isphoto

To be fair to Alamy (and I've been one of the knockers in the past) this is reflective of a change in pace of the times,. With so much "subscriber" content via phones etc streaming live from an event, Live news has become just that "live". So i am guessing that to be in with a chance of selling a news image, that the one hour is actually being generous. Most of the guys I know doing what I would call "news" have their wifi enabled cameras linked to their phones for a quick edit and caption, and then away to the picture desk, they are doing it on the run now, not waiting to get back to the coffee shop to set up the laptop. Apologies if this has already been stated.

1

"As I said in a previous post, the clerkess claimed she "didn't know" about whether a website designer had designed the site, and wouldn't find out for me". Before going to the press etc etc, send a letter to the MD/Lead partner of the legal firm (requesting a response within 14 days) and an invoice , outlining that they have breached your copyright. The "Clerkess" is likely too far down the food chain to be effective. If the law firm have commissioned an external web designer then it's for them to seek redress from the web designer, you are claiming payment from the law firm as they are the ones using your image commercially.

Works for me. many thanks

So students paying thousands in fees, gets to be subsidised by Alamy ! Also if this is for a dissertation why is the licence in perpetuity? And really, the fee if correct, goes beyond a joke, it will cost more for Alamy to raise the invoice and collect. I had a tv production co onto me today for an image, they said they had no budget and wanted use for perpetuity. They got and agreed to a good three figure sum and a very limited duration license. All it takes is for someone to say no and go back with a realistic price/terms.

You could upload a copy of the image with the new ref and then delete the original. Once you have copied over the key wording etc

Not that my lowly sales will matter to Alamy, but my main reason for staying with them has been that they did not do subscriptions sales and I had the option of not par-taking in the peanuts newspaper/novel scheme etc, this contract is now looking more like a dictate than a contract. I was only looking at my average sales value per image yesterday and was smiling at how they appeared to be creeping back up and bucking the downward trend of the past few years. 30% up on this time last year.

Agree totally, if this is indeed the reasoning behind this change then it is now the final leg of the rapid race to the bottom.

This works well in a face to face retail environment where a supplier gives samples/tastings, but they will then get repeat sales for more of that product that benefits them, not a competitor supplier. Lets face it we are all competing suppliers. Once a user has used the image of a flower pot, thats it, they are not likely to use that image again and then pay for it are they? Personal use could not be policed effectively, so I guess any restrictions on use for free/sample images will likely not receive the required compliance checks and importantly follow on billing for breach of restrictions.

Now Getty is back in family hands, who knows........

If I read this correctly, by removing the clause, we are now free to chase as the first party, even if an alamy credit is present. I for one will be much happier chasing infringers down as I can prove higher sales rates in court when claiming directly. It will be interesting to understand Alamy's view on how long is acceptable to wait for a sale to show up before contributors start hounding Alamy customers for infringement (from publication/use online), one month, three months? Also will Alamy agree once notified of an infringement and that we are chasing it, that they will not retrospectively sell a license at a lower price than rate card following this notification.

So if its the same meaning, why change it?

This revised clause now gives freedom to put our images into any new "trial, sales offer etc etc" without the need to pay, there is a big difference in my eyes. A proof of concept may be a new way of selling content, do you want to be funding some new on-line businesses trial, I don't. If contributors want to give away content, they only need to put it all over social media. A key issue here is that we now give Alamy the right to sell at any price and to allow others to potentially use commercially for no fee. Alamy, it may help if you can give some scenarios of this "proof of concept" and other circumstances where images may not be charged for.

on the notification today "9.1. In addition to the promotion rights set out in 8.3 above you grant Alamy permission to sell your Images at any price and by any method we feel appropriate and to supply Images to third parties without Alamy having to consult you, including but not limited to trials with new Customers, prototypes/proof of concept and high volume low unit price licences. Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third parties, you will not receive payment." So if I read this right Alamy can now Give away my images "Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third parties, you will not receive payment." so if a publisher wants to trial Alamy, they can potentially get my images for free! If Alamy believe a new customer is worth subsidising then they should not be looking for contributors to fund their trials. So on this basis one contributor gets to fund a trial that they may never see a sale from, this is madness at it best. Also we now have no control over restricting personal use sales, novel use or other newspaper type schemes. Come on Alamy sales are up, margin is up, why the need for this? This may well be a straw that breaks the camels back for some.

This time last year (selling direct) it was between £100 and £200 sterling per image/ per calendar, one years use only. Really depends on the subject matter