Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by meanderingemu

  1. 7 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

    Really? In contravention of the terms of the contract?




    big issue the contract does not define when a sale happens, and Alamy uses two different definitions based on what purpose they need to be, so maybe not in contravention to the terms of the contract, since they left the terms silent, but that doesn't mean it is an acceptable business practice.  

  2. 2 hours ago, Martin L said:


    Some people I think use the red arrows for a different purpose, in this instance they are probably disagreeing with Alamy's protracted procedure of payment rather than Betty's reply and explanation.


    (I gave her a like to balance it up)


    probably right, or maybe fact we don't even get paid when customer pays as stated, since Alamy also holds money for over 45 days before even considering paying us, so in average we only get paid 60 days AFTER the client has paid, so 2 months. 


    but yeah, the issue is with Alamy

  3. 3 hours ago, woofit said:

    I have just received a reply from Alamy:


    Customers can report uses up to 2 years after the initial download, which is why we have to honour these licences.


    I'm staggered with that statement to be honest, I can find nothing anywhere which says that even if you opt out of distribution, any photos that have been downloaded by the Distributor prior to your opt out, can be used up to 2 years later!! None of us know which photos have been "downloaded" by a Distributor as Alamy is not exactly forthcoming with that information, plus of course you have no idea when they were downloaded in any case.


    I really don't know what to say to be honest, except that it's not the way I would do business if I want to keep a Supplier happy. It also opens up an awful lot of questions regarding the changing of the contract versus the invoice timing which "meanderingemu" has alluded to in his comments. At the very least Alamy should state before you even enter into the Distribution that this could happen. I feel they have been economical with the truth here at the very least and people should be warned that opting out of distribution does not happen immediately (which I can accept if we are talking about 3 months or so to pull the photos from the various Distributors, but 2 years....Come on!!



    time delay in reporting of a sale was always a fact, the fact Alamy is not using the date of sale as the date of sale is a big issue.  Sadly they know the amounts involved likely wouldn't justify challenging it.  


  4. 22 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

    I suggest Alamy need to clarify this. What date is used for calculating our commission? Date of invoice? Date of download (which we can only guess at). Date of publication?

    If sales are being reported on images which were removed from sale (either deleted or restrictions changed) before the new contract came into force, then the terms of the previous contract (e.g. commission rate) should surely apply?




    thinking further this likely means people who actually stuck with Alamy are now being treated inferior to those that left.  An early July sale (based on date of download), will be compensated at 50% for someone who left, and 40% for those who stayed.  Nice way to reward your loyal Partners. 

  5. 21 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

    I suggest Alamy need to clarify this. What date is used for calculating our commission? Date of invoice? Date of download (which we can only guess at). Date of publication?

    If sales are being reported on images which were removed from sale (either deleted or restrictions changed) before the new contract came into force, then the terms of the previous contract (e.g. commission rate) should surely apply?




    they should  have ONE definition for all cases, not just for special cases, not change based on what suits their argument:


    for commission basis: Latest date possible- ie when they report it

    for allowing client to purchase: Earliest date possible- when client downloaded it

    for establishing contributor level: not defined yet. 



    note 1: date of sale is actually Not defined in the contract

    • Upvote 1
  6. 1 hour ago, woofit said:

    I have just had 4 piddly single figure Distributor sales on the 5th August, even though I had opted out on the 21st May this year. Alamy in their response said that these files had been downloaded before I had opted out....what 2.5 months earlier!! Come on Alamy thats stretching things a little !!!



    so Alamy said Sales date is based on Download date?  So they need to provide this info on every sales so we can confirm commission schedule. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  7. 5 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

    The clients are the issue, but Alamy at the very least should cancel discounts on unreported uses by their 'trusted' buyers. If they priced unreported uses by the rate card, or imposed a punishment, most of the 'forgetful' would no doubt develop a good memory quite quickly. So Alamy has some responsibility - otherwise there's an element of collusion, especially when the sales go for lower prices than would have prevailed at the time of use.

    hence the "improve security and tighten controls"

  8. 6 hours ago, JSaunders said:

    True enough, all things are possible. But if I was buying an image and I had two possibilities in mind and I liked one a little more but it was marked editorial only and I knew I was going to have to write an email or make a phone call, and not 100% sure of the result, and I had another one all ready to purchase, I think I might opt for the second choice, unless the first one was really unique and outstanding. Just saying.

    my image was extremely marginal with 4 pages of results that would fit the subject, i also had another one of the same subject without the restriction, so not sure. Don't forget all the other had property no matter what, so the client had work to do to use commercially regardless of annotation.  

    • Upvote 1
  9. 11 minutes ago, ciasralbael said:




    I always thought we could trust stock photography agencies like Alamy but apparently not.


    If i want my photos to be use without being paid for i will put them on websites like Facebook, Instagram, Pexels or UNSPLASH...



    not sure i understand, why if people steal from Alamy, and us, does it make Alamy untrustworthy?  Yes they could improve security, and tighten controls, but the clients seem to be the issue here.  

  10. 6 minutes ago, gvallee said:


    Very true Steve, very wise. I realised that when I opted out but psychologically it made me feel a little better to take some action. 


    Some blatently dishonest PUs just sent me over the edge. I was contacted directly by the Council of the little town I lived in in Hampshire. They said they saw my pix on Alamy, would I like to sell them direct. Not wanting to be bothered, I declined and told them to go through Alamy. Next were 4 PU sales of my village. I reported it to Alamy. What happened next? 2 PU sales were cancelled and the remaining 2 adjusted to real use. From the Council !! Any idea what my Council tax were every month? Nuff said.




    and again a failure from Alamy.  Their is no impact on customers for cheating.  Could you imagine going to a store, changing the price on labels and the only potential risk is if later they find out your fraud you can return the article, or just pay the difference if caught. 

    • Upvote 3
  11. Anyone else not working today again?  i guess when moving over to the new internal system, some older dormant code was mistakenly reinstated which resulted in measures not being calculated like before they were introduced this morning. 

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1
  12. 2 hours ago, Steve F said:





    'Editorial only', if you correctly fill out whether or not there are people/property in your images, and whether you have a model release if you do confirm that there are people/property in your picture, you don't need to mark the 'editorial only' box. Anyone doing this is basically just emphasising the same thing again - being extra cautious, or trying to preempt a speculative possible future rule change from Alamy.


    if it's an indication for Live News Alamy does it automatically, so this seems to be a type of image they feel should have the notice "editorial only"

  13. 2 hours ago, JSaunders said:

    Hi there. I joined Alamy in 2018. When the new contract recently came out I did my best to read all the relevant posts and to understand what it all meant. I took most of my photos off exclusive to Alamy and I also marked any that had any property or people for which I have no release as "for Editorial only," because I thought that I had to do that. I would prefer to not have to mark them that way as I believe it limits sales. 



    as for limiting sales, we have plenty of examples of cases where the contributor was approached to remove the limitation.  My biggest licensed this year  was such a case, and it allowed me to have in writing the intent of the client to remove the obvious branding, get the Alamy CR to put in writing she had no concerns, so it was additional protection for me.  I guess the issue is i am not sure how long the client would have waited had I been on a 2 weeks back-country hike.   



    personally i tend to put "editorial only" on images that have art work included, depicts clear identifiable people and some images i have no idea why anyone would want for commercial reason, though as I saw above that one can be borderline. 

    • Upvote 2
  • 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.