Jump to content
Alamy

Commission change - James West comments

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Dayve said:

Just a warning for anyone considering ending their contract with Alamy. If any of your images have been downloaded they can be licenced for up to two years after deletion and that any image that has been licenced can be re-licenced indefinitely. (if it's in the context of the original licence).

 

So much for terminating the contract then.

 

That's good to know. Thankfully, none of my very limited port have been bought yet. 

 

I can see it'll probably be easier for me to cancel, and start again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gina Kelly said:

For those of us who have thousands of images placed with Alamy it is a pretty big deal. I don't know if our suggestions will have impact but I also don't want to sit by silently, because I have a lot invested here. Removing or placing the photos elsewhere when you are dealing with so many will require a huge investment of time.  So, whether it makes an impact or not, I feel it's important for our voices to be heard.

 

Part of the reason it is taking me so long to get things listed, is because I am making sure the majority of my cataloging happens offline, and not on a specific platform. That way, most of my keywording, arranging, etc, happens before I even consider listing.

 

All I need to do now is set up a different publish option in lightroom, for those photos I have already worked on.

 

Have people been using the Alamy console/manager to do everything for thousands upon thousands of images? If they have, I can see how they'd be facing a mammoth task.

 

Could the Alamy/lightroom bridge not help in this regard I wonder? And if the response is "I don't use lightroom", maybe make an exception to save yourself many, many hours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BobD said:

I just wish they would get a move on and make an announcement so we can get on with uploading/finding elsewhere/getting our life back.

 

I'll drink to that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JeffGreenberg said:

 

This just in:

don't drink the same drink again & save 20%...

 

 

Cheers, I'll keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chris_rabe said:

 

Could the Alamy/lightroom bridge not help in this regard I wonder? And if the response is "I don't use lightroom", maybe make an exception to save yourself many, many hours?

 

Lightroom may not be as big a time saver as imagined if submitting to stock outlets other than or in addition to Alamy.  At least for keywording.  Dunno about later versions but LR6 and earlier force the saving of keywords in alphabetical order.   Many stock libraries want keywords in order of relevance - not alphabetic.   

 

Sorry for the commission-cut-off-topic reply.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chris_rabe said:

Have people been using the Alamy console/manager to do everything for thousands upon thousands of images? If they have, I can see how they'd be facing a mammoth task.


I do not even have backups of many of the processed images. For a new agency I would have to start with the unprocessed RAW images again. That would not stop me from changing the agency though.

Edited by Skyscraperfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with this picture? Alamy makes a sale of 5.45 dollar for one of my images. Which is in itself a joke already. From that 5.45 dollar 1.63 (30%) goes to the Alamy DistriBUTION Commission, 40 % goes to DistriBUTOR Commission, the photographer gets : $1.64.

Do we really need to keep working like that? On top of it all, I do not get paid in January because I have only $49.83 cleared, one needs 50 dollars to get paid. That means I do not get paid before I sell another photograph or get cleared when whoever bought my photograph for five dollars pays. Alamy has the money, the buyer who got my picture for five dollars is good. The photographer's payment is moved forward to another month ... or two... 

What a bloomin disgrace... 

And then the ceo announces another cut in photographers pay... Nice Alamy, very nice... I thought the going rate was 60-40, to become 70-30. While if you look at the included account oversight it is NOW already 70-30. That means after February I might get nothing anymore for my photographs... 

I am sure I will get a reply to my email to Alamy with more poppycock... If it were not so sad we would be laughing tears.https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10216174176100182&set=a.1083581742827&type=3&theater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Jeff, I forgot to put the post public. I think you should be able to see the link now with the image... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, photocatseyes said:

What is wrong with this picture? Alamy makes a sale of 5.45 dollar for one of my images. Which is in itself a joke already. From that 5.45 dollar 1.63 (30%) goes to the Alamy DistriBUTION Commission, 40 % goes to DistriBUTOR Commission, the photographer gets : $1.64.

Do we really need to keep working like that? On top of it all, I do not get paid in January because I have only $49.83 cleared, one needs 50 dollars to get paid. That means I do not get paid before I sell another photograph or get cleared when whoever bought my photograph for five dollars pays. Alamy has the money, the buyer who got my picture for five dollars is good. The photographer's payment is moved forward to another month ... or two...

 
That's why I opted out of the distribution scheme when the commission for photographers in that scheme slipped below 50%.

 

I think when I joined Alamy we needed $100 or even $150 before we got our money. I think that has to do with PayPal transaction costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyscraperfan: When I joined in 2008 the payout line was 300 dollars. As a beginner stock photographer it took months and months to reach that 300 dollar. I will definitely look now to opt out of the distribution scheme... I am sure though that there is a caveat to that too..., for the contributor. Sigh. 

 

Jeff Greenberg: I can't even get through the small print, way too complicated for my simple photographers brain. I am sure that Alamy is covered all the way, while all the nasty stuff comes down to photographers. Companies buying lots of photographs from Alamy get a discount, but the discount is taken out of contributor's pay. Or so it seems. That is what my single braincell seems to notice. I am loosing courage real fast now... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, photocatseyes said:

Skyscraperfan: When I joined in 2008 the payout line was 300 dollars. As a beginner stock photographer it took months and months to reach that 300 dollar. I will definitely look now to opt out of the distribution scheme... I am sure though that there is a caveat to that too..., for the contributor. Sigh. 

 

Jeff Greenberg: I can't even get through the small print, way too complicated for my simple photographers brain. I am sure that Alamy is covered all the way, while all the nasty stuff comes down to photographers. Companies buying lots of photographs from Alamy get a discount, but the discount is taken out of contributor's pay. Or so it seems. That is what my single braincell seems to notice. I am loosing courage real fast now... 

Yes, a caveat. You can only opt-out during the month of April.

 

When Jeff referred to dangerous wording in the contract, I think he means the contract changes that will be posted in January. Alamy may reveal the changes sooner, but plan to email contributors in January with the new contract terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Kevin and the others. I did get an email already, but you are probably right that we will get a small print email in January. With a language that I so struggle with, and not having the means to ask a layer to look into it. Which we probably all should do. I will remember to look in April of 2019 to opt out. Truly sad that the main reason that agencies make money - the photographers - seem to be the lowest point of attention...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skyscraperfan said:


I do not even have backups of many of the processed images. For a new agency I would have to start with the unprocessed RAW images again. That would not stop me from changing the agency though.

1

 

er..be careful... Section 17.2 of the contributor's contract...

 

Contributors shall be responsible for maintaining original and digital back-up copies of all Images submitted to Alamy and will provide replacement digital copies to Alamy on request at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Converting images from other-agency-non-exclusive to

Alamy-exclusive-50/50?

Do you know every historic license of those images?

Nope

 

Can you report them to Alamy?

Nope

 

Will that prevent a buyer who licenses under Alamy-exclusive

& later learns of a previous, competing or non-competing usage,

from suing YOU??? (because contract puts 100% legal onus on YOU)

Most likely: Nope

 

Can I add Shite? Why do I feel suddenly very dumb and stupid? We photographers work so hard, only trying to make a bit of money, we invested heavily in gear and getting to grips with knowledge, yet it feels like we are often pulling the short end of the straw... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said:

 

er..be careful... Section 17.2 of the contributor's contract...

 

Contributors shall be responsible for maintaining original and digital back-up copies of all Images submitted to Alamy and will provide replacement digital copies to Alamy on request at any time.

Surely the RAW file counts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Important enough, IMO, to have just emailed DIRECTLY to James@ + Alan@ :

 

There is much discussion of Alamy-exclu-50/50.
Some contribs talk of converting non-exclu elsewhere to Alamy-exclu.
This probably translates to tens of thousands of images that
may have been non-exclusive for years & years at other agencies,
some of which were licensed non-exclusively one or more times.
Now what if an Alamy-exclusive buyer later finds such uses??
Sometimes those uses could even be a direct competitor...
Creating this possibility can trigger lawsuits affecting Alamy
even if new contract language puts legal onus on contribs.
Please think through all these unintended consequences.
Are there not other safer ways to raise $$ for 2019 upgrades
that do NOT hurt contribs?  regards jg

 

Are you confusing images that are only available on Alamy (ie. Alamy exclusive) with an exclusive use licence?

 

Mark

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Important enough, IMO, to have just emailed DIRECTLY to James@ + Alan@ :

 

There is much discussion of Alamy-exclu-50/50.
Some contribs talk of converting non-exclu elsewhere to Alamy-exclu.
This probably translates to tens of thousands of images that
may have been non-exclusive for years & years at other agencies,
some of which were licensed non-exclusively one or more times.
Now what if an Alamy-exclusive buyer later finds such uses??
Sometimes those uses could even be a direct competitor...
Creating this possibility can trigger lawsuits affecting Alamy
even if new contract language puts legal onus on contribs.
Please think through all these unintended consequences.
Are there not other safer ways to raise $$ for 2019 upgrades
that do NOT hurt contribs?  regards jg

Exclusivity a non-starter for me. Email sent (to James)

Edited by KevinS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Surely the RAW file counts?

 

Good point - it probably does.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Important enough, IMO, to have just emailed DIRECTLY to James@ + Alan@ :

 

There is much discussion of Alamy-exclu-50/50.
Some contribs talk of converting non-exclu elsewhere to Alamy-exclu.
This probably translates to tens of thousands of images that
may have been non-exclusive for years & years at other agencies,
some of which were licensed non-exclusively one or more times.
Now what if an Alamy-exclusive buyer later finds such uses??
Sometimes those uses could even be a direct competitor...
Creating this possibility can trigger lawsuits affecting Alamy
even if new contract language puts legal onus on contribs.
Please think through all these unintended consequences.
Are there not other safer ways to raise $$ for 2019 upgrades
that do NOT hurt contribs?  regards jg

As said above, there are very few sales, none IME and precious few that I've read about, which actually take out exclusivity on files.

By far the majority of RM sales need no exclusivity.

Just think: one of your existing Alamy RM sales may prevent you from getting a super-high-value RM with exclusivity sales in future, as the requester might be "a direct competitor".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Important enough, IMO, to have just emailed DIRECTLY to James@ + Alan@ :

 

There is much discussion of Alamy-exclu-50/50.
Some contribs talk of converting non-exclu elsewhere to Alamy-exclu.
This probably translates to tens of thousands of images that
may have been non-exclusive for years & years at other agencies,
some of which were licensed non-exclusively one or more times.
Now what if an Alamy-exclusive buyer later finds such uses??
Sometimes those uses could even be a direct competitor...
Creating this possibility can trigger lawsuits affecting Alamy
even if new contract language puts legal onus on contribs.
Please think through all these unintended consequences.
Are there not other safer ways to raise $$ for 2019 upgrades
that do NOT hurt contribs?  regards jg

 

 

OK, you now have officially lost me... :o(((   It now looks as if people with no legal knowledge/small print knowledge could be hurt really bad. Guess it is time for most of us to start thinking seriously about all this... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't affect me as I'm de facto exclusive, but surely "exclusive" means "has never been licensed elsewhere". A bit like virginity, you can't get it back. You can't make an image exclusive on Alamy by taking it off other agencies. The cat has been out of the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think exclusively at Alamy would mean Alamy is the only place a client could license that particular image by that particular photographer today.

 

Today it is an image exclusive to Alamy. Yesterday is another matter, and should not affect the exclusivity to Alamy designation.

 

Looking for a virgin in stock photography is futile.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

I think exclusively at Alamy would mean Alamy is the only place a client could license that particular image by that particular photographer today.

 

Today it is an image exclusive to Alamy. Yesterday is another matter, and should not affect the exclusivity to Alamy designation.

 

 

 

 

I agree with you Bill. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Important enough, IMO, to have just emailed DIRECTLY to James@ + Alan@ :

(speculations of a non-legally-trained mind)

There is much discussion of Alamy-exclu-50/50.

Some contribs talk of converting non-exclu elsewhere to Alamy-exclu.
This probably translates to tens of thousands of images that
may have been non-exclusive for years & years at other agencies,
some of which were licensed non-exclusively one or more times.
Now what if an Alamy-exclusive buyer later finds such uses??
Sometimes those uses could even be a direct competitor...
Creating this possibility can trigger lawsuits affecting Alamy
even if new contract language puts legal onus on contribs.
Please think through all these unintended consequences.
Are there not other safer ways to raise $$ for 2019 upgrades
that do NOT hurt contribs?  regards jg

Jeff:  Thanks for sending that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’re going to do something positive for contributers just keep the 50/50 split w/o this exclusive only business

what a mess and chaos that’s going to create

 

its like pulling teeth to ask that things remain fair for contributers

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.