Keith Douglas

Mine has gone back to what it was before.

Same has happened to me. Went from $50 cleared - payment due - to $18, no payment due. Mine was a sale on 30 April 2021 that went to uncleared. It was originally cleared on 8 July. Country: United Kingdom ; Usage: Editorial ; Media: Magazine - print, digital and electronic ; Print run: up to 25,000 ; Placement: Inside ; Start: 30-April-2021 ; End: 30-April-2026

I am still trying to decide what to do as well, although I'm leaning towards leaving Alamy. A static portfolio with no additions sees a decline in revenue year on year. My sales numbers have remained relatively constant over the last few years but fees overall have declined. The only way for me to maintain the revenue is by adding about 15% more images each year. If I look at the time required to do that I'm working at an effective rate of £1-£2 an hour. It's just not viable for me other than as a hobby. I made more money helping out at an event last weekend than I will receive fro

That was not the case for the 17 May version, in particular clauses 4.1.6 and 5.1. These clauses were subsequently amended by Alamy in the 9 June version after many postings on here about how they shifted liabilities onto the contributor over which the contributor had no control.

Morecambe, Lancashire, UK. 30th Apr, 2020. With April showers, a rainbow shines over the Big Kid Circus on Morecambe Promenade. The travelling Circus is stranded due to the Covid-19 lockdown, unable to run its shows or to travel on to another location due to the movement restrictions, but local people and organisations have rallied round to help the circus troupe. Credit: Keith Douglas News/Alamy Live News

My thoughts too. That applies to my current portfolio. Add in the fact that uploading more images would be done at an effective hourly of about a pound. I just can't see much point in taking the risk.

All the indications are that Alamy don't see exclusive content as something they can exploit. As far as I am aware there was no 'exclusive content' marketed to customers. Was that because there isn't a demand from customers? Or was it down to the difficulty of knowing that the exclusive product they are selling is really exclusive? There was never any certainty that it was exclusive, even when contributors following the contract. I think that the exclusive, 50% rate was conceded because it meant that there was a good chance that if a customer wanted a specific image they would have

8 sales for $75 gross. From my best month of the year in April to my worst month in May. Includes a $0.43 sale that nets me $0.13!

Yes, to understand all its implications in every territory of the world that would be true. But there's been enough considered analysis on here for anyone to be able to join the dots and see what the changes to the Contract are, and what their possible effects are on contributors. As they say, you could ask half a dozen global media law specialists for their view of the implications and get seven different answers. The only way that the revised Contract will be tested is with real live cases, and, having understood the possible implications, I don't want to be involved in one of those test cas

I think we do understand very well what the new contract is about. I hope that nobody has been taken in by Alamy's statement that they need to clarify some of the clauses so that we can all understand what they intend? What it needs is the offending clauses removing and/or rewriting in a way that is fair to contributors.

Excellent post Kumar. I agree with all of it and I am also following the steps that you have listed. I don't have as much to lose by leaving Alamy as I have fewer images than you do. For me the reduction in commission combined with ever falling licence fees will makes the decision easier though as I'm just not prepared to accept the financial risks for what is a rapidly reducing revenue.

I have equipment and third party liability insurance to cover Stock Photography. There is other cover available (but I don't currently have it) for Professional Indemnity. I asked my insurer whether my existing policy, or the addition of the Professional Indemnity Policy would cover clause 5.1. The answer was no, as it looks like a 'hold harmless' agreement. I really do think that if Alamy want cover for what is in the new 5.1, they should be taking out insurance or shouldering the risk themselves. It would then be in their interests to make sure that all parties complied with thei

You are right. And more importantly the discussion about keywords didn't even relate to a Change in the contract! The clause and sub clause that would apply to supplying incorrect keywords is in the current contract (all of 5.1) as well as in the new one (5.1 iv) . It's the other three sub clauses in 5.1 in the new contract that we should be discussing.

Thanks for that Betty, You have some fantastic pictures. A high percentage of your portfolio is not specific to any particular region so you should do as well in the UK as you do in the USA. However, when I looked at recent sales on P4ME, the majority are of locations or things in the UK. Perhaps there's another POD outlet in the UK with a better fit for your art? Keith

Clause 5.1 was in the old contract, "5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract." Not unreasonable. If I lie about releases, don't have the copyright, have ta