Jump to content

wilkopix

Verified
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wilkopix

  1. Nope .. absolutely no incentive for anyone to stay exclusive with the drop in commission and the risk of them approaching legitimate direct clients without consulting the photographer first. We may as well farm out our photos to each and every outlet possible to try and make up the loss. After eighteen years of supplying Alamy, of which 99% of my photos were exclusive to them I have no choice but to go non exclusive. It makes no difference with the commission structure now anyway. I'll probably take a break from supplying Alamy. It's no longer the same company that I on
  2. That's micro stock rates .. there are plenty of well established image libraries that are 50/50 split. The problem with Alamy it sort of falls between the two camps. It's promotional material that appears on Instagram, Twitter etc shows high end imagery which other agencies selling similar are working with their contributors on a 50/50 split (often RM). With the lower royalty split Alamy are going to lose the individual contributors supplying this type of material. They are also in danger of losing contributors who supply the type of images that other libraries don't cover as there
  3. Alamy say that they only have a small proportion of their collection as exclusive, so why remove the 50% split for those that remain exclusive? Financially it can't make much difference to the bottom line but it does give contributors some incentive to stay and/or not to spread their images to other libraries to try and make up the loss.
  4. Good point. Please reconsider the 50/50 split for those contributors who want to be exclusive.
  5. 100% agree. Still waiting to hear if they are going to change anything in the new contract to make it fairer to it's contributors. Their decision to cut the commission yet again seems very short sighted. As a supplier it will only lead to poorer and cheaper content produced quickly with the need to distribute it through several agencies to make it financially viable. If you read through Alamy's 'wants' list a lot of that can't be photographed on the hoof. It all comes at a quite a cost to the photographer. The 40-20% commission makes it impossible to recoup enough
  6. Sadly the comission is now either 40% or just 20% depending how much you sell. They have done away with the exclusive to Alamy 50% . No longer any incentive to remain exclusive (unless you sell $25,000 pa with them) ..
  7. 100% agree. The once cuddly, photographer friendly Alamy has completely gone with the new dodgy contract and stupidly low royalty rates. It's all about sharholders dividends not contributors. It's only going in one direction. Loads of reputable agencies out there with fair commissions and/or high sales. Easy enough for anyone interested to research where best to place your images. There is absolutely no incentive to stay exclusive to Alamy .. in fact lots of very good reasons not to, both legal and financial. Think like a business and how to maximise your return on investment an
  8. Last year they wanted to change the royalty structure but half backed down and offered 50% for exclusive content. Then said they had no plans to change it again. Many of us pulled work from other agencies to give Alamy the exclusivity. So in terms of time and lost revenue it's been a complete and utter waste. Obviously not a company to be trusted anymore .. still waiting to see what changes, if any they will make to the contract. They'll probably change that again in a year too.
  9. Absolutely .. Doesn't seem like a good business decision for Alamy. I've now gone totally non exclusive and busily uploading elsewhere (several with 50% split or premium collections with high sales volume). I'll probably be earning a lot more than the 20% I'll lose from Alamy. Seems a shame as I was very happy for Alamy be my main outlet and let me concentrate on my commissioned photography but 50% was my 'line in the sand' for exclusive material. Bit depressing really as I've been with them a long time and liked the 'family' feel of Alamy. Just shows how naive and stupid I've b
  10. I think you have very eloquently expressed how many of us feel.
  11. Maybe so .. but I'd much rather it not be legally ambiguous in the first place also so far no liability insurance will cover the legal cost to find out should they change their mind .. Plus Alamy seem to be quite happy to change their mind when it suits .. such as saying they had no plan to change royalties .. Let's see if they come up with something less ambiguous.
  12. Sadly that is so true. Also it doesn't actually matter what they say it means .. it's what is written in the contract that counts.
  13. You and me both! I very much doubt that any liability insurance will cover those areas mentioned in the new contract. I know mine doesn't. It would appear that Alamy now want a bigger slice of the pie (well most of the pie at 80% for those on Silver!) absolving themselves of all responsibility while leaving the contributor liable for other peoples actions. They have taken away any incentive to supply exclusive material, in fact it is now it is prudent to be non exclusive and spread your content to as many and varied agencies / libraries as possible to m
  14. 'Our initial work with this new team is for exclusive images only. Plans on how work may develop to include non-exclusive images and how permissions for that could work will be communicated to you once confirmed.' Hmmmmm ... I've just gone 100% non exclusive .. and very reluctantly uploading new material elsewhere. Photography is my business and library sales are one of my revenue streams. I'd much rather have been able to stay exclusive with Alamy and have them as my main agent but the recent cut in royalties means that I've now got to find other agencies to make up t
  15. Why not ask the contributor first? Just because the image is marked as exclusive to Alamy it doesn't mean that it hasn't been sold directly (as is allowed) or has been from a commissioned photoshoot and the images placed with Alamy once the 'Licence to Use' has expired. The last thing I need right now in these precarious times is Alamy approaching a commissioning client of mine without asking me first. I'm assuming the infringement team will ask the contributor first for 'non exclusive' images that are found?
  16. Me too .. albeit only eighteen years. I know I have invested so much time and money into building up a collection of images on Alamy. The number of times I've had to go back over keywording etc because Alamy changed the format etc. Stuck with them despite several royalty cuts from 75% down to 40 or even possibly 20%. It's actually pretty upsetting to realise what fools weve been to have put our trust and loyalty in Alamy for so long. Sadly it seem they are now more concerned about shareholders and bonuses and not those who helped build the Alamy 'brand' by making what they sell.
  17. Yes, so true! Unfortunately Alamy appear to have very little concern for their original and core contributors but are fast becoming a dumping ground for other libraries in the hope for some additional revenue.
  18. I totally agree .. seems very muddled. I really don't understand why they can't ask the contributor first .. 'have you sold this image direct to xxx or shall we chase it as an infringement?
  19. It's probably more about keeping shareholders happy rather than contributors .. there isn't one post in the 50+ pages saying that a contributor is happy, quite the opposite. I guess we now know where we stand as contributors.
  20. I'm not prepared to have have someone at Alamy contact direct clients of mine. My exclusive images with Alamy are not with other stock outlets but as agreed may have been sold or even given to my own clients directly. I will be taking legal advice over this move by Alamy to pursue possible infringements without contacting me first. Emily has gone back on her word about not having any intention of lowering the royalty rates. The new contract appears to leave contributors in a rather vunerable place. The rate cut is the last straw for me. My new material will now be going
  21. Absolutely correct. A lot depends on the type of images you are trying to sell but it has recently got a whole lot easier to do yourself even from your own website with Google Image Licensing: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/08/make-licensing-information-for-your This is pretty much what Alamy are doing with our images anyway. This is also interesting reading: https://www.artnome.com/news/2018/3/4/how-blockchain-will-change-photography .. all food for thought if Alamy go ahead with the new contract. I've been with Alamy so long that I remember the rate being 75%
  22. So why implement what amounts to a 20% drop to your most loyal contributors? I'm sure Emily would be kicking up a stink if she had a 20% pay cut. Despicable shortsighted corporate behaviour especially during a pandemic.
  23. Hobbyist or professional or somewhere in between the new contact should bother you with the legal implications it alludes to. You'll need good insurance against claims whatever your status.
×
×
  • 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.