Jump to content

meanderingemu

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,965
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by meanderingemu

  1. 1 minute ago, Michael Ventura said:

    So this guy, now in his 30's, just now says he was traumatized by the photo use.  However, he liked it enough that he got a large tattoo across his chest with the word, "Nevermind", inked in the same font as the album cover and he has done reenactment photo shoots, to mimic the original cover.  Also, in the U.S., a photo of a naked baby isn't considered child pornography unless it is obviously sexualized.  This is according to a radio program I was listening to yesterday.  The lawyer for this man is saying that the money on the fishhook is what makes it sexualized.  It may not go far in the court but then it could be settled out of court. It will be interesting to see how this all ends up.

     

     

    i still want the owner of the Album art to sue the guy for copyright misuse for any money he earned from images featuring the Nevermind tattoo. 

  2. Alamy specifies that if an image is relatively similar to an image that is submitted RF elsewhere it should be submitted RF at Alamy, they however do not address the issue of Image vs Video where I guess a still could be extracted.  As Joseph says this is pointy enough a question, that is likely something that needs to be questioned with CR. 

     

    that said, at this point there doesn't seem to be much impact if going RF vs RM with Alamy nowadays, so I would probably make RF on Alamy, and exclusive vs non-ex is a non issue for most

    • Like 1
  3. 32 minutes ago, FocusUno said:

    If willing, kicked out of?  Reason?

    Or denied first-time access?

    Some of us with recent first-time access

    want to know what NOT to do...

     

    Wednesday Morning GIF by ViralHog

     

    denied first time told to continue submit marginal international news subject as Live News, which seems weird for Alamy when they said their rising cost was an issue. 

     

    Probably my fault, I expected showing a record of sales of these images on the stock side would be enough of a business case, but it seems not. 

  4. 23 minutes ago, Alamy said:

     

    You're not told "go do it yourself". For the UUQ type infringements there is a queue, which means delays for you. You are therefore given the option for us not to pursue it, and then you pursue directly yourself. You can choose to do that or not.

     

    For your previous question, we can't share that data publicly for obvious reasons (no business would) and this is a newly formed team. 

     

    Broadly speaking though, we are currently processing several thousand cases, expect this to grow significantly and typically have a starting point fee of around 5x the regular licence (as per our EULA) but many factors go into that on a case by case basis ranging from number of images, type of use and how far down the legal process things get to. 

     

    Hopefully we'll be able to indicate within contributor accounts that the sales come from the infringement process as this will make things clearer, but this is TBC for now.

     

    James A

     

     

    i guess we will have to see, but i guess being told as first response to go handle it yourself, or just wait because your case is not important enough,  less than one month after implementation of a contract that forces us to go to Alamy first (before we only had to do it for clients, which someone who stole isn't) and with a clear statement that pursuing infringement cases  was one of the significant reason for the commission reduction (23% on my most recent licence) does leave a bit of bad taste, especially with no visible gains to date. 

     

    I do look forward to further communication on the matter, maybe another subject for a blog post on the working of the team. 

     

     

    • Upvote 4
  5. 1 hour ago, Alamy said:
    For clarity, there are two strands to our approach for image infringements - the proactive process and the reactive process. 
     
    Image use infringements are a reality of our industry. Sometimes the infringement will be down to a mistake an existing customer has made and sometimes it will be a literal image theft and use, often stolen from an existing legitimate use.
     
    In Q1 of this year, Alamy put together a dedicated team to proactively tackle this. We are working with multiple external infringement services to crawl the web and secure funds for images that have originated from Alamy but have not been paid for. After the infringement service take their cut, we split the remainder with you according to your commission model. For these usages, we are prioritising images that are marked as exclusive to Alamy. We have very positive expectations of this team and have invested in it already and will continue to build it out. The process cycle is beginning to bear fruit now and we believe this will be a great source of revenue for our contributors over the coming years as we grow the service. 
     
     
    James A
    Head of Content

     

     

    would you be able to share some data on this?

     

    Case numbers

    Proportion excess recuperated by contributor over just the basic licence fee had the culprit not stolen image.

     

     

     

      

    The new contract clearly states this is the only first line option available to contributors, so to be told "go do it yourself" or even in rare cases reported gone through only seeing normal licence fee is just extra burden on the contributor, at a cost of 20% to us, in exchange for no gain. 

     

     

     

     

    • Upvote 5
  6. funny how i got upset with the new contract, but never got to the point of being mad like some of the older contributors, just being defeated, up to this week.  the total abandonment of semblance of  partnership i have felt over the last couple of weeks finally got me on the mad side. i'll get over it, but in the end we all lose. 

    • Upvote 2
  7. 6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

    "We're taking 20% of your income, cutting our prices, introducing perpetual licences and increasing your risk of litigation, and in exchange we'll pursue infringements if we feel like it."

    Have I got that right?

     

     

    i think "if we feel like it" is actually generous.  it more "if it's an easy one you could have easily done yourself, In which case we will likely only charge normal licence price, for all other we will decline getting involved  but still keep your 20%+". 

  8. 20 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

     

     

    "Just so you’re aware our infringement team have a backlog at the moment, so you can chase this case yourself if you wish. Would you still like us to pass it over to the team?"

     

     

     

     

    i replied, that no, since I guess away 20% of my earnings for this team, i do not wish to pursue it myself.  

     

     

    and as expected: "We will do nothing at this time about the flagrant theft of your image from our databank (watermark included, so also theft of Alamy), and we decline to protect your rights"... you paid 20% of your overall earnings for us to go just after the low lying fruits, and in most case just turn back and say you do it. 

     

    yep, I don't think the Alamy team wants to meet me currently. 

    • Upvote 2
  9. 28 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

     

    When I was kicked out of live news I was given reportage as a concilation. couple of years ago so criteria may be different.  The way of the alamy is a confusing one...

     

    i didn't get access when i was kicked off.  later i was reinstated,  so this is good.   but i have plenty of subjects where i feel self conscious using LN,  plus rushing one hour is unproductive  because they have little interest for UK based papers,  but i still want to upload them but would be worried to put many through QC.  do they will be on the feed.  

  10. 10 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

     

     

     

    I've had one of those as well.  Miffed!

     

    same.  so this week i've been denied access to Reportage, even though this is about 20% of my licences (fine i'll continue using Live News, even for no interest to UK based medias subject), and told go do your own infringement.    Not a good contributor experience, not sure the Alamy team wants to meet me currently. 

    • Haha 2
  11. 19 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

    I'd rather meet the infringement team!

     

     

    "Just so you’re aware our infringement team have a backlog at the moment, so you can chase this case yourself if you wish. Would you still like us to pass it over to the team?"

     

     

     

     

    i replied, that no, since I guess away 20% of my earnings for this team, i do not wish to pursue it myself.  

    • Haha 1
    • Sad 2
    • Upvote 1
  12. a second sale for month PU, another Affiliate sale, interesting i had never had one before, now twice is same month. 

     

    One thing that baffles me, Affiliates commission is to recognise the effort of a third party, in selling Alamy's product, so why did Alamy have to DISCOUNT the Prices by 44% in first place? What did the Affiliate bring, if you need to do such a deep discount????

     

    so in the end i get 14% from list price. 40% is bad enough, 34% is hard but if it was to reach hard to get clients ok, but this is really bad. 

  13. 1 hour ago, Alex Ramsay said:

    And to make things a little more discouraging, just had a $91 sale from June refunded, then re-sold for $90, but this time with 60% commission deducted instead of the original 50% . . .

     

    Ask them to justify why the sales date was changed.  In other communication they have clearly stated that the day they are informed of the download is sales date for commission purpose,

     

    10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

    I would be kicking up a stink about that- seems like a breach of contract. Surely the original terms should apply to a refind.

     

    it's one of the big issue of the contract, which they never addressed, "Sale date" is not defined,  So Alamy takes positions to change the definition based on what serves their goal, this would actually be the 3rd different definition used in the last month. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  14. 27 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

    I even think it might be relevant, below the unsettling video clips the home page looks very dated, squeezed into a narrow band in the centre of the screen, surely they could do better than this. Inviting it isn't.

     

     

    i am really worried about Alamy client facing decisions.  I tried to improved the Live News feed, by asking to be able to upload my more regional stuff, which represent 20% of my licenses, to reportage instead am literally told No. So since half i wouldn't be comfortable uploading as stock without the warning of may include imperfection, I have to continue using the more labour intensive for Alamy, Live News, building up the feed for items that have likely no interest to that client base. 

  15. ah the irony,  after a drought this is first sale under the new contract where "exclusive" means nothing.  This is the actual image I got ruling from Alamy on this forum as to the definition of exclusive vs one taken a couple seconds later without the passerby's look, ruled it was exclusive.

     

    To make it worse, Affiliate so left with 34% (so drop of 22% from prior contract)

    Low-mid $$, 

    Affiliate Sale; Country: Worldwide ; Usage: Commercial electronic ;  Media: Website, app and social media ;  Start: 23-August-2021 ; End: 23-August-2026   

     

     

     

    father-christmas-and-a-female-elf-walking-away-hand-in-hand-getting-look-from-passer-by-on-london-street-2A9C12R.jpg

    • Sad 2
    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • 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.