Jump to content

radharcimages

Verified
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Forum reputation = neutral

About radharcimages

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Belfast (sometimes)

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={568767D4-28F8-440C-BF67-4B2ABEE9D852}&name=Radharc+Images
  • Images
    54537
  • Joined Alamy
    26 Nov 2004
  1. Utter rubbish James. Nothing at all to do with contributors net royalties. Coincidently (dont believe in coincidence) my net royalties have only this month or so recovered to the level before the last cut. Thats with pretty much doubling the number of images and reworking thousands upon thousands of existing images. Im never going to see a return on that with this cut. A 20% cut brings me back to 2008 levels. Let me repeat that a 20% cut brings me back 11 years and 40,000 images ago. Think about that James, it means the last 11 years work have been for nothing, zero growth, just a massive drain on my resources to subsidise you. You complain about 'only' 2% growth, many many companies, corporations and countries would love 2% growth. You are giving me a 20% cut effective February. That's unsustainable. Im guessing you will hope most people will just moan and gripe and do nothing about it and that may well be the case but its such a big jump that its a showstopper for many people. As you mention there are Tier 1 suppliers out there with smaller percentages but they do much much larger volume. If leading contributors migrate away the top 5% of their images you will lose that 2% and then some almost overnight. Its not about cancelling contracts or storming off in a huff, we all have our own spreadsheets and graphs and whilst Alamy has umpteen million images to choose from the vast vast majority are pretty much unsaleable. You are doing exactly what some of the big supermarkets have done in the last few years, squeezing and squeezing main/big suppliers (because they can) and once people find alternatives they will do so. Im sure by this announcement that really doesnt worry you in the slightest but the recent history of companies squeezing regular/main/big suppliers hasnt ended well. Im sure you think you will do well out of it otherwise you wouldnt have done it. Dont try and dress this up any other way than its taking money from your suppliers to give to you and your staff through wages, dividends and special directors payments. At least be honest about it and stop this complete male bovine excretia. We are not exactly 'all in this together'.
  2. Rumour I heard was that someone told the monkey that professional photographers earn peanuts so he wanted some of that!
  3. 'I also see some institutionalized incompetance being applied on Alamy's part as far as tracking downloads and following up on customer usage.' 4 years ago to this very week members of EPUK complained to Alamy about this and to be fair to Alamy they did instigate an investigation and did recover some money, the problem is that the old once bitten thing and a lot of us still see a lot of unreported uses. To not do anything about this 4 years after the initial investigation, complaint and alamys action is just scandalous. Failure of duty of care to exercise the contract so just change the contract? Similarly last year I complained about contributors stealing my keywords, Alamy said they would act under the contract. Last month I complained about some of the same people stealing my keywords, Alamy said they wouldnt act, although I dont think the new contract is in force yet they pointed me to it. Cant be bothered acting on it? Change the contract. Alamy, come on. Sort it out, start with a Mea Culpa rather than a 'youve read this wrong'. If the conditions are the same as they were then explicitly spell it out. I would certainly have more faith in you if you actually paid a duty of care with my current contract in ensuring I get paid for my every usage. I would earn more, you would earn more. Whats not to like?
  4. Linda, YOU NEED to register all your images with the US office to prove copyright because you are a US photographer operating from the US. There is no other way for a US photographer operating in the US to prove they own copyright. You are correct for YOUR circumstances. (sorry about the bold bit but I am trying to emphasise the point). For the rest of us all we need to do is show we own the original file and the process is exactly the same. Ive sued in the US where they have asked is it registered and Ive said no because it doesnt need to be as Im not a US photographer and Ive won thousands (in one case over 10k US). All it means to non-US is that you may not get a lawyer to take you on contingency, although I always have as Ive always done a lot of the pre work for them and its never been for small amounts. Some of them are coming round though to realise that its not a show stopper for non-US photographers as it would be for US photographers. Also in the EU we dont have a work for hire agreement with clients which is difficult for US infringers to understand. I hope that clarifies things. Joe
  5. I know a team working to reverse engineer alamyrank from a photographers perspective. Like any software algorithm its a series of inputs and outputs, draw enough data from inputs across enough time and you can reasonably predict results. They are pretty much there and the results are impressive. Not cheap obviously but when you see the results in black and white its hard to ignore the fact that you are better spending time on their algorithms than producing new output, particularly with the rapid drop off in fees.
  6. The simple answer is no Michael, too many variables. For example my average sale price per image is now 1/7 of what it was back in 2007. Percentage has dropped from 65% to 50%. Alamy is also increasing its cut from the dollar percentage by 25%. On the other hand, currency fluctuations have taken place. So if I made 100 sales back in 2007 I would need to make approximately 900 sales this year to be at the same point. If the 1 in 100 average was applied (as quoted elsewhere), that would mean having 90,000 images at the start of the year to produce those 900 sales. To put it in perspective, the average sale is around 30-40 usd so even saying 40usd. 900x40 is 36k dollars gross, 18k dollars net or about 11k gbp give or take depending on bank fees, conversion rates etc. At 30 usd per sale average thats about 8.7k or thereabouts gbp. So on average 90,000 images on alamy over a year should earn you a couple of grand less than the adult full time uk minimum wage but that depends on prices being steady and not continuing to fall and depends on producing images people want to buy and producing them better than the people in the ranking system above you.
  7. that 1 could be 'perpetual'. An image licensed 5 years ago will have had an end date, current licensing sometimes has 'in perpetuity' on it (check your images sold summary). So in theory yes A means 1 but it could also mean 1 in perpetuity or one including distribution rights or 1 including x, y, or z prevalent at the time, not necessarily a re-use of the existing licence terms. The legality of these terms need to be hammered out. For example in the Getty terms sales there are images sold 'for the lifetime of the contract', which contract? Between Getty and the supplier, Getty and the photographer? Its all unclear. Arguably all the 'in perpetuity' licenses granted by Alamy and Getty only apply for as long as the photographer maintains their contract. Getty and Alamy will probably argue that it isnt. Thats why lawyers do well out of wooly 'contracts' and judges are called on to make clear what is fair and unfair (cant have an unfair contract but need to go to court to find out).
  8. Its not the release that matters per se, the wording can influence of course but how the 'contract' is actioned. Thats where you need to have a chat with a solicitor to see how it affects what you are doing. No point me giving advice or opinion as IANAL and saying 'Joe Fox' told me so wont stand up in court. Of course saying you were following advice from Rumpole and sons solicitors might have a slightly different bearing on things. To be pedantic for a minute, it doesnt really matter if you dont think its anything to do with EU law. You not thinking it is will not influence whether it does or not. Thats my entire point, you need to find out exactly what applies to you and how you do business. Its not a matter of getting an autograph on a sheet of paper. I remember doing jury service and one of the first things the judge instructed us was 'ignorance of the law is no defence'. That did have an effect on me and I was only on the jury! I do something similar to what I think Geoff posted, I get two forms signed, the release and a receipt with relevant information on it saying the model has been paid. I dont think the fact that two people do something very similar is coincidental. Probably based on good practice advice received. Most if not all the issues with model releases (as in the case mentioned) have little to do with how the release was worded but more to do with how the contract was exercised.
  9. Mark, I suggest you do take advice on the matter. Most commercial solicitors will give you advice on contract law (your local small business agency should have local contacts). If you are in the FSB or a trade union or even your commercial insurers might have a fixed rate legal helpline to call for advice. Above all else it is up to you to ensure what you are doing covers you and your business and you have the personal contact to back that up. The advice really isnt that expensive in the scheme of things and with changes in EU law happening periodically, its something that its worthwhile occassionally checking on. A lot of the good solicitor firms and government bodies will have periodic email updates. One such update was the cross border EU VAT rules that changed this month. Not applicable to me as I dont do direct digital downloads but if I did it would be a major hassle to implement. Its all part of the cost of doing business and most people dont realise its a business and every time you submit a form to an agent you could be potentially risking a lot of dough/hassle. Its worth being sure of it rather than just making a guess based on an understanding. Joe
  10. Is this your opinion or have you taken advice on this? My opinion would be worth the paper its written on (including the post above). I do this for a living and as such need to be sure that everything I do is legal (my insurance will insist on it in the event of any comeback). I dont fault the agencies here either, they do enough to cover themselves. Ive had discussions with agency legal departments before and they werent interested in anything other than covering themselves (I can see their point). If they have a signed bit of paper then they are covered and under the contract it is the contributors responsibility to make sure the release is legal. As I said above, there are only certain conditions that I would consider a release 100% legal for my business.
  11. Just a word of warning about any releases signed in the street... ..a model release is a legal agreement and to be fully legitimate has to be exercised as such. The terms have to be fully explained and depending on the circumstances, cool off periods may apply. I personally would never rely on a release signed in the street, for me its just about as worthless as anyone elses random autograph.* There is also the issue about ICO registration and passing on personal details to a 3rd party, if thats not done correctly, that too could make the release invalid (in the eyes of a court at least as far as the agency is concerned). The only releases that are 100% sound are for models who are paid a proper consideration and who come to your place of work with the intention of being paid models. Joe *the caveat is that very very limited releases for clients at events and they would never be applicable for stock and only applicable to the single use in hand.
  12. Not quite. Publication is different from copyright. The copyright laws that apply are the ones from your home country, i.e. where you do business. I did, a couple of posts ago.
  13. Not quite. Publication is different from copyright. The copyright laws that apply are the ones from your home country, i.e. where you do business I answered the question Marvin asked. If he took his UK images home and published them in the US, US law would apply. If my UK images were registered in the US, I could pursue statutory damages against a US infringer. (4) The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; Nope you didnt. Copyright for photography is for unpublished works. Copyright applies at the time you press the shutter which is unpublished, the published clauses only apply to published works. You mentioned publication which isnt necessary for copyright (clause (4)© of Geoffs link) There is a huge difference in the US in registering copyright for published and unpublished works. The US copyright registration has little to do with copyright, more to do with the legal process.
  14. Not quite. Publication is different from copyright. The copyright laws that apply are the ones from your home country, i.e. where you do business.
  15. You could still need indemnity insurance for ommissions, errors and losses as a result of licensing images, even if its only through an agent. Check your contracts specifically the clauses about indemnifying the agency for any mistakes, errors or losses.
×
×
  • 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.