It's official- 50% for exclusive - (JW response video to commission change)

[andremichel]

26 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

That is a good point about self-interest, and we also need to remember that a business, Alamy in this case, will act in their perceived self-interest. Indeed, if they didn't the directors could be in breach of their fiduciary duties.

And that perceived self interest means they will take as much from us as they think they can get away with.

[Julie Edwards]

For the record - for those of you that took offence at my comments being agist ... that was very very very much NOT the aim !!! And i Am sorry  if you thought that... 

 

i was just trying to hilight the various forms of second incomes and hilighting how it will affect professionals , those that rely 100% on their photography income and who are out gathering the news come rain or shine... and how people (and photographers )used to stick together....

 

 

 

 

[Julie Edwards]

My last word on the subject..

 

i find this attitude and these comments about me being ageist really upsetting.

 

The amount of help and information imparted by professional photographers (of which i am one) in this forum , helping beginners and amateurs alike, only for those we have helped to totally disregard pur point of view.

 

no flounce just disappoinment....

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, John Richmond said:

 

 

The biggest problem is that, professional or amateur, we've all chosen to contribute to a creative industry that increasingly seems to work on the hallowed management principle of continuing the beatings until morale improves.  Perhaps we should seek help for our masochism.

 

Sad but true. It's really no fault but our own. We willingly signed up for duty.

 

Please hit me again, Sir, but a little bit harder this time...

[Betty LaRue]

9 hours ago, Julie Edwards said:

My last word on the subject..

 

i find this attitude and these comments about me being ageist really upsetting.

 

The amount of help and information imparted by professional photographers (of which i am one) in this forum , helping beginners and amateurs alike, only for those we have helped to totally disregard pur point of view.

 

no flounce just disappoinment....

 Julie, if I offended, I’m sorry. I don’t even remember your post, I was only responding to what Pearl said. And I’m a bit sensitive because a former President pretty much threw seniors under the bus. Physicians were counciled to not run certain tests on seniors, but council them on end of life. These people are on a Medicare, and the government pays for that, so let’s let the government save money by throwing away the elders. It reminded me of a horrible, haunting American movie I saw many years ago called “Soylent Green”. All who reached a certain age were put to sleep.

I know a lot of people in their 90s who are bright and vigorous, serve food for the poor, and are very important to their families. 

 

The problem that arises in forums are that each of us carry baggage. An action by someone in power doesn’t bother A, but deeply offends B. We’re a product of our upbringing and past experiences. That colors our take on events and makes some of us super sensitive.

 

Again, please accept my apology because I think I know your heart.

Betty

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The thing with the just 38,5% for affiliate sales shocks me. That's even less than 40% it somehow secretly sneaked into the commission table at one point. I never got an email saying "Dear contributor, for some sales you will only get 38,5% from now on"

 

Alamy is just not trustable. In the contract it cleary says in the beginning "We will pay you 50% of a direct sale made by Alamy" and then the table says something different that no one of us has ever actively agreed on. We take the photos and Alamy sells them. That is the deal. I do not see why we should pay any money to "affiliates" from our share of the money.

 

[Colblimp]

11 hours ago, Julie Edwards said:

My last word on the subject..

 

i find this attitude and these comments about me being ageist really upsetting.

 

The amount of help and information imparted by professional photographers (of which i am one) in this forum , helping beginners and amateurs alike, only for those we have helped to totally disregard pur point of view.

 

no flounce just disappoinment....

I'm old and I didn't find your comments ageist - no problem here! :-)

[Marmot]

I don't have the time (or the will) to read all the replies in this thread but now that the dust has settled a little, I see this 50% commission

for images "exclusive" to Alamy as being one of the most devious diversions this decade.  Just my opinion, but anyway...

 

Many of you who were up in arms at the commission cut are being so DISTRACTED by this new "offer" (let's face it - you aren't being given anything),

that in an effort to make your images "exclusive" are forgetting what our original gripe was about!  Some of you are even thanking Almay - for what???

We also now have a divide and conquer scenario.  3 distinct groups of snappers instead of one "teed-off" whole:

 

Group 1:  The "All my images are already exclusvie to Alamy" bunch, who are feeling smug and would like to tell the rest of us to simply shut up as

they're alright Jack!

 

Group 2: The "OMG I'd better find out how to make all my images exclusive to Alamy" bunch who are in such a tizz over the easiest way to do this are

missing the point that they shouldn't have to resort to something so limiting in the first place.  Ironically, these snappers are falling even deeper

into Alamy's stranglehold!  Duh!?! 

 

Group 3: The "Exclusivity?  You're having a laugh!" group (me being in this last collection).  Our images have been posted and sold with other image

libraries, calendar publishers, etc (and probably never for less than 50% commission I may add).  We can't and probably more likely won't give

exclusivity to Alamy.  We strive to build portfolios of high quality images which will sell on merit, not exclusivity.  Why would we even want to give exclusivity to a company who breaks promises and robs us of our fair share of the sale?

 

This aside, we in Group 3 must be the only ones who can see through this "diversion" tactic and say that it is NOT a solution.  Wake up everyone else!  Our original commission-cut has NOT been reversed!

 

If I was one for conspiracy theories (and who isn't?) I might have supposed that Alamy had this planned all along.............

 

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Yes, you could be right in that regard. Alamy showed a Donald Trump style negotiation tactic: Threaten more than you really want and when you take back a part of that thread, the other side sees that as a success, although you exactly got what you want.

However it could also be that Alamy really thought we would accept those 40%.

 

[Marmot]

17 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

Yes, you could be right in that regard. Alamy showed a Donald Trump style negotiation tactic: Threaten more than you really want and when you take back a part of that thread, the other side sees that as a success, although you exactly what you want.

However it could also be that Alamy really thought we would accept those 40%.

 

Could be! 

 

However, just for the record and for new Alamy contributors, I should mention that when I joined Alamy back in 2006, the commission to me was 60% and then later on they took it down to 50% and promised not to reduce it any further.  Now the commission set to go down to 40% with a rather uncertain mumbling of not reducing it further.  If that doesn't annoy or worry you - maybe you should see if you still have a pulse...........

[Starsphinx]

38 minutes ago, Marmot said:

I don't have the time (or the will) to read all the replies in this thread but now that the dust has settled a little, I see this 50% commission

for images "exclusive" to Alamy as being one of the most devious diversions this decade.  Just my opinion, but anyway...

 

Many of you who were up in arms at the commission cut are being so DISTRACTED by this new "offer" (let's face it - you aren't being given anything),

that in an effort to make your images "exclusive" are forgetting what our original gripe was about!  Some of you are even thanking Almay - for what???

We also now have a divide and conquer scenario.  3 distinct groups of snappers instead of one "teed-off" whole:

 

Group 1:  The "All my images are already exclusvie to Alamy" bunch, who are feeling smug and would like to tell the rest of us to simply shut up as

they're alright Jack!

 

Group 2: The "OMG I'd better find out how to make all my images exclusive to Alamy" bunch who are in such a tizz over the easiest way to do this are

missing the point that they shouldn't have to resort to something so limiting in the first place.  Ironically, these snappers are falling even deeper

into Alamy's stranglehold!  Duh!?! 

 

Group 3: The "Exclusivity?  You're having a laugh!" group (me being in this last collection).  Our images have been posted and sold with other image

libraries, calendar publishers, etc (and probably never for less than 50% commission I may add).  We can't and probably more likely won't give

exclusivity to Alamy.  We strive to build portfolios of high quality images which will sell on merit, not exclusivity.  Why would we even want to give exclusivity to a company who breaks promises and robs us of our fair share of the sale?

 

This aside, we in Group 3 must be the only ones who can see through this "diversion" tactic and say that it is NOT a solution.  Wake up everyone else!  Our original commission-cut has NOT been reversed!

 

If I was one for conspiracy theories (and who isn't?) I might have supposed that Alamy had this planned all along.............

 

 

Put way better than I could

[Marmot]

Thank you Starsphinx.  Much appreciated!

[andremichel]

Anyone who says they trust Alamy, after everything that has transpired, is either unbelievably naive or is being disingenuous. I don't think even James West can trust himself not to put his fingers in the cookie jar again.

[John Mitchell]

Something that I still can't my head around is how those of us who have signed up for the distribution scheme can realistically check the "Only available on Alamy" box in AIM.  How can our images  be available on Alamy only when they are also on sale through dozens (or more) of other agencies in Alamy's distribution network? What am I missing here? Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to me that exclusivity and distribution are fundamentally incompatible.

[Niels Quist]

39 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Something that I still can't my head around is how those of us who have signed up for the distribution scheme can realistically check the "Only available on Alamy" box in AIM.  How can our images  be available on Alamy only when they are also on sale through dozens (or more) of other agencies in Alamy's distribution network? What am I missing here? Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to me that exclusivity and distribution are fundamentally incompatible.

 

Perhaps this could change the often hopeless credit on distribution images.

[John Mitchell]

20 minutes ago, Niels Quist said:

 

Perhaps this could  help on the often hopeless credited distribution images.

 

Regardless if the credits are a mess or accurate, I would think that a buyer who has licensed an "exclusive" image through Alamy would be unhappy to find the same image available at another agency that happens to be an Alamy distribution partner. In the end, it is Alamy, not contributors, that has the power to make an image truly exclusive. Our checking a box in AIM is meaningless as far as I can see.

 

 

[John Mitchell]

36 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Main thrust of "exclusive to Alamy" AFAIK =

Alamy assurance to buyers its NOT lower price elsewhere,

no need to shop better price...

so if Alamy distributor sells ONLY at same price or higher...

 

The whole exclusivity thing seems like a big muddle in the making to me.  We can declare honestly that we have not submitted a particular image to another agency (or have removed it from other agencies) but not that it is "only available on Alamy" as the current tick box in AIM says. Alamy alone has the ability to make an image "exclusive" and offer it to its customers as such, and how can Alamy do that when it has a worldwide distribution network that probably the majority of its contributors have signed up for. Isn't Alamy just incorrectly/unfairly putting the onus on us?

 

Perhaps it's time for one of Chuck's martinis (and I don't even like martinis).

[David Olsen]

I think they should forget about exclusivity and go 55/45 for all.

[John Mitchell]

9 minutes ago, David Olsen said:

I think they should forget about exclusivity and go 55/45 for all.

 

I suggested that as well in earlier posts. It seems like an easier and more workable compromise -- i.e. splitting the difference, 45 contributors, 55 Alamy.

 

However, the idea didn't seem to go over well in some circles.

 

P.S. I still think 50/50 is fairer, of course, but...

[John Mitchell]

8 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Another big problem:

if Alamy distinguishes between

a. current indisputable exclusivity

and

b. current actions resulting in future indisputable exclusivity

there's going, IMO, to be exclusivity pandemonium due to

those who pursue (b) before (a) has happened...

 

Does "a. current indisputable exclusivity" really exist given the distributor network?

[KevinS]

I see John's point. Distributor sales are completed by the distributor, not through alamy.com. How can Alamy say an image is only available at Alamy, when it can be "...sold by 80 market leading image agencies around the world." If I mis-understand distribution (opted out), please enlighten.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Are we continuing to confuse representation exclusivity with usage exclusivity?

The former between competing agencies, latter between competing buyers...

Alamy subagents are sharing $$ with Alamy...

No other contrib seems hung up on this.

Might be a reason.

 

Can't speak for other contributors. However, I'd feel a lot more comfortable clicking a box that said something like "I have this image available for licensing on Alamy only" rather than the disputable "Only available on Alamy".

 

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, KevinS said:

I see John's point. Distributor sales are completed by the distributor, not through alamy.com. How can Alamy say an image is only available at Alamy, when it can be "...sold by 80 market leading image agencies around the world." If I mis-understand distribution (opted out), please enlighten.

all they need to do is have their legal team word it in a legally-valid version of "only available at Alamy and their approved distributors"

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

all they need to do is have their legal team word it in a legally-valid version of "only available at Alamy and their approved distributors"

 

Yes, that's much better. "Only available at Alamy" is bogus for contributors in the distribution scheme.

 

[KevinS]

Exclusivity is losing it's meaning if over 80 agencies have the image.