Exclusivity - beware!

[Alex Ramsay]

A heads up - just had a disturbing email from Alamy to say that they've found some of my sold images incorrectly marked as 'exclusive' and are therefore going to reclaim the commission paid to me on those pictures, as apparently stated in their contract. I should say they are reclaiming 20% rather than the full 50%, because of the current circumstances. Among these pics are stained-glass windows in churches, which I expect many of us have in our collections.

 

Alex

[Avpics]

You've not said whether these are exclusive on Alamy or do you have them available elsewhere?

[geogphotos]

Just now, Avpics said:

You've not said whether these are exclusive on Alamy or do you have them available elsewhere?

 

 

I have images which are certainly only on Alamy and as far as I know are the only stock images anywhere of a particular church.

 

But it seems that a photograph of a medieval mural, or a stained glass window from 1850, is somehow a 'non-exclusive' image.

 

It makes me want to give up the way they seem to want to squeeze out every last penny from contributors.

 

 

[Doc]

Perhaps Alamy could kindly tell us what images are likely to be Non-Exclusive despite the fact that we have not put them up for sale anywhere else? (It would appear that images of stained glass windows would fall into this category?)

 

Thanks Alamy

 

Kumar

[spacecadet]

This is below the belt.

How on earth is an image of a work of art "non-exclusive" other than because Alamy says it is?

I'd seen this piece of nonsense asserted and ignored it but now we know what Alamy are going to do about it.

 

15 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

I should say they are reclaiming 20% rather than the full 50%, because of the current circumstances.

That implies they're not normally going to pay for such licences at all? How does that work?

[Steve F]

21 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

A heads up - just had a disturbing email from Alamy to say that they've found some of my sold images incorrectly marked as 'exclusive' and are therefore going to reclaim the commission paid to me on those pictures, as apparently stated in their contract. I should say they are reclaiming 20% rather than the full 50%, because of the current circumstances. Among these pics are stained-glass windows in churches, which I expect many of us have in our collections.

 

Alex

 

Quote

I have images which are certainly only on Alamy and as far as I know are the only stock images anywhere of a particular church.

 

But it seems that a photograph of a medieval mural, or a stained glass window from 1850, is somehow a 'non-exclusive' image.

 

It makes me want to give up the way they seem to want to squeeze out every last penny from contributors.

 

 

 

I'm confused, we're talking about two completely different definitions of exclusive. One is that a photo in our collection is only sold on Alamy and hasn't been uploaded to any other agencies.

 

The second meaning talked about above is like an newspaper exclusive story; it's only reported in that newspaper. Or it's the only image of a particular thing.

 

I wasn't aware that we could mark photos as being the only image of a subject. And even if you're shooting at an event, how would you possibly know you've got an exclusive shot that no one else has? Surely an exclusive image in this sense could only be something unusual you've photographed at home?

 

Are we saying that someone else has got an image with another agency so similar to yours that Alamy mistook it for your Alamy picture?

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Steve F

[Richard Tadman]

I always understood that the issue of exclusivity related to a specific image that was only available on Alamy [personal sales excepted] and not offered for sale via any other outlet. 
How can any photographer ensure that a very similar image isn't available through another source?

Edited April 15, 2020 by Richard Tadman
typo

[John Morrison]

16 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

A heads up - just had a disturbing email from Alamy to say that they've found some of my sold images incorrectly marked as 'exclusive' and are therefore going to reclaim the commission paid to me on those pictures, as apparently stated in their contract. I should say they are reclaiming 20% rather than the full 50%, because of the current circumstances. Among these pics are stained-glass windows in churches, which I expect many of us have in our collections.

 

Alex

 

Is there some confusion here? 'Exclusive to Alamy' just means a pic is not available through other sources (apart from the photographer's own website). It doesn't suggest it's in any sense unique... 🤔

[spacecadet]

Just now, John Morrison said:

 

Is there some confusion here? 'Exclusive to Alamy' just means a pic is not available through other sources (apart from the photographer's own website). It doesn't suggest it's in any sense unique... 🤔

Alamy seem to have stretched the definition when they rowed back on the commission cut. But unless someone cares to take them to court, or we kick up an almighty stink about it, they'll get away with it, because they run the accounting system. Speaking of stink, it stinks.

[Steve F]

I think we need some more info from Alex before wildly speculating...!

[geogphotos]

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Alamy seem to have stretched the definition when they rowed back on the commission cut. But unless someone cares to take them to court, or we kick up an almighty stink about it, they'll get away with it, because they run the accounting system. Speaking of stink, it stinks.

 

The definition of copying an artwork now extends to stained glass windows and ancient wall murals.

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, Steve F said:

I think we need some more info from Alex before wildly speculating...!

 

 

I've had the same email. 

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, Steve F said:

I think we need some more info from Alex before wildly speculating...!

They've specifically said what Geog has said before now.

[geogphotos]

I bet Alamy will not be paying extra commission for an image which has been incorrectly marked as Non-Ex when in fact it has always been Exclusive.

 

I had such a sale today and discovered a large number of my 2014 images are all marked as No-Ex when most are Ex.

 

What a mess this whole thing is - and it was only introduced as an afterthought!

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[Steve F]

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I've had the same email. 

 

Have they told you which particular images they are querying? If the images are exclusive to Alamy, surely this is a mistake to be raised with Alamy? Maybe the email was sent out by mistake if it's generic?

 

p.s. I'm not an Alamy shareholder 🤣

[geogphotos]

Is photographing a medieval carved stone head a breach?

 

What about a 16th century carved wooden pulpit, medieval rood screen, a statue? 

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, Steve F said:

 

Have they told you which particular images they are querying? If the images are exclusive to Alamy, surely this is a mistake to be raised with Alamy? Maybe the email was sent out by mistake if it's generic?

 

p.s. I'm not an Alamy shareholder 🤣

 

 

Alamy's view is that they cannot be 'exclusive' to Alamy if they are of artworks unless 'in context' ie) only a third or so of the frame

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

Alamy's view is that they cannot be exclusive to Alamy if they are of artworks unless 'in context'.

 Oh, ok, I've got it now!! Well... Hmmm... Then yes, I would agree they are unfairly changing the definition. Is this in the terms and conditions somewhere?

Edited April 15, 2020 by Steve F

[Steve F]

That seems stupid. If there's like 50,000 pictures of e.g. a famous landmark, there's only so many ways you can photograph it differently. There must be a lot of near identical shots.

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, Steve F said:

 Oh, ok, I've got it now!! Well... Hmmm... Then yes, I would agree they are unfairly changing the definition. Is this in the terms and conditions somewhere?

 

 

It has been announced before in relation to graffiti and copies of paintings. 

 

I did not expect it to cover stained glass.

[spacecadet]

3 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Have they told you which particular images they are querying? If the images are exclusive to Alamy, surely this is a mistake to be raised with Alamy? Maybe the email was sent out by mistake if it's generic?

 

p.s. I'm not an Alamy shareholder 🤣

 

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Alamy's view is that they cannot be 'exclusive' to Alamy if they are of artworks unless 'in context' ie) only a third or so of the frame

Yes, it's not about the image being on another agency, but some assertion about the content being non-exclusive if it's a work in which someone else, or no-one, owns the copyright. Quite a stretch from "non-exclusive" in the normal sense. I see it as mission creep after Alamy had to row back on the across- the-board commission cut. And we didn't notice what we were giving away.

[geogphotos]

Just now, Steve F said:

That seems stupid. If there's like 50,000 pictures of e.g. a famous landmark, there's only so many ways you can photograph it differently. There must be a lot of near identical shots.

 

 

It is an opportunity for them to take money from us.

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 Oh, ok, I've got it now!! Well... Hmmm... Then yes, I would agree they are unfairly changing the definition. Is this in the terms and conditions somewhere?

Yes. Easy to find. 2.7.

"unfairly" probably not as it was changed at the time the concession about exclusive/non-exclusive commission was made and it's been drawn to our attention since. There was an email about it. in Jan 19.

Edited April 15, 2020 by spacecadet

[Steve F]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

It has been announced before in relation to graffiti and copies of paintings. 

 

I did not expect it to cover stained glass.

 

I remember that, but I thought it was a different subject. That we shouldn't take pictures of graffiti or artworks without context because the creator of the art retains the copyright so it was seen as copyright infringement. And it wasn't Alamy's wish to do this per se, they were worried about being sued?

Edited April 15, 2020 by Steve F

[george]

5 minutes ago, Steve F said:

That seems stupid. If there's like 50,000 pictures of e.g. a famous landmark, there's only so many ways you can photograph it differently. There must be a lot of near identical shots.

I don't think it will relate to landmarks, stained glass is categorised as Artwork, which can not be marked exclusive