Exclusivity

[Gordon Scammell]

So in future if I photograph a scene twice - with some slight differences - I will be able to make one exclusive to Alamy and one to be submitted to other libraries.  Correct?

 

Farcical.

[Tony]

No that's not the idea.

 

 

[losdemas]

7 minutes ago, Tony said:

No that's not the idea.

 

 

 

 

It may not be the idea, but who and how is it going to be policed?

[BobD]

I would imagine the contract will include similars, and you may loose your account if you flout whatever the rules will be.

[Gordon Scammell]

7 minutes ago, losdemas said:

 

 

It may not be the idea, but who and how is it going to be policed?

 

Precisely.  That's why I said it was farcical.  Of course it isn't the idea.  But If I take a photograph of a ship sailing down the Thames, wait for about 20 seconds zoom in slightly and take another one - where is the similarity?  Subject matter?  That won't run for a start.  Nobody can tell me that they are the same image.  The first one exclusive to Alamy the second one - which is slightly different - sent to my other stock libraries.  How is Alamy going to police that?

[Starsphinx]

Also what happens if/when 2 photographers take almost identical images (which can and does happen https://petapixel.com/2018/03/07/two-photographers-unknowingly-shot-millisecond-time/)   with one submitting exclusively to Alamy and the other one submitting to multiple agencies?

 

[Gordon Scammell]

4 minutes ago, BobD said:

I would imagine the contract will include similars, and you may loose your account if you flout whatever the rules will be.

 

I understand what you are trying to say but if the images are similar in subject content that will open up a huge can of worms.  If I photograph a landmark in the rain and make it exclusive to Alamy then take the same photograph a few hours later when the rain has stopped are those image going to be classed as similar?  I am just trying to point out how this exclusive lark is going to be played.  

[BobD]

5 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Also what happens if/when 2 photographers take almost identical images (which can and does happen https://petapixel.com/2018/03/07/two-photographers-unknowingly-shot-millisecond-time/)   with one submitting exclusively to Alamy and the other one submitting to multiple agencies?

 

 

You can only be responsible for your own images, not everyone's. I would imagine some locations, i.e tower bridge will have thousands of similar images.

[Starsphinx]

1 minute ago, BobD said:

 

You can only be responsible for your own images, not everyone's. I would imagine some locations, i.e tower bridge will have thousands of similar images.

Oh I know that - but how exactly is Alamy going to disprove that 2 images were taken by different people.  There is a reason I including the like with the millisecond shot - if that can and does happen then what exactly is to stop Joe Blogs taking 2 pictures a couple of minutes and a couple of meters apart, uploading one as exclusive, and uploading the other to multiple agencies under a different name (say the name of a spouse or sibling or co-operative neighbour for tax purposes).  Surely the investigation of the huge numbers of similars (like you say some places will be thousands) and follow ups to try and prove 2 were taken by the same person would cost way beyond any profit Alamy hopes to make - which means little if any enforcement of the rules,  just like report misuse, which means even more people abusing the system and it all adds up those who are being honest are the losers.

[Gordon Scammell]

5 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

You can only be responsible for your own images, not everyone's. I would imagine some locations, i.e tower bridge will have thousands of similar images.

So what is the point of making images exclusive if you photograph an event where there are a myriad of other photographers some of whom will be submitting similar images.  

 

I can understand making a really special niche image exclusive.  However, if I took a special niche image it most certainly wouldn't be submitted to Alamy - it would be submitted elsewhere where I know it would earn more and also not at risk of being licensed for 'presentation'.

[spacecadet]

14 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Oh I know that - but how exactly is Alamy going to disprove that 2 images were taken by different people.  There is a reason I including the like with the millisecond shot - if that can and does happen then what exactly is to stop Joe Blogs taking 2 pictures a couple of minutes and a couple of meters apart, uploading one as exclusive, and uploading the other to multiple agencies under a different name (say the name of a spouse or sibling or co-operative neighbour for tax purposes).  Surely the investigation of the huge numbers of similars (like you say some places will be thousands) and follow ups to try and prove 2 were taken by the same person would cost way beyond any profit Alamy hopes to make - which means little if any enforcement of the rules,  just like report misuse, which means even more people abusing the system and it all adds up those who are being honest are the losers.

Well, notwithstanding that what they did would be unethical and borderline fraudulent, not to mention a breach of contract, Alamy doesn't need to prove it.

Look up "sole discretion" in the contract. If Alamy doesn't want to represent you, it ends your contract.

[Starsphinx]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Well, notwithstanding that what they did would be unethical and borderline fraudulent, not to mention a breach of contract, Alamy doesn't need to prove it.

Look up "sole discretion" in the contract. If Alamy doesn't want to represent you, it ends your contract.

Again this is my point (I have a strange way of making points - I like to ask questions so people make the point themselves, I find when they think of it themselves they remember it better lol)
So yes it would be unethical and borderline fraudulent - has that ever stopped anyone doing something bad before?
So Alamy ends the contract - what about if it ends the contract of someone who is being honest when there are just large numbers of similars from multitudes of different photographers?

Now the obvious way out is Alamy introduces restrictions on exactly what can be made exclusive - so the likes of tourists spots shot by the world and his wife multiple times a day will be out.  So will certain common wildlife.  Which brings us back to the if the only things that can be exclusive are niche specialist arent photographers likely to put them with specialist agencies rather than Alamy anyway?

[Tony]

It's quite clear that some of you don't understand what exclusive means:

 

It's very simple... do not upload identical or similar shots to other outlets.

 

You can speculate on a million conflicting scenarios, but it up to us a professionals to play ball.

 

[Starsphinx]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

It's quite clear that some of you don't understand what exclusive means:

 

It's very simple... do not upload identical or similar shots to other outlets.

 

You can speculate on a million conflicting scenarios, but it up to us a professionals to play ball.

 

Love your attitude.

Too cynical to trust everyone will follow it.

[Tony]

1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

Love your attitude.

Too cynical to trust everyone will follow it.

 

Made me laugh, have a good xmas 

 

[Alex Ramsay]

49 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Oh I know that - but how exactly is Alamy going to disprove that 2 images were taken by different people.  There is a reason I including the like with the millisecond shot - if that can and does happen then what exactly is to stop Joe Blogs taking 2 pictures a couple of minutes and a couple of meters apart, uploading one as exclusive, and uploading the other to multiple agencies under a different name (say the name of a spouse or sibling or co-operative neighbour for tax purposes). 

 

In that case Joe Bloggs is behaving dishonestly and will, sooner or later, be exposed. Most of us don't behave like that.

[Starsphinx]

2 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

 

In that case Joe Bloggs is behaving dishonestly and will, sooner or later, be exposed. Most of us don't behave like that.

See my answer to Tony above

[Sally]

It’s up to Alamy to worry about this, not you or me. Just get on with taking photographs and deciding what you want to do with them IMHO.

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

See my answer to Tony above

Devil's advocate.

[Chuck Nacke]

To All,

 

I've been in the agency (not library) business for decades and the bottom line is:

you make an agreement with an agent or library, You trust them and they trust you.

If at any point the trust disappears then you go separate ways.

 

Someone wrote earlier: "Just be professional." I agree.

 

Exclusive works well for me.  I have never liked submitting images from an event

to multiple agents or libraries.

 

As of 12/18/2018 I trust Alamy and hope that Alamy trusts me.

 

Nuff Said.

 

Chuck Nacke

 

[Bill Brooks]

Anything that looks like it was taken by the same photographer in the same shooting session is a similiar.

 

Game the system and your account is terminated,  no matter who you are.

 

[Starsphinx]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

Anything that looks like it was taken by the same photographer in the same shooting session is a similiar.

 

Game the system and your account is terminated,  no matter who you are.

 

The problem is how do you prove you are not gaming the system in subjects where there are 10s of thousands of similars

 

[John Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

Anything that looks like it was taken by the same photographer in the same shooting session is a similiar.

 

Game the system and your account is terminated,  no matter who you are.

 

 

This is why it is crucial that Alamy clarify whom they consider to be their competitors -- e.g. are they only referring to stock agencies, or to POD sites and outfits that link you up directly to customers as well?

[Bill Brooks]

2 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

The problem is how do you prove you are not gaming the system in subjects where there are 10s of thousands of similars

 

 You mean there are tens of thousands of similiars that are taken by the same photographer that look like they are taken in the same shooting session. I do not think so.

[Starsphinx]

Just now, Bill Brooks said:

 You mean there are tens of thousands of similiars that are taken by the same photographer that look like they are taken in the same shooting session. I do not think so.

No I mean it is a fact that 2 different photographers have taken the identical millisecond shot while close together (already quoted but https://petapixel.com/2018/03/07/two-photographers-unknowingly-shot-millisecond-time/) - it was chance one saw the others work and thought his own image had been stolen.  
So when it comes to the likes of tourist attractions, common wildlife, etc there are huge numbers of photos taken by different photographers that are nearly indistinguishable from each other - certainly not possible with a single glance.   
So, while it has been pointed out most people here are honest and would obey the rules, it would be possible for a nasty criminal individual to take shots from the same session nearly identical to each other, upload under one name exclusive to Alamy and under another name spread them around agencies.  In preventing this Alamy could punish and withdraw exclusivity from an innocent photographer - because by chance another photographer took the same shot as them.  Yes there are ways of making sure this does not happen - but they involve time and effort pixel peeping and checking EXIF and other such fiddly bits that the cost of effective policing will be more than the increase in income exclusivity brings.

I know I sound cynical and paranoid - but I believe there will always be a human ready to exploit a weakness and the best way to avoid weakness is to highlight it.  Without some significant extra detail I do not see how this system will not be scammed - and if the system is scammed then innocents will lose out either through being mistaken for a scammer or because the scammer is getting rewards they are not entitled too.