


    I was merely listing the remaining reasons why I personally believe it’s worthwhile marking images as exclusive to alamy.

     

    To be clear, despite exclusivity being an advantage when it comes to some negotiations, for the majority it doesn’t have an impact and with only 7% of images marked as exclusive (with many incorrectly marked as such) it was not a commercially significant element to our overall offering. 
     

    As previously mentioned though, we have not seen a significant drop in the % of images marked as exclusive to Alamy since the change has come into place and for the platinum group, the exclusivity 50% incentive remains.

     

    James

  13. 13 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

     

    The end result is that there is very little incentive to put effort into contributing. Naturally those who do so for fun will continue. But my guess is that Alamy are losing images from a significant number of experienced and successful stock photographers. 

     

    The sooner PA realise this the better. 

     

     


    The reality is that the data does not reflect your guess - a minuscule % of images were removed or taken to non-exclusive status as a result of this commission change. 

    • Downvote 1
  14. 20 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

     

    James, hard to regard it as any sort of incentive to work harder when no details are forthcoming. 

     

    I suspect that it is a very small number of individual contributors. 

     

    An impossible target as far as I am concerned and 40%/25% of ever falling fees does not provide incentive either.

     

    Can't you feed this back up the command chain? Thanks

     

     

     

     

     

    Hi Ian,

     

    I agree there is less incentive now to remain exclusive to Alamy compared to previously, and everyone within the business is aware of this, however the benefits as I see them are:

     

    • You won’t be “competing” with yourself across other agents. In many cases, the main competition for Alamy are with sites that have a far lower average sale price than us. Placing portfolios there which will average out at a significantly lower average price means it can impact the rate of sales here where our average price is much closer to $30 and can often go much higher. Many buyers check multiple sites and it removes our bargaining power to gain higher fees if they find the same images elsewhere, cheaper.

     

    • We have a new dedicated, proactive infringements chasing team installed here now that has been operational for a couple of months. We are partnering with multiple organisations who will be proactively finding and securing payments from infringers of your imagery. We will be prioritising the images marked as exclusive to us within this team to secure funds for. Typically the infringement amounts are set at 5x the normal rate, and the contributor will receive 50% / 40% / 20% of the share Alamy receive according to the commission structure they are on. I'm hopeful we can signpost this infringement revenue for contributors so they can see the benefit in revenue this brings in as we grow the operation over the coming months. 

     

    • We have lots of plans for the search engine and developing our product over the coming months and years. Having some kind of “exclusive” to Alamy offering will always be part of the consideration, and it does give us more bargaining power when in negotiations for licences with customers who are after unique products

     

    I know that the above will not "make up" for the fact that the commission split has changed to 60/40 to those contributors who fall into the Gold model, but I do believe they are genuine reasons to not consider exclusivity at Alamy to be "pointless".

     

    Best,

     

    James A

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  15. 2 hours ago, Nodvandigtid said:

    Let me ask you another one - what proportion of the contributor base remain on the more acceptable 50/50 basis after the commission structure changed.?

     

     

    Not a figure we can make public I'm afraid as it would give too much insight into commercially sensitive sales information. 

     

    I understand this response will be disappointing / not the answer you were looking for but it's the reality. 

     

    James A

    • Downvote 1
  16. 14 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

    A figure quoted by James was approx 17million images were exclusive and benefiting from the 50% before the cut...

    I don't know how many contributors that equates too.

    Phil

     

    That's true - and I should clarify, it would be more accurate for me to have said 7% of images rather than photographers because as has been pointed out, many contributors had a mix. 

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  17. 5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

     

    And yet, when Emily (from PA) produced her video update, she assured us that there were no plans to change commission rates. Some inconsistency here?

     

    Mark

     

    Please do not to take my conversation with Phil out of context - my point was that ultimately the change in commission structure was a business decision to balance the needs of shareholders, customers, staff, contributors etc that allows us to get us where we need to be for future success. The commission structure change affected roughly 7% of the contributor base (EDIT: I should clarify it was 7% of IMAGES) so for the vast majority, the 60/40 deal was already in place for those who don't qualify for platinum.

     

    I enjoyed catching up with lots of Alamy contributors - some who post here and some who don't. It was nice to be able to interact with people on a 1-2-1 basis after not being able to do so for so long. 

     

    We'll be at the show again next year for anyone who is thinking about attending.

     

    Best,

     

    James A

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  18. 13 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

    @Alamy didnt you state earlier that sale date is based on day client download in discussions of sales that went through after contributor opted out of distributor program?  How can definition now change?

    Hi

     

    Commission is calculated at date of invoice, not date of download. Taking distribution as an example, we take download date into consideration if a distributor has used an image after you have opted out of the scheme. In this case if the distributor downloaded the image before you opted out, they are still able to use the image. However the commission wouldn't be calculated until they invoiced the use.

     

    We understand the frustration here but as we report images to you when they happen rather than when we have received money unfortunately images do sometimes get refunded and rebilled. Any images rebilled after the 24th July will remain at the new commission rate.

     

    Thanks,

    Alamy

    • Haha 1
    • Sad 1
    • Downvote 8
  19. Hi all, 

     

    The stock industry is very competitive and we do have to compete with our competitors or we risk loosing customers, and therefore sales. In order to do this we have to offer discounts, but also image packs. We aren't the only company to offer image packs, and our average licence fee has maintained over the last few years.

     

    Our sales teams work extremely hard to negotiate on deals with all forms of customers and always try to get the best market value possible for each license. 

     

    Thanks, 

    Alamy

    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 1
  20. Hi All

     

    We have spoken to our technical team about the drop in views and zooms you have reported and they have identified an issue with the log processing for zooms, search and views in Alamy Measures.

     

    They are working on fixing this and processing the backlogs as soon as possible. Unfortunately this means that Alamy measures will not be updating until the backlogs are processed.

     

    Just to clarify, this issue is with Alamy Measures and not with the actual search. Your images are still searchable for customers.

     

    Apologies for the inconvenience.

     

    Thanks,

    Alamy

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 5
    • Upvote 1
  21. 35 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

     

     

    would you be able to share some data on this?

     

    Case numbers

    Proportion excess recuperated by contributor over just the basic licence fee had the culprit not stolen image.

     

     

     

      

    The new contract clearly states this is the only first line option available to contributors, so to be told "go do it yourself" or even in rare cases reported gone through only seeing normal licence fee is just extra burden on the contributor, at a cost of 20% to us, in exchange for no gain. 

     

     

     

     

     

    You're not told "go do it yourself". For the UUQ type infringements there is a queue, which means delays for you. You are therefore given the option for us not to pursue it, and then you pursue directly yourself. You can choose to do that or not.

     

    For your previous question, we can't share that data publicly for obvious reasons (no business would) and this is a newly formed team. 

     

    Broadly speaking though, we are currently processing several thousand cases, expect this to grow significantly and typically have a starting point fee of around 5x the regular licence (as per our EULA) but many factors go into that on a case by case basis ranging from number of images, type of use and how far down the legal process things get to. 

     

    Hopefully we'll be able to indicate within contributor accounts that the sales come from the infringement process as this will make things clearer, but this is TBC for now.

     

    James A

    • Thanks 3
    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  22. I posted this in another thread but in case that gets missed:

     

    For clarity, there are two strands to our approach for image infringements - the proactive process and the reactive process. 
     
    Image use infringements are a reality of our industry. Sometimes the infringement will be down to a mistake an existing customer has made and sometimes it will be a literal image theft and use, often stolen from an existing legitimate use.
     
    In Q1 of this year, Alamy put together a dedicated team to proactively tackle this. We are working with multiple external infringement services to crawl the web and secure funds for images that have originated from Alamy but have not been paid for. After the infringement service take their cut, we split the remainder with you according to your commission model. For these usages, we are prioritising images that are marked as exclusive to Alamy. We have very positive expectations of this team and have invested in it already and will continue to build it out. The process cycle is beginning to bear fruit now and we believe this will be a great source of revenue for our contributors over the coming years as we grow the service. 
     
    The reactive service is what we call Unauthorised Use Queries (UUQs) and this is what the UUQ form on your dashboard is used for. This currently goes to a different team within the business, usually within the sales team as quite often these will be existing Alamy customers and they need to be investigated slightly differently due to the process in which they have been identified. We currently have a backlog of these we are working through and this is where the delays currently are which is why we offer you the option to chase yourself rather than wait. Of course we're not happy about there being a waiting time like this, but it is the reality. In time, the process for these infringements will live with the newly formed proactive team and we expect the turnarounds to be much quicker. 
     
    James A
    Head of Content
     
    - for the record I'll be there at the photography show on the Monday and Tuesday and would be happy to discuss this and answer questions from anyone who would like further clarity.
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 4
  23. For clarity, there are two strands to our approach for image infringements - the proactive process and the reactive process. 
     
    Image use infringements are a reality of our industry. Sometimes the infringement will be down to a mistake an existing customer has made and sometimes it will be a literal image theft and use, often stolen from an existing legitimate use.
     
    In Q1 of this year, Alamy put together a dedicated team to proactively tackle this. We are working with multiple external infringement services to crawl the web and secure funds for images that have originated from Alamy but have not been paid for. After the infringement service take their cut, we split the remainder with you according to your commission model. For these usages, we are prioritising images that are marked as exclusive to Alamy. We have very positive expectations of this team and have invested in it already and will continue to build it out. The process cycle is beginning to bear fruit now and we believe this will be a great source of revenue for our contributors over the coming years as we grow the service. 
     
    The reactive service is what we call Unauthorised Use Queries (UUQs) and this is what the UUQ form on your dashboard is used for. This currently goes to a different team within the business, usually within the sales team as quite often these will be existing Alamy customers and they need to be investigated slightly differently due to the process in which they have been identified. We currently have a backlog of these we are working through and this is where the delays currently are which is why we offer you the option to chase yourself rather than wait. Of course we're not happy about there being a waiting time like this, but it is the reality. In time, the process for these infringements will live with the newly formed proactive team and we expect the turnarounds to be much quicker. 
     
    James A
    Head of Content
    • Haha 2
    • Confused 1
    • Upvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.