Jump to content

Sally

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sally

  1. On 27/05/2021 at 23:37, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

    I've just found one of my images being used but it hasn't shown up in my sales.

     

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/why-the-world-still-needs-the-simple-pleasures-of-the-honda-super-cub/ar-AAKjlK6#comments

     

    It seems it was used 4 days ago

     

    What to do, it hasn't happened to me before, well not that I know of anyway ?

     

    Thanks in advance 

     

    Carol

    Use on msn is usually an (unfortunately legitimately) copied article from another newspaper so you need to find the original use.

  2. 58 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

    I use LR, but not the catalog.

    Not sure what you mean. If your images aren’t “in” LR, then you can simply import them from wherever you store them, then use the plugin to capture the Alamy data. It’s a bit fiddly at first until you have the photos in your catalogue matched with those on Alamy but after that there are huge benefits.

  3. 3 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

    Related, anyone found a way to modify deleted images that are still in the 6 months waiting period?  I might have to email Alamy for those.

    I know that I boringly keep banging on about Alamy Lightroom Bridge, but again, this is something you can do with images that are in limbo waiting to be deleted. Otherwise you cannot.

    • Confused 1
  4. 16 minutes ago, Shelly R said:

    I am still a bit confused about what happens to me now as a "Blue model" contributor? Does my original contract remain in effect, or will I be going from 50% commission on my exclusively Alamy images to 20% if sales continue to be slow? (With no difference in commission between Exclusive and Non-Exclusive images any longer--and regardless of Silver/Gold/Platinum level?

    As far I understand it, whichever contract you are on, it will change to the new one, whatever the exact clauses. You will be a Gold contributor to start with, and depending on whether you hit $250 GROSS sales during 2021/2022 you will either remain on Gold at 40% commission or go down to 20% on the Silver commission rate. If at any time during 2021/2022 your gross sales hit $250, you’ll automatically go up to the Gold 40% commission rate.

     

    Easy to understand n’est pas? 😗

    • Upvote 2
  5. 2 hours ago, Paul J said:

     

    Good photo, I assume its in the Scottish edition in print, saw it online. Why not bypass Alamy live and sell direct? Then if you can be bothered, then upload as stock. You'll make 100% of the money and build contacts. 99+% of my income is direct sales. 

     

    Thanks Paul. That has been suggested to me before. Not familiar with how to do it, not sure whether I can be bothered with the paperwork. Worth mulling over as the extra work involved in many news shoots is worth more than 40% IMO.

     

    It wasn’t actually in the Scottish print version: they had a photographer working for the shoot so were sending out free photos and used one of those, hence I was surprised anything of mine was used at all.

     

    Sorry for the diversion...back to the thread.

  6. On 25/05/2021 at 16:11, Hodderauthor said:

    But under this new contract, I'm not sure that's enough. Clause 4.1.5 gives Alamy the right to exploit any licence they see fit, effectively, which suggests they won't follow photographer-set restrictions such as Editorial Use Only. Indeed, if you go onto Alamy and select an image you've labelled as "Editorial Use Only" you'll see that Alamy put a banner above the prices saying "Available for Editorial and personal Use Only. Get in touch for commercial uses." To which I want to say, "Er, no! It's editorial use only!"

     

    If Alamy can't be trusted to respect photographer-set restrictions, then it's not safe for me to continue with them (especially, if we're liable for everyone else's mistakes).

     

    No, I don’t read that clause that way as I said in a previous post, though it could be worded much more clearly. The sentence is “

    1. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;”

    The highlights state, IMHO, that Alamy can license as they see fit except for the rights a contributor has allowed. They can sell an image for pennies, make it for. 5 or 10 years or forever, but only within the restrictions that you’ve given. 

  7. 8 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

    Might have been good if they'd mentioned the significance of the 'Editorial only' check-box here. An opportunity missed, or perhaps they don't know themselves.

    Yes, that doesn’t help me at all. I still don’t know if I should Mark anything without releases as editorial only eg people on a beach. If they don’t clarify that, I will err on the cautious side and do so. If that restricts sales, they will have to contact me to lift it.

    • Upvote 2
  8. 4 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

    Following on the above, I have previously taken the peer advice that for RM images we didn't need to tick the editorial box, only indicate that releases were needed for commercial use/not available.

    Now wanting to take a more belt and braces approach, I want to tick editorial on these files.

    In Image Manager, I did a search on 'not model released' and ticked editorial only on the 'newest  500 passed', ditto 'contains property'.

    Is there a quick way to:

    go through the rest of the files adding editorial only as needed (for extra security)

    TIA.

    Only by using Alamy Lightroom Bridge. You just choose all your uploaded on sale images, use metadata search to find those with no releases, tick editorial only box for them all, the upload Alamy data. 

    • Thanks 1
  9. 4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

    If you don't annotate, the image shows as unreleased anyway. You wouldn't have marked the image as released, so that should suffice.

    My default is that every image contains property- even a landscape "belongs" to the National Park or whatever. But I don't tick the boxes anymore. Am I going to go back and check? Am I coco.

    Oh well, it’s easy enough to change everything to editorial only using Alamy Lightroom Bridge. Then, if I can be bothered change individual photos back.

  10. 2 hours ago, Sally R said:

    Another factor in all of this I have thought of, is the way QC works at Alamy. The microstock agency I was briefly with beforehand scrutinise every image uploaded and immediately reject anything that they consider any kind of liability risk. Also, anything not marked editorial can be rejected when it might not seem obvious at first why. I remember a contributor there posting his image on their forum that had been rejected wondering why it was considered to be a problem. It did seem a puzzle as there was no apparent property or subjects of concern in the image. The forum moderator responded with a close-up of part of the image showing that when really zoomed in, there was some tiny, tiny writing on something obscure in the image that meant there was in fact a need for it to be marked editorial.

     

    Given that Alamy do not see all images that go through QC, they are probably trying to have measures in place to cover themselves should any issues arise with an image. I feel Alamy's QC approach has more flexibility and in many ways makes more sense, but then there is also easily room for images to go through that Alamy are not seeing that may not comply with the restrictions designated for the image or might be considered potentially problematic. As their QC process is less tightly controlled, perhaps they are trying to cover any risks they perceive associated with this. The RM/RF distinction also makes things a bit more complex, and then that distinction is becoming less clear now in the way images are licensed anyway.

     

     

    Indeed, this was brought home to me recently when I uploaded a few images to S*******. A couple I thought didn’t have any property were rejected because it was deemed they did. One was a very old (hundreds of years) carved face in a public wall in Cuba which was an old postbox with the letters Buzon. Another was a ramshackle homemade fruit and vegetable stall with no lettering or people or any identifiable aspect in a street between two houses. If this is the  level at which we need to mark property then I will need to seriously revise my images here.

  11. 22 minutes ago, Dave Richards said:

    Thanks Sally, I’ll take a look. I would be mainly interested in using it as a platform for just selling prints. If you don’t mind me asking, do you use it that way and, if so, how successful has it been?

    I have done so but only for particular events. For example, I took a pile of photos of classic cars on a car rally event and quite a few owners wanted prints. You can set up a gallery to sell prints through a third party company - One Vision Imaging for example. It’s not something I have done much but may well focus more energy on. Ive also recently set up a free account (only 25 images) with Fine Art America too but have no idea whether that will result in anything. The main problem with selling through your own website - whichever platform it is on - is generating the footfall. 

    • Thanks 1
  12. 12 hours ago, Dave Richards said:

    There is huge choice in stock available and I guess it is getting more difficult for stock companies to remain competitive.

    This has been a hobby for me since I started, with the added bonus that I may score a few dollars now and again. I retired (belatedly) almost a year ago and I can, now that Covid restrictions have eased, get out and about and do more, so I'm not giving up any time soon.

    Ian mentioned his website and that has prompted me to investigate that as an option for my other photography which I don't post on Alamy.

    Any recommendations from those with experience for a (not too expensive) web provider would be appreciated.

    I use Zenfolio which has as few bells and whistles or as many as you like. You can easily set up selling, for example, or just have it as a showcase. Here is a referral code for which anyone can get 10% off (and I will too off my next year’s subscription). 

    H5B-YB8-S6X

  13. 18 hours ago, wiskerke said:
    Recent (and slightly less recent) Bing Wallpapers:

     

    2BAMC5H  - Telescopes and star trails at Paranal Observatory, Atacama Desert, Chile - Matteo Omied
    (Matteo Omied is not the photographer, because that's Babak A. Tafreshi. Matteo is just the image scraper. At least he's honest about it in his caption. He has 400.000 images on Alamy)
     
     

    Nice money if you can get it - selling other peoples photos that are freely available elsewhere. I shouldn’t think it helps Alamy’s reputation.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  14. 17 hours ago, Nodvandigtid said:

    Will that was the week that was, although I still find it a tad ironic that the topic above this thread for the majority of the last six days is entitled "The importance of being accurate with marking images as “Exclusive to Alamy.”!

     

    I logged in last Monday, 13 years to the day that I joined Alamy. Above the dashboard sat an ominous warning that a new contributor contract would be coming into force from July 2021. I read Emily Shelley's words about why the change to commission was, in her eyes, necessary along with the comments on exclusivity and the and the new infringement team.

     

    In a former life, I worked for a company that derived its income through agents/intermediaries.30% of the agents supplied roughly 70% of the business and of course the other 70% of the agents only supplied 30% of the income. Filter in costs, upkeep etc and it was obvious what had to happen and it did,

     

    It is a similar position that most contributors here on the forums now find themselves in. Whenever Alamy backtracked on the commission cut to 40% in return for being exclusive at 50%, one of the questions I asked James West, was that would he confirm that all contributors regardless of size would have their commission reduced to 40%. (the original proposal). For obvious reasons it was the only one of the questions he didn't answer when he replied to me.

     

    There is an old saying; “if it smells like b******* then it is b*******” and Emily Shelly's message made it clear to me that the new PA/Alamy outfit does not have a positive outcome for individual contributors going forward. To compare the initial trading period of this year with the start of the pandemic last year and and pronounce a wonderful 45% growth figure really is an insult to most people's intelligence.

     

    To then rub further salt into the wound, when a great number of us spent hours and hours going through and checking that our images were in fact exclusive by saying that a “significant minority” (what exactly does that mean in real numbers?) had images which weren't exclusive shows a lack of leadership because the offenders could easily have been dealt with.

     

    The smoke though began to thicken whenever it it became clear that the new “infringement team” would be chasing only exclusive images, and of course there was no detail on what ultimately you or I, the contributor, could expect to get. Many of you have pointed out that this is likely to be similarly cloaked as the “DACS” system administered by Alamy - where we have no idea of the true value of the payments that Alamy may collect on our behalf in relation to what is ultimately paid out to us.

     

    I would say it's fair comment that this infringement team will be pushing hard to get as much as they can (the parties to the deal – the rights chasing company and Alamy will set an incentivised contract aiming for that) and a small residue, possibly no more than on a normal licence fee after commission, will be made available to contributors.

     

    When you see, as revealed on this thread by PA/Alamy, the small proportion of overall images that are actually marked as “exclusive” with Alamy, any plans for exclusiveness to benefit both PA/Alamy and contributors is a long way off, meantime it's about squeezing as much money out of images marked as exclusive..

     

    I joined Alamy in 2008, I struggled in the early years with software, but since 2015, I have put extensive hours time and resources into building up a portfolio of just over 17000 images. At that time I started keeping tabs on this forum, and watched the likes off Sally Anderson (well done Sally – a prodigious output with growing sales) and Andy Gibson (living in the wonderful world of West Cork, a man selling Live News in increasing volumes via Alamy) start pushing their work through Alamy.

     

    And the reality as has been clearly said on these forums is you need to be uploading regularly to make sales. In the last few years, I have earned enough to mean my average over the full 13 years of contributing is safely above the $250 figure, however there is not a snowball in hell's chance of me getting anyone here $25,000.

     

    Would my collection be missed? Well the answer to that in the context of PA/Alamy's plans would be an obvious “No” (although some buyers might wonder where I have gone before commercial amnesia would set it in).

     

    You will all have seen that PA/Alamy has sucked in a huge range of images from PA Media, Thomson Reuters, the Independent, and others.

     

    I often wondered what PA Media paid for Alamy - please don't go to the end just yet - and whether or not what PA Media was in fact a suitable suitor for Alamy. The answer as far as the individual contributor is concerned is probably going to be “no“ over the next few years, and in fairness if any of us were sitting as the managing director of PA/Alamy and had access to the relevant data then we might come up with a similar conclusion on the way forward. That of course depends as well on what your future strategy for the business is is, and clearly agencies, (despite a small few uploading some dross, low quality images, uploaded without relevant keywords and impunity), many of whom are “connected” to PA Media will rule the day.

     

    It suits both PA/Alamy and PA Media partners to get the highest rate of commission, and for the rest of us to continue perhaps staying on at a lower 40%, until the next commission cut comes along.

     

    The Chief Executive of PA Media Group Limited is Clive Marshall, you may want to write to him as well, but for example, included in the 27 shareholders that own PA Media, are Century Newspapers Limited, Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail, Daily Mail and General Holdings, Trinity Mirror PLC, The Irish Times, DC Thomson and Co Ltd, and Guardian Media Group PLC – a formidable bunch of businesses.

     

    Can PA Media's purchase of Alamy mean that it can continue to pay the highest rate to many of its related or associated companies? I also suspect that the purchase was to enable PA Media etc to benefit the greatest from pushing out images to different international markets that they had not previously great access to.

     

    I could live with 40% commission if push came to shove, but what I cannot live with are the onerous terms and conditions that will be part of the the contributor contract from July.

    As many of you have pointed out there are inaccuracies in there, some of you have referred to “contra proferentem” where if there is a dispute between the contract parties regarding wording interpretation, that it goes against the party who drafted it.

     

    However that is definitely something that none of us should rely on; any legal action is expensive, and you or I have to weigh up the risk of that happening and if it does the financial implications and other implications under the terms of the contract.

     

    In that former life, I had some dealing with indemnity clauses and legal liabilities, and I am glad to see that Keith Douglas for one has highlighted the the indemnity clause number 5, Look at the amount of additional liabilities imposed on the contributor.

     

    Hold harmless agreements are nothing new, but the extent of them can vary, I have always checked the contributor contract at each update to know what the risk to me is is. Before you get into all the other problems regarding licensing exclusivity, model releases, and everything else, I do feel you really need to look at clause 5 and see whether or not you are prepared to live with that.

     

    This is a kind of clause I would have seen many years ago where basically all the onus is put on to to the party signing up to the contract, There are other more acceptable versions used, where, for example, PA/Alamy would be responsible for the problems it causes, and you are I would be responsible for what we caused as contributors, and that is something which would be more amenable to most people.

     

    I feel the new clauses shift a huge burden (including things well beyond the control of the contributor) onto the contributor. I suspect the practical reason for this is simply down to whoever reviewed the contract doing what I would term as “a belt and braces job” to make sure that they are protecting PA/Alamy to the fullest extent.

     

    You will have seen in at least one of the PA/Alamy replies about what the intention of some clauses are (from a PA/Alamy perspective). The intention is irrelevant; unless you have personally got a written agreement or side contract making it clear that you are not responsible for certain things, then if a case goes to court you are bound by the terms of the contract and the way that they will be interpreted by a judge.

     

    Quite simply the the financial implications of that are hugely worrying. PA/Alamy having paid their legal team to to devise these “new” terms and revise the contract, will not be back tracking on it,

     

    The agencies, or most of them, will be able to pay for the relevant level of risk mitigation via insurance (professional Indemnity or legal expenses) and in some cases the agency will have the financial resources to more than easily cover it.

     

    I cannot see the contract being changed so it looks like I am heading out an exit door soon, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions on the forum of the last number of years. Although I haven't posted, I have been on several times daily and I've got to know a great deal about many of you and found your experience and information provided helpful, I wish all of you well in the future.

     

    In relation to my earlier question about how much PA Media paid for Alamy, here's an extract from the PA Media Group accounts up to the 31 December 2019.

     

    In February 2020, the Group purchased 100% of the share capital in Alamy Limited, a provider of stock images. Cash consideration paid on acquisition was £32.6m. Deferred consideration of £9.2m to be paid in February 2021 and £4.6m to be paid in February 2022”

     

    Sleep well Messrs West and Fischer.



     

    I would like to echo the comments others have made about this being a well thought out and articulate post. Gives a lot of food for thought. And I am honoured to have the special mention, too. Given I do a lot of news, my portfolio has grown quickly, but it is now time to give it a severe cull, especially the early photos when I knew less than I do now.

  15. 5 minutes ago, Ollie said:

    Among the most appalling provisions in the new contract is para 7.1:  Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.

     

    In other words, if Alamy or its Distributor allows an image to be licensed for commercial use when it was designated for Editorial use only, and then gets sued, it will not be held liable for its own mistakes.

     

    We are repeatedly asked to warrant that we will hold Alamy harmless for any offensive use of an image by a customer over whom we have no control.  Even if we have committed no error, if someone initiates legal action because of offensive use of an image it will be costly to prove our own innocence.

     

    It is hard to imagine how one can continue to be part of an organization that seeks to evade all responsibility and, moreover, shifts any negative financial consequences to the contributors who provide the lifeblood of the organization. 

    While I agree in general with your sentiments, to be fair this clause isn’t a new one. It is in the current contract.

    https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.aspx

    • Upvote 2
  16. The issue of flagrant misuse of exclusivity as an argument for Alamy to change commission rates seems to be a complete red herring. They say that there are 17 million images marked as exclusive out of a total of 255 million. That is approximately 6%. Those that are incorrectly marked as exclusive must be a much much smaller proportion.

     

    I hope that all contributors here recognise the implications of marking images as exclusive. No benefit in terms of commission (unless you are a Platinum contributor) and giving Alamy the right to chase your clients to whom you have licensed directly without asking you first.

    • Upvote 3
×
×
  • 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.