Commission change - James West comments

[Starsphinx]

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?

[M.Chapman]

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

[KevinS]

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)

[Vincent Lowe]

6 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Surely the RAW file counts?

 

Good point - it probably does.

 

[Cryptoprocta]

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".

[photocatseyes]

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... 

[spacecadet]

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.

[Bill Brooks]

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.

[Panthera tigris]

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. 

 

[Ollie]

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.

[njene]

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

[Panthera tigris]

Where does this "50%/exclusive" idea come from? Is it a forum thing or did it come from an Alamy communication/conversation?

 

I've gone back through the posts but can't figure out where it started? 

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Panthera tigris said:

Where does this "50%/exclusive" idea come from? Is it a forum thing or did it come from an Alamy communication/conversation?

 

I've gone back through the posts but can't figure out where it started? 

 

Some of us who e-mailed James West got a response from him suggesting that Alamy might consider this option if the numbers worked, and that details would follow at some point.

[Panthera tigris]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Some of us who e-mailed James West got a response from him suggesting that Alamy might consider this option if the numbers worked, and that details would follow at some point.

 

Thanks John!

[riccarbi]

Quote

Some of us who e-mailed James West got a response from him suggesting that Alamy might consider this option if the numbers worked, and that details would follow at some point.

 

Sorry guys, but this thing makes no sense at all. Think about it. James West said in the video that Alamy needs more money in order to fund some expansion plan involving new localized websites (or local offices, who knows) etc, etc. They need that money NOW, in order to implement such an expansion within a year or so. By reducing contributors' commissions they will be able to increase instantly Alamy's revenues by 20% (here we all discuss our revenue cut, but no one discusses the corresponding revenue increment for Alamy.). Do you really believe that the supposed revenue growth resulting in making some millions of images  "exclusive" would compensate a 20% revenue increase for ALL images sold on Alamy?  If, as a CEO of a company, I proposed such a swap to my stakeholders, I would be unemployed within a week.

 

[Martin Carlsson]

41 minutes ago, riccarbi said:

 

Sorry guys, but this thing makes no sense at all. Think about it. James West said in the video that Alamy needs more money in order to fund some expansion plan involving new localized websites (or local offices, who know) etc, etc. They need that money NOW, in order to implement such expansion within a year or so. If you increase Alamy's revenues by 20% (here we all discuss our revenue cut, but no one discusses the corresponding revenue increment for Alamy.). Do you still believe that the supposed revenue growth resulting in making some millions of images  "exclusive" would really compensate a 20% revenue increase for ALL images sold on Alamy?  If, as a CEO of a company, I proposed such a swap to my stakeholders, I would be unemployed within a week.

 

 

I think you're mis-understanding the general sentiment, which IMHO is finding ways too soften the blow of the proposed reduction for the most committed of Alamy contributors. The exact implementation of "exclusivity", or if it is even a genuine offer from Alamy, is a bit unclear. Anyhow, an open discussion in the hope that Alamy picks up on the good suggestions that also works for them as a business and the way forward that they feel the need to embark on. You're right i the sense that there is no way around a reduction somewhere if money is needed ASAP and other ways of facilitating that is off the table (loans, taking on-board investors etc.).

[Tony]

I for one would be more than happy to stay at 50% as all my work here (apart from 6 images) is exclusive to Alamy.

It makes total sense and would be a reward for loyalty.

 

My best work is licenced via 50/50 boutique agencies that's also totally exclusive to them. 

I don't sell the same images via multiple outlets, it's just not cricket.

 

Seems like the those touting the same images via multiple sites, microstock, etc, are the only ones not happy with the idea.

[BobD]

Whatever happens now, I will work differently in the future. This is a wake up call.

I am 95% exclusive with Alamy and that will remain the case if they go with 50% for exclusive. If not I will not upload anymore.

I will however submit to other agencies regardless but that will be different work.

I uploaded to another agency that gives 50% a year ago, went on holiday and forgot about them.

They are better known for video and I uploaded 6 After effects animations and 4 images. I looked at my account yesterday for the first time in a year and found they have sold 2 x animations and 1 image. You can set your own price for images.

While this is not earth shattering figures it does represent over a 25% sell rate and at prices well above my Alamy average.

 

I feel the reason Alamy needs money is because they are failing in their responsibility, not only to us, but to themselves as well. There are so many things wrong, all been touched on here. Personal and presentation use abuse, reporting failure, refunds and ridiculously low prices are just the main gripes and all of which cost us and Alamy money. Before they come taking money away from contributors they should put their house in order for all our benefits first. 

 

[Gordon Scammell]

I understand from another contributor that Alamy is about to announce the exclusivity deal today.

 

To be honest I wouldn't sign up to a cynical deal that I believe was Alamy's intention all along.  Announce a reduction in commission paid to contributors, sit back and wait whilst all the messages of anger come pouring in and then announce that they have listened to the complaints and have come up with a wonderful answer that will please people.

 

Not buying it.  

 

 

[FRP]

I am just coming back from a trip and have this horrible surprising news… I took time to read many of your comments. I agree that Alamy is not thinking about us. Photographers. 

BUT I AM A VERY OPTIMIST PERSON, and I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT "JAMES AND HIS TEAM", are GOING TO RE CONSIDER The ACTION TO BE TAKEN.

The price of images sold in Alamy , as we many of us know , is quite a joke, prices are already very low if we look at other  agencies. But worst of all ; a reduction of commission paid to photographers? is very much : luck of respect for our work, time, ideas, etc etc. 

 

So M. James, and Alamy team, I think you guys got plenty of  mails, messages, letting you know how disappointing and disrespectful your actions would be.

HOPING YOU ARE REALLY READING ALL THIS AND TAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS IN THE FUTURE.

LOOKING FORWARDS TO 2019 WITH "GOOD AND HAPPY NEWS FOR  ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS CONTRIBUTING TO ALAMY"

Wishing you a great day

F

 

[Tony]

Looks like Ian Murray or Geogphotos has had enough and disappeared from the forum, all his posts have gone, strange ?

[BobD]

He did mention the other day that he had asked Alamy to remove his forum account but still wanted to be able to view the threads.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Tony said:

Looks like Ian Murray or Geogphotos has had enough and disappeared from the forum, all his posts have gone, strange ?

 

[Tony]

Just now, BobD said:

He did mention the other day that he had asked Alamy to remove his forum account but still wanted to be able to view the threads.

 

Maybe he took getting so many red arrows too personally!

 

[KevinS]

13 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

Maybe he took getting so many red arrows too personally!

 

Maybe, but I'm sure he's got thick skin. I'm actively seeking green arrows, though, as it's the only green coming my way from Alamy lately.

[KevinS]

The only Twitter I see is on the home page of these forums. 5 hours ago Alamy said;

We're having a few technical issues with our contributor email service. Please bear with us, we're working on the issue and we'll get this back up and running as soon as possible. 

I was expecting a follow up statement today regarding commission split. Oh well, soon they'll be able to get an email out, I guess.