Jump to content

Sally

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sally

  1. 2 hours ago, Sally said:

    What I would rather see Alamy spend money on is getting their reporting systems into the 21st century. I have had to email them countless times to report unreported uses, thereby making them a lot more money than they would otherwise have had. It's very time-consuming on my part to find and report these uses. For example, I was assured over a year ago that they were sorting out the fact that one of their clients has NEVER reported uses on an Instagram account. But nothing has changed......

    A red arrow for this...OK I’ll shut up.

    • Upvote 5
  2. On 20/05/2021 at 18:52, Shelly R said:

    Like other contributors, I've been stunned to see some of my RM images getting sold for microstock rates since January '21 -- multiple travel images from Puerto Vallarta going for 25 cents a piece (before income taxes of 30%, dear Alamy), which is not what I ever realized was possible when I signed up for the "Novel Use" scheme in 2016 (and by the way the American usage of "scheme" fits here). I'm not happy with the explanation Alamy has provided (how great it is that they can find all these extra ways to license our images outside of their existing model), and I'm really concerned I can't OPT OUT of it until next April?! After all, it's May 2021. I never saw rates this low until recently, and it sounds like the same for others in the forums. If Alamy recently allowed this new all-time low on RM images, I think we should not have to wait 11 months to opt out. If I wanted to sell microstock, I would not be primarily RM and exclusive with Alamy. Can Alamy please reconsider allowing these lowball rates on our images, or at least let us opt out before next April?

    Due to the current new contract terms, as I understand it you can opt out now as the time ha been extended, so do it.

  3. 16 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

     

     

    in new contract:

     

    1. A percentage, equal to the applicable commission rate for that Content, of all amounts recovered by Alamy in connection with any claims or actions pursuant to clause 16.5 (after first deducting collection fees and reasonable legal expenses incurred by Alamy) will be paid to you.

    It's that bit that doesn't allow anyone to know what percentage they are actually getting. AFAIK other infringement services will pay you a smaller percentage if they have to take legal action, but at least you know what the actual amounts are. Otherwise, it is a straightforward split.

  4. 8 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

    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 exclusively to other more lucrative outlets first. My once exclusive material with Alamy will now be marked as non exclusive and uploaded to several agencies ... I'm in business after all and I now have to find a way to generate the 20% shortfall.

     

    Very sad day for loyal Alamy contributors.

     

     

     

    Again, unless you are a Platinum contributor, just mark all of your images non-exclusive and Alamy wont chase any possible infringements.

    • Upvote 2
  5. 1 hour ago, Alamy said:

    Can you explain the changes to 4.1.5 and 4.1.6. Isn’t the contract now very one-sided?

     

     

    4.1.5 –  This clause is intended to ensure that any prior restrictions and limitations that you place on the content are correctly disclosed and to ensure that these are accurate. It works in conjunction with the restrictions that you must supply under  4.1.10, which are automatically applied when Alamy licences Content through our website. When selling images Alamy will always respect any restrictions you place on your images and our customers are made aware of these restrictions and agree to abide by them in their terms of use. It is not in any way intended to grant Alamy the right to license content outside of those restrictions.

     

    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;

    What this means, then, is that Alamy can license however they like "except for the rights granted" by the contributor (eg can only be editorial). I think that's OK, though I know a number of people were worried about the interpretation.

     

    However, if for some reason Alamy does go beyond the rights granted, Clause 7.1 absolves them from any responsibility for selling a license outwith the restrictions imposed by the Contributor, but this isn't new. None of us have probably gone over the contract with a fine tooth comb until now. Another reason why folk may wish to opt out of Distribution.

     

    "Alamy's obligations

    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."
    • Upvote 2
  6. 2 minutes ago, AndrewP said:

    I make a few direct sales to design agencies who are working for their clients so I'll need to mark any images I've licensed to them as non exclusive. I can't have a design agency getting contacted by their client and risking my relationship with them.

    Well, unless you are earning over $25,000 gross pa with Alamy, there is no point in having any images exclusive as you wont get any more commission for them.

    • Upvote 4
  7. Still very unhappy about the commission cut. However, it's just as well that I will never get to Platinum level since there is no way I'd want Alamy Infringements team to bother people to whom I have sold a direct license with the question "Do you have a license for this use?" as there is no way to opt out of Alamy's policy to make contact without asking the contributor first. I think that will be a deal breaker for some.

     

    I'll be culling my portfolio - it needs it anyway - removing exclusivity from all my images even though 99% of them are since exclusivity has no benefit to me, and have already started the process of establishing other revenue sources. As for Live News - I may use another agency more than I do at the moment where I get way more than 50% and paid much more quickly, especially for events where I am the only photographer. Alamy's reach may be greater for news uses but it may be worth changing strategy to see what happens.

    • Upvote 6
  8. 42 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

    It needs to be stronger than that. As contributors we have little control over what the end user uses our image for, and whether that use is within the agreement that they have with Alamy or whether they decide to just ignore it. Provided that we have been accurate about Releases etc. then any problems should be directed to the publisher of the image. Alamy, as middleman, just appears to be trying to pass the buck to the photographer if the shit hits the fan. If that is what they are trying to do then I don't think I want to take that risk myself for the decreasingly small fees that each image receives.

    I await what Alamy will say about this. If the worst interpretation is correct, then it poses a significant problem for Live News photographers who gain access to places on the understanding that their images will only be used editorially. It would mean that news photos would have to be deleted on the last day in Live News before going into stock. Keeping track of that isn’t easy.

    • Upvote 2
  9. 7 minutes ago, mickfly said:

    You can do it fairly quickly by selecting multiple upload dates on the left in AIM, then ticking select all passed and removing the exclusive tick.
    If it says select first 500, just deselect a few upload dates on the left until it drops below 500, then rinse and repeat further down your upload list.

    However, surely there is no point in doing this until June 30th? Anything licensed until then that is exclusive will earn 50%.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 6
  10. 11 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

    I wouldn't base my next move only an anger and disappointment either. I've experienced both on my 'other place', from where I still earn considerably more than I do here, with 10% fewer files there.

    However, unless the clauses I have already called out - in particular:

    "4.1.5. 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;"

    and

    "4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."

    I'd base my next move on integrety and not wanting to be dragged through courts.

     

    I'm glad to see that, at last, others are looking at the changed contract clauses, not only the commission reduction for most.

     

    I await any clarification from Alamy before making any decisions however I am not hopeful that we will be any clearer. It almost feels like we ought to crowdfund our own collective legal scrutiny so those of us who decide to continue with Alamy beyond June 30th fully understand the terms of any contract changes.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3
  11. 5 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

    And 4.1.5 appears to say that Alamy can choose to ignore any restrictions we place on an image...:wacko: Or have I misunderstood...

     

    4.1.5. 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;

     

    Mark

    So, presumably that means that we can no longer restrict our portfolio to certain types of licenses such as personal use? That s a big red arrow for me if it is the case.

    • Upvote 2
  12. 2 hours ago, Simon said:

    60% of nothing or 50% of something ?

     

    As a direct result of the email yesterday, and no one getting in touch with me to confirm my rate despite my contacting them, I uploaded a handful of news / weather pics to other agencies today.  I've allready had one use on line in the Sun.  It seems fairly simple to me, Alamy can either have 60% of nothing, or 50% of something. Tomorrow I've got another great shooting opportunity which is going to go elsewhere.

    Feeling very much the same, especially when it is a shoot I have exclusive photos of. I won’t change anything this month as live news will be reported in June within the current contract. After that, it may be different.

  13. 5 hours ago, Lynne said:

    Hi Bryan, just a note to say I don't blame you at all! I would like, however, to record my thanks for all the hours of unpaid work you and others have put in, over the years, which has helped other contributors enormously and made the old Alamy community what it was. 

     

    Enjoy your days away in the caravan 

     

    Seconded! Above and beyond the call....

    • Like 1
  14. 42 minutes ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

     

    Are you serious? Can I not just write to them to terminate my permission?

    Nope, I too was annoyed to discover that I had apparently signed up to Alamy collecting DACS for me without knowing about it (not having understood or read the small print of the contract) which is the only option for contributors since around 2016 or whenever they gave existing ones the option to opt in or out. However it is possible that Alamy collects more than I would be able to do myself, but annoying that we don’t know what commission they are taking.

  15. 1 hour ago, wilkopix said:

    That's a very good point.

    Luckily a large proportion of mine are keyworded before submission but still well worth downloading the file.

    This is no problem if you use Alamy Lightroom Bridge, which I keep blaming on about but few people seem to use. It will download all captions and keywords automatically once you’ve matched the images in Lightroom to those on Alamy.

    • Upvote 4
  16. I was perfectly happy with Alamy as my only stock library outlet. Not any more. This feels like a kick in the teeth and I’m not happy with some of the other clauses. 
     

    As a relative newbie and a live news contributor, my gross sales have increased 50% year on year to over $10,000 in 2020. You’d have thought that Alamy would like to encourage someone like me. The $25,000 limit, as so many others have said, is completely ridiculous. 
     

    I will certainly be reconsidering my options.

    • Upvote 3
  17. 6 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

     

     

    New Clause:

     

     

    2.10. By marking Content as Exclusive, you grant Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. Where pursuing such infringements if it is found that the Content has been licensed through another licensing platform, Alamy has the right to recoup any fees incurred in the pursuit of any action taken.

     

     

     

    Wait, didn't we just make this election a couple of weeks ago and were allowed to opt in/out?  Now it's mandatory (or just remove "exclusive") 

     

    This makes no sense to me - we can mark something as exclusive even if we sell directly through our own websites. I don't want Alamy chasing someone I have sold a license to directly without consulting me first, which is why I responded as such when that recent email was sent out. Some clarification is needed please.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  18. Difficult to tell what kind of website that is. If you alert Alamy to it they will let you know if it something that they can chase up. If it’s a blog site then Alamy or any other infringement service is unlikely to chase it but you can do so yourself if you wish. 

×
×
  • 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.