Commission change - James West comments

[Walrus]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Two reports of long unreported licenses/downloads just from readers of this forum thread alone in last hour or so.  If thats extrapolated that to the some 70,000 Alamy contributors and  155 million images the possible magnitude of unreported and unbilled licenses and downloads the lost resulting income could be mind-boggling.  Alamy probably has no clue as to the true extent of the problem if their current system is allowing the situation to exist and not tracking downloads and licenses, etc. for payment.

 

Alamy's stock answer is they have staff who look for infringements. I cannot see how 5--10 can outperform, say, 35,000 active photographers out of 70,000 if only they had one tiny bit of information: publisher: Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, etc; licence: DDMMYY. If this area was addressed, it would boost income for both parties, and put infringers on notice (i.e., by Alamy taking the infringer to court and if that's not legally possible, then setting up a fund that the photographer can apply to use).

 

While the commission is still one of the best, the dive in prices from £250 to £2.50 is the real culprit. Commissions I have earned this year:

 

$10.40

$11.72

$11.12

$13.54

$13.30

$20.74

$8.58

$10.30

$10.30

$19.31

$8.97

 

A few selling for $30--60, but then some as low as $5.05. Not enough to buy a decent lunch, or two. 

[Rico]

44 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Two reports of long unreported licenses/downloads just from readers of this forum thread alone in last hour or so.  If thats extrapolated to the some 70,000 Alamy contributors and  155 million images the possible magnitude of unreported and unbilled licenses and downloads the lost resulting income could be mind-boggling.  Alamy probably has no clue as to the true extent of the problem if their current system is allowing the situation to exist and not tracking downloads and licenses, etc. for payment.

 

9 minutes ago, Walrus said:

 

Alamy's stock answer is they have staff who look for infringements. I cannot see how 5--10 can outperform, say, 35,000 active photographers out of 70,000 if only they had one tiny bit of information: publisher: Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, etc; licence: DDMMYY. If this area was addressed, it would boost income for both parties, and put infringers on notice (i.e., by Alamy taking the infringer to court and if that's not legally possible, then setting up a fund that the photographer can apply to use).

 

 

I'm not sure that this case was an infringement.

The photo was accredited to myself and Alamy. It's more likely that this just wasn't  billed.

I would like to hear Alamy's excuse for this, considering the 20% haircut we are about to take

But I'm not holding my breath

[Walrus]

3 minutes ago, Rico said:

 

I'm not sure that this case was an infringement.

 

My comment wasn't about a specific image but more general based on my experience.

 

If an image is published and credited, as was mine, hence why it was discovered, and not paid, it's an infringement by any name.

[Phil]

8 minutes ago, Walrus said:

 

Alamy's stock answer is they have staff who look for infringements. I cannot see how 5--10 can outperform, say, 35,000 active photographers out of 70,000 if only they had one tiny bit of information: publisher: Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, etc; licence: DDMMYY. If this area was addressed, it would boost income for both parties, and put infringers on notice (i.e., by Alamy taking the infringer to court and if that's not legally possible, then setting up a fund that the photographer can apply to use).

 

Looking for infringements is a band-aid.

 

Chasing infringers should be a secondary adjunct to their business systems that invoice and track/report and bill their accounts receivable with account aging etc. based on image licenses/downloads etc.    If the emphasis is trying to find infringers they are chasing horses already escaped from their barn and hiding who knows where.  I'm certainly not an accountant but If their invoicing / accounts receivable business systems are inadequate and losing Alamy and suppliers perhaps big $$ in lost revenues then thats a big problem IMO.  

 

 

 

 

[Grethe]

Hi Phil, Rico and Alamy,

when recently asking about a use in Finland in May 2018 I got a quick response from the ever friendly customer service that there has been a relevant download!!  Alamys database registers downloads (here via a distributor), but they evidently do not compare this to their list of sold or billed items. It must be possible use these two lists to automate a prosedure where  e-mails are sent to buyers/distributors at intervals to collect if the images have been used and not paid, and easy for buyers to answer if they have not used the downloads.

 

Had the same experience in Sweden last year and opted out of distribution there.

 

If images are sold via distributors Alamy should in my opinion bill them at once. If distributors want to extend credit to their customers they should do so at their own risk, not Alamys or ours.

 

If Alamy really wants to grow internationally sales must be followed up internationally. 

 

Grethe

[Shergar]

Kind of hard to feel part of a team that you know will score a deliberate own goal at any moment !!!!!

 

 

Cheers and gone

 

Shergar 

[Reimar]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

Dont get me wrong I am keeping an open mind - and the email response mentioned above suggested (no more than that) there are more specific details to come - if that is the case I will peruse them when they come and, if I feel its called for, adjust my workflow again.
In the meantime, my bottom line is my bottom line - and I am going to be looking at where I am making the most money

Could you share the hint hint nudge nudge quote?  Cheers.

[Starsphinx]

Look me up on Twitter - I have my twitter as  as my location if you look to the left

[baggers]

This worth reading.... https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/photographers-urge-photo-wire-service-alamy-to-reconsider-cutting-commission-down-to-40-per-cent/?fbclid=IwAR3OV7x7z7JeJ2srfro00emNqY5Jg2fkDQFEuH6tO6EIkswXFiDgpv4iBi8

[Gina Kelly]

Thanks for sharing that article Baggers. I really hope Alamy will take the advice of the BPPA and continue 50/50 with existing photographers and only apply the 60/40 to new contributors. 

[Joe Gaul]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

Look me up on Twitter - I have my twitter as  as my location if you look to the left

Could only find football stuff, and as I'm originally from Newcastle I no longer have any interest. Unfortunately alamy is now the Mike Ashley of stock.

[John Mitchell]

27 minutes ago, Gina Kelly said:

Thanks for sharing that article Baggers. I really hope Alamy will take the advice of the BPPA and continue 50/50 with existing photographers and only apply the 60/40 to new contributors. 

 

I too hope that Alamy decides to continue the fair 50/50 split. However, wouldn't bringing in new contributors at 40% create a rift between old and new contributors? It also might discourage new people from signing up, which wouldn't make Alamy happy. This arrangement would only work if there were a way for new contributors to eventually earn 50% commission.

[Martin P Wilson]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

Looking for infringements is a band-aid.

 

Chasing infringers should be a secondary adjunct to their business systems that invoice and track/report and bill their accounts receivable with account aging etc. based on image licenses/downloads etc.    If the emphasis is trying to find infringers they are chasing horses already escaped from their barn and hiding who knows where.  I'm certainly not an accountant but If their invoicing / accounts receivable business systems are inadequate and losing Alamy and suppliers perhaps big $$ in lost revenues then thats a big problem IMO.  

 

 

 

 

 

There are photographers I know who make significant additional income from pursuing infringements and charging full whack (calculator), plus more for especially flagrant abuse or punitive damages if image is in USA and the infringment takes place there.

 

Why can't Alamy? It surely has the scale to partner on beneficial terms with ImageRights or similar recovery organisations with worldwide legal reach.

[Starsphinx]

1 hour ago, Joe Gaul said:

Could only find football stuff, and as I'm originally from Newcastle I no longer have any interest. Unfortunately alamy is now the Mike Ashley of stock.

That is my website - my twitter account has a pinned tweet welcoming visitors from Alamy.

 

[losdemas]

48 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

There are photographers I know who make significant additional income from pursuing infringements and charging full whack (calculator), plus more for especially flagrant abuse or punitive damages if image is in USA and the infringment takes place there.

 

Why can't Alamy? It surely has the scale to partner on beneficial terms with ImageRights or similar recovery organisations with worldwide legal reach.

 

I'm with you on this. However, I can't see it happening as it would involve ensuring that the photographer had not posted the image elsewhere. Perhaps this is an additional reason for encouraging togs to submit uniquely to Alamy? Even in that scenario though, it would involve additional involvement between Alamy and tog, something which they have proven that they're not keen on. They seem to view that as an additional, unnecessary expense, rather than an opportunity. 

 

Currently, even when offered all the information to show flagrant abuse of licensing terms, they can often give up and roll over at the slightest sign of reluctance by the infringer to play ball. Even a simple failure to respond to emails, and the 'infringement team' (joke)  will give up. On occasion, it can take more than a year, just to have Alamy say that, sorry, we can't pursue this. REALLY?  Why bother licensing at any rate higher than PU, then? Clearly, this is infuriating for us, but do Alamy not realise that it must also irk buyers, who will ask themselves why they are paying more than others?  It merely encourages further infringements from others who might otherwise have been good, solid customers. By continued lack of action, Alamy are confirming to the contributor that they don't care and to the buyer, that it's OK, we won't chase you, you can get away with what you damned well like. 

 

Infringements should be dealt with promptly and firmly. James likes to talk about the long term - if this problem isn't dealt with, there will be no long term, as contributors will not wish to continue submitting to a library who seek to sell at the lowest price for the lowest commission possible and then happily accept open theft of those images with zero recrimination - and good customers (understanding what is going on) will push prices even lower. 

[Reimar]

2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

Look me up on Twitter - I have my twitter as  as my location if you look to the left

I'm going to need more breadcrumbs.

[Reimar]

33 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

That is my website - my twitter account has a pinned tweet welcoming visitors from Alamy.

 

I guess you have to sign up to twitter to see it.  I don't want to sign up. I don't see it.

[Starsphinx]

Then I guess it is
time
to start quoting Shakespeare

 

To die, to sleep – to sleep, perchance to *****

[John Mitchell]

7 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Then I guess it is
time
to start quoting Shakespeare

 

To die, to sleep – to sleep, perchance to *****

 

Methinks thou hast forgotten the rest:

 

"Ay, there’s the rub.

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come”

[KevinS]

15 minutes ago, losdemas said:

 

I'm with you on this. However, I can't see it happening as it would involve ensuring that the photographer had not posted the image elsewhere. Perhaps this is an additional reason for encouraging togs to submit uniquely to Alamy? Even in that scenario though, it would involve additional involvement between Alamy and tog, something which they have proven that they're not keen on. They seem to view that as an additional, unnecessary expense, rather than an opportunity. 

 

Currently, even when offered all the information to show flagrant abuse of licensing terms, they can often give up and roll over at the slightest sign of reluctance by the infringer to play ball. Even a simple failure to respond to emails, and the 'infringement team' (joke)  will give up. On occasion, it can take more than a year, just to have Alamy say that, sorry, we can't pursue this. REALLY?  Why bother licensing at any rate higher than PU, then? Clearly, this is infuriating for us, but do Alamy not realise that it must also irk buyers, who will ask themselves why they are paying more than others?  It merely encourages further infringements from others who might otherwise have been good, solid customers. By continued lack of action, Alamy are confirming to the contributor that they don't care and to the buyer, that it's OK, we won't chase you, you can get away with what you damned well like. 

 

Infringements should be dealt with promptly and firmly. James likes to talk about the long term - if this problem isn't dealt with, there will be no long term, as contributors will not wish to continue submitting to a library who seek to sell at the lowest price for the lowest commission possible and then happily accept open theft of those images with zero recrimination - and good customers (understanding what is going on) will push prices even lower. 

Thanks for this. Infringement is yet another area Alamy doesn't seem to take seriously. This past week has been filled with looking closer at Alamy. Was hoping to continue to get some income here, but the tide may be turning for me.

[Skyscraperfan]

Actually posting photos elsewhere is not easy anyway, because the other agencies often are exclusive. Being non-exclusive was one of the reasons I decided to join Alamy. The other reason was 65% commission and even 50% for third party sales.

 

The Drop from 65% to 40% means a drop from

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

to
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

while the share of Alamy went up from

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

to
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Enough is enough.

[KevinS]

1 hour ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Besides emailing counter-offers directly to James@ & Alan@

consider also posting them under Youtube video comments.

There are under 600 comments now.

Over 1000 comments expressing opinions of 40/60 is

a more powerful rounded-out goal...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk5okHRFTgw&t=1s

 

Plowed through the YouTube comments today. Couldn't see any support for Alamy there (!). I'll figure out how to comment there and do so. 

 

Emailed James today. No response yet, but it may have been too late for a that today.

 

No plans to restrict/delete just now, but soon I'd like to know where Alamy is going with this. 

[Chuck Nacke]

I have read every post on this thread and even deleted a few of my

martini induced posts, sorry.  It is well past time for a response from

Mr. West.  I have stopped working on anything that would involve Alamy

and not covering events for Live News.

 

Until this issue is resolved there will be no further contributions from

me, which is not the end of the world for Alamy.  I am in communication

with several large agencies, that I have dealt with for decades, and the

minute we have an agreement and If I (we) have not heard from Mr. West, I will

delete all captions and keywords from the small number of images that

I have on Alamy,  I was inclined to say that I would prefer to continue with

Alamy at a 50 /50 split on direct licenses, but now I am not sure?

 

I am not going to write Mr. West directly,  I want this to be public.

 

Best to all Alamy contributors,

 

Chuck Nacke

 

 

[Paul Mayall]

7 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Paul Mayall said:

Realistically there is nothing we can do about it, except vent our thoughts here

 

7 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

False.  Fatalistic.

Maybe so Jeff, guess we will see come Febuary.

[John Mitchell]

I tend to agree with Chuck. While it's laudable that contributors are e-mailing their individual "offers" to Alamy, I think our public expressions of dissatisfaction carry more weight in the long run. Hopefully we'll hear from James again soon.