Those with many non-exclusive images, are you identifying them individually or is it too much work?

[Phil Robinson]

I'm going through mine by subject - best-selling subjects first.

Search on one computer with a keyword on Alamy and use the same search on my laptop an my other (main) agent, then see what comes up on both. 

Select all, then go through unclicking the ones I find on the other site before chosing 'exclusive to Alamy'.

 

I am planning to check everything that gets zoomed on an image by image basis as they are the ones you know might sell soon.

 

With nearly 40,000 images it's a big job and I don't expect to be finished any time soon.

[Phil Robinson]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

 

Exclusivity of representation is not the same as exclusivity of content. 

If someone takes a similar photograph to mine this has nothing to do with the exclusivity of representation of my images.

 

I have often (too often) seen images, especially news, published that I thought might be mine but turned out to be taken by the photographer standing next to me. 

The images might be almost indistinguishable but my version is still exclusive to Alamy if I haven't sent it anywhere else.

If I send two almost identical images taken half a second apart to two different agencies, however, that's a different matter.

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

 I’ll not worry, then, about the few images I have of artworks or stained glass windows.

Oh, that's interesting. I did the opposite!

I took all my images off 'stock' sale on FAA, which was a no-brainer (for me) as I hadn't sold any as stock there.

I knew I had no Alamy images on sale elsewhere, so that left statues. I searched in AIM for 'statues' and following my interpretation of something I read previously, on another thread, I unticked 'exclusive' those where the statue took up most of the image, or it was a detail, even though light, background (seasonality) and/or angle would be different in someone else's image.

[Bill Brooks]

I think it would be a good idea to mark your images as exclusive whenever possible, regardless of the amount of work involved. Some of you have already terminated non productive relationships at other agencies. Exclusive/non exclusive knowledge is becoming an industry trend and exclusive images will be more valuable to any agency.

 

It seems that the stock photo industry leader (not Alamy) is demanding exclusivity on some images, in order to continue marketing them. Important because the industry leader sets future trends for the entire industry.

 

This is from Jim Pickerell's business of stock photography website.

Sources tell me that ******* is demanding that U.S. agencies with RM images in its collection make those RM images fully exclusive through ********.com. Otherwise ***** will terminate the Agreement. One theory for doing this is that ****** wants to be able to grant exclusive licenses through e-commerce sales. If ****** knows they have total control of a given image, then they would be able to grant exclusive licenses without the need to do any checking with the parent agency that represents the image to see if exclusive rights are available. This would be similar to the arrangement that (****another agency not Alamy) has with its photographers.

 

Alamy has to meet the competition, so photographers classifying their images as exclusive or non exclusive would be important to Alamy marketing efforts and controlling Alamy costs.

[John Mitchell]

I remain as confused as ever about all of this. My reading of the clause in the new contract is that Alamy doesn't want us to go searching other agencies for similar images but rather to make ALL "artwork" non-exclusive if it is not not in context, and that "artwork" can be just about anything -- paintings, murals, sculptures, stained glass windows, ancient Viking archaeological artifacts, statues of Joe Blow, and god knows what else. 

[John Mitchell]

10 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I'll repeat this as it seems not to have got through.

Exclusivity of representation is not the same as exclusivity of content. The contract change is about the former. Contributors will have to form their own opinion because Alamy's statements have been confusing, but as far as I'm concerned the content of the image has no bearing on exclusivity, with the sole exception of flat copies of works of art whose copyright has expired.

If someone takes a similar photograph to mine this has nothing to do with the exclusivity of representation of my images.

BTW roll on default exclusive. I've had some images up for a few days non-exclusive because I forgot to click the box.

 

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. But then why does Alamy then expect images of ancient Viking runic stones to be made NON-exclusive*, as they did in Niels case? Surely we don't have to make the likes of images of statues in parks non-exclusive as well.

 

All this needs really to be sorted out.

 

EDIT: meant to say "NON-exclusive" *

 

 

[John Mitchell]

6 hours ago, Sally said:

Cheers, that makes a lot more sense. I can’t anticipate whether someone is going to stand in the same spot as me at any time in the future and take a photography which closely resembles mine. However, I can know whether I have put any of my photos on a different stock site. The previously suggested interpretation would be a minefield of confusion and greyness. I’ll not worry, then, about the few images I have of artworks or stained glass windows.

 

Right. When we check the exclusive box in AIM, we are saying that a particular IMAGE, not its CONTENT, is "Only available on Alamy". There may be thousands of  images of the same subject taken by other photographers available at other agencies worldwide. That is totally beyond our control. However, it appears that Alamy has something else in mind when it comes to "artwork", something that doesn't make sense, I'm sorry to say.

[RedSnapper]

8 hours ago, spacecadet said:

BTW roll on default exclusive. I've had some images up for a few days non-exclusive because I forgot to click the box.

 

 

It's been there a few days

 

 

km

[spacecadet]

35 minutes ago, RedSnapper said:

 

 

It's been there a few days

 

 

km

Thanks for that- first time I've used the default settings page.

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Oh, that's interesting. I did the opposite!

I took all my images off 'stock' sale on FAA, which was a no-brainer (for me) as I hadn't sold any as stock there.

I knew I had no Alamy images on sale elsewhere, so that left statues. I searched in AIM for 'statues' and following my interpretation of something I read previously, on another thread, I unticked 'exclusive' those where the statue took up most of the image, or it was a detail, even though light, background (seasonality) and/or angle would be different in someone else's image.

 

Could you not do the same for countless other subjects as well?  All this doesn't make sense where "exclusivity of representation" is concerned. Your image of the statue -- no matter the angle, lighting, etc. -- is exclusive to Alamy  as long as you don't have it with another agency.

[Cryptoprocta]

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Could you not do the same for countless other subjects as well?  All this doesn't make sense where "exclusivity of representation" is concerned.

Totally agree, but artworks were specifically mentioned in a recent thread, and the guidance was if they took up most of the photo. I just hoped that my interpretation of 'most' was the correct one.

[John Mitchell]

7 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Totally agree, but artworks were specifically mentioned in a recent thread, and the guidance was if they took up most of the photo. I just hoped that my interpretation of 'most' was the correct one.

 

Surely, as Mark (a.k.a. Spacecadet has suggested), only images of artwork that is in the public domain  (and images you have with another agency, of course) would have to made non-exclusive.

[Cryptoprocta]

8 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Surely, as Mark (a.k.a. Spacecadet has suggested), only images of artwork that is in the public domain  (and images you have with another agency, of course) would have to made non-exclusive.

I was thinking about this info:

"

Images of artwork

Images of artwork in context can be marked as exclusive. The general rule of thumb is that the artwork can’t take up any more than 1/3 of the image frame."

 

Some of my relevant statues may well be now in the public domain. As there's usually other Alamy-defined property in the image, I tend not to bother looking up that info for Alamy and just put has property - no release.

 

TBH, having someone's lens right next to mine on a safari vehicle is far more likely to result in near-identical images than someone else photographing the same statue as I did, as the lighting, season etc will be the same, and the angle almost the same. People in the press pack for big state events could be in a similar situation.

[John Mitchell]

31 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I was thinking about this info:

"

Images of artwork

Images of artwork in context can be marked as exclusive. The general rule of thumb is that the artwork can’t take up any more than 1/3 of the image frame."

 

Some of my relevant statues may well be now in the public domain. As there's usually other Alamy-defined property in the image, I tend not to bother looking up that info for Alamy and just put has property - no release.

 

TBH, having someone's lens right next to mine on a safari vehicle is far more likely to result in near-identical images than someone else photographing the same statue as I did, as the lighting, season etc will be the same, and the angle almost the same. People in the press pack for big state events could be in a similar situation.

 

Alamy needs to join the conversation an explain to us what they have in mind. It's all too vague IMHO.

[MariaJ]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Alamy needs to join the conversation an explain to us what they have in mind. It's all too vague IMHO.

 

 

Agreed.  I'm still unclear about the policy.  I have several images of statues, sculptures, totem poles, etc and I'm wondering if none of them can be exclusive to alamy (even though they aren't at any other agency).  I've sent them an email.

[John Mitchell]

18 hours ago, MariaJ said:

 

 

Agreed.  I'm still unclear about the policy.  I have several images of statues, sculptures, totem poles, etc and I'm wondering if none of them can be exclusive to alamy (even though they aren't at any other agency).  I've sent them an email.

 

Here is the answer I just received for my latest e-mail. Have to say that it's a lot clearer than the earlier ones that I got. Sounds as if totem poles not on the list.

 

"The spirit of the clause is primarily to cover “close-up”, frame filling images of paintings and other “flat” artworks, but it’s not possible to list every single variation of this. Images of statues, sculptures etc are generally fine to be marked as exclusive if they are not submitted by you elsewhere, are shown in context and are free of any other legal restrictions. If you’re unsure, you should mark the image as non-exclusive."

[MariaJ]

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Here is the answer I just received for my latest e-mail. Have to say that it's a lot clearer than the earlier ones that I got. Sounds as if totem poles not on the list.

 

"The spirit of the clause is primarily to cover “close-up”, frame filling images of paintings and other “flat” artworks, but it’s not possible to list every single variation of this. Images of statues, sculptures etc are generally fine to be marked as exclusive if they are not submitted by you elsewhere, are shown in context and are free of any other legal restrictions. If you’re unsure, you should mark the image as non-exclusive."

 

Thanks for posting it John.  I received the same response by email overnight. It is definitely more helpful than the previous guideline.

 

Maria

[Cryptoprocta]

6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Here is the answer I just received for my latest e-mail. Have to say that it's a lot clearer than the earlier ones that I got. Sounds as if totem poles not on the list.

 

"The spirit of the clause is primarily to cover “close-up”, frame filling images of paintings and other “flat” artworks, but it’s not possible to list every single variation of this. Images of statues, sculptures etc are generally fine to be marked as exclusive if they are not submitted by you elsewhere, are shown in context and are free of any other legal restrictions. If you’re unsure, you should mark the image as non-exclusive."

That seems to be the same as we were told before:  <1/3rd of frame for a photo of a statue or sculpture, to show that it's 'in context', which is how I interepreted what we got told before.

(Isn't a totem pole a sculpture, therefore would be subject to the same rule?)

[gvallee]

On 11/02/2019 at 05:04, RedSnapper said:

 

 

It's been there a few days

 

 

km

 

Curious about that. Is the box ticked by default for you? I passed QC this morning, and although Alamy has already marked my whole portfolio as exclusive, the exclusive box wasn't ticked for this new submission.

 

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

That seems to be the same as we were told before:  <1/3rd of frame for a photo of a statue or sculpture, to show that it's 'in context', which is how I interepreted what we got told before.

(Isn't a totem pole a sculpture, therefore would be subject to the same rule?)

 

The main concern seems to be about "flat" artwork that fills the frame (which makes some sense), but I guess it's basically a matter of interpretation -- i.e. it's every man or woman for himself or herself -- at this point. I've told Alamy that I will be happy to change any of my images to "non-exclusive" if they want me to. Personally, I don't think that the onus should be totally on us given that the selection process is so subjective.

[spacecadet]

9 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

Is the box ticked by default for you?

 

No.

You have to click on the cogwheel in AIM and tick the box. It's not retrospective, though, so you have to do it manually for any existing batches.

I did it yesterday and it's working for me now.

[spacecadet]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

The main concern seems to be about "flat" artwork that fills the frame (which makes some sense), but I guess it's basically a matter of interpretation -- i.e. it's every man or woman for himself or herself -- at this point. I've told Alamy that I will be happy to change any of my images to "non-exclusive" if they want me to. Personally, I don't think that the onus should be totally on us given that the selection process is so subjective.

Alamy generally play a straight bat, so I'm confident they won't kick anybody out for getting  it wrong if it's debatable, or for a "first offence".

That's why I'm relaxed about it.

[gvallee]

9 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

No.

You have to click on the cogwheel in AIM and tick the box. It's not retrospective, though, so you have to do it manually for any existing batches.

I did it yesterday and it's working for me now.

 

Oh I see. Done now, thanks.

[John Mitchell]

7 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Alamy generally play a straight bat, so I'm confident they won't kick anybody out for getting  it wrong if it's debatable, or for a "first offence".

That's why I'm relaxed about it.

 

Yes, given that the rules regarding "artwork" are so vague, I'm trusting that Alamy will alert us individually if there are any potential problems after the new contract takes effect, so that we can correct them. It's going to take us awhile (me anyway, it seems I'm a slow learner) to get the idea.

[Richard Baker]

I've little idea exactly how many but think I need to tackle approx 5,000 and make them non-excl and I've gone through various excl/non/excl/excl deals over the years without keeping a record of those affecting dates (who knew I'd need to!). At this point - apart from isolate each one individually, I have no idea how I'm supposed to do so. Alongside creating new pictures, it'll take me months. I have 10,000 elsewhere and probably need to look through them and check. I'm procrastinating but made a start, though.

 

And anyway, it's very possible that I'll make unintentional mistakes.