Jump to content

meanderingemu

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,996
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by meanderingemu

  1. isn't the important fact the ones that ARE included and recognised? Having a word that has no impact will not affect your results, like being excluded because you didn't include "ON" or "IN"?
  2. i actually think even a company that cares about it's reputation would do it, even without caring about their "partners".
  3. not sure i understand. The new image is the one for sale, and the old one isn't, so in the database it is replaced from a clients perspective, by opposition to both being available. Also the process now allows Alamy to redirect a potential client who would be searching for the original image if they contact them.
  4. if you had deleted it, it would still have been on sale for 90 days if it was already up for sale, this is what having Alamy remove it avoids.
  5. plenty of posts on the forums of amount way lower than that. I think the reported record is 8 cents if I remember well. and these were reported prior to the contract changes and have been a reality for over a year i think
  6. 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.
  7. see i think that's a sad news to be honest, that we are in a society where people are actually aroused by that. there should not be anything sexual about that image. but based on the fact it is, yes i agree
  8. actually suing everyone, except the guilty parties, the pimps who profited from his nudity, because they don't have money. Typical US suing environment.
  9. 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
  10. correct. this is the contract that was agreed to, actually not a new clause, was there before. By hiring Alamy as your agent, you have given them total power in determining what fee is appropriate, and even more what discount they can give. Such is the reality
  11. 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.
  12. 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 communicatio
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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%+".
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. "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.
  20. Probably why the higher variability. It probably is affected by other bumping in front of you. When i hit the QC queue, as 5 star, I have rarely had to wait more than one business day UK time.
  21. I found one of mine, with credit to boot, and of course Alamy watermark on some central american "newsy looking" site. Now see if they at least defend the obvious misuse of their name and trademark.
  22. 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.
  23. 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, 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.
×
×
  • 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.