Exclusivity - beware!

[spacecadet]

The bit about reclaiming all the commission, not just the excess, is in the contract.

Now that's not fair- exclusivity doesn't affect the fee Alamy charges, Alamy still gets said fee and by seeking to recover more than their overpayment it seems to amount to a penalty.

What a great time to help contributors' revenues.

Edited April 15, 2020 by spacecadet

[Steve F]

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Yes. Easy to find.

"2.7. Images can be marked as “Only available on Alamy” meaning the image is Exclusive to Alamy and any subsequent licences forthese images will attract the commission rate applicable to Exclusive Images. If Alamy deems that the Contributor has marked anImage as Exclusive when in fact it is Non-exclusive then Alamy has the right to reclaim all commission paid in respect of such Imageand/or terminate the contract immediately. The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, or that are notprotected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown must never be marked as “Only available on Alamy” "

 

Ok, got it. So Alamy has expanded their definition of artwork. Does an image have to be marked as non exlcusive if the artwork is shown with context around it?? And does Alamy define what artwork is?

[Matt Ashmore]

47 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

 

Silly question maybe... but did you email them back to ask them to clarify why they regarded your images as being wrongly tagged exclusive?

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, Steve F said:

"2.7. Images can be marked as “Only available on Alamy” meaning the image is Exclusive to Alamy and any subsequent licences forthese images will attract the commission rate applicable to Exclusive Images. If Alamy deems that the Contributor has marked anImage as Exclusive when in fact it is Non-exclusive then Alamy has the right to reclaim all commission paid in respect of such Imageand/or terminate the contract immediately. The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, or that are notprotected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown must never be marked as “Only available on Alamy” "

 

Ok, got it. So Alamy has expanded their definition of artwork. Does an image have to be marked as non exlcusive if the artwork is shown with context around it?? And does Alamy define what artwork is?

Expanded indeed.

No,  the definition is satisfyingly vague from Alamy's side.

[Alex Ramsay]

44 minutes ago, Avpics said:

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

 

I only have my images with Alamy, apart from my own website, and have done for about fifteen years

 

Alex

[John Morrison]

Alamy, can you please clear up this issue... which seems to be conflating two - or maybe three - separate issues into one confusing definition of 'exclusive'...

[meanderingemu]

18 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.

 

 

exactly.  we have asked a few time to get a definition of "artwork" and to date i don't think one ever got released.  so now they are going to add more to finance the acquisition? 

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

Alamy, can you please clear up this issue... which seems to be conflating two - or maybe three - separate issues into one confusing definition of 'exclusive'...

It's here

but I do agree that the definition of "artwork" seems to have expanded if it now includes stained-glass and church mural centuries old.

[meanderingemu]

20 minutes ago, george said:

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

 

where is that categorisation ?  I have yet to find one.  

Is the quilt my mother did artwork?  The design on my birthday cake? my nephew's Hama beads project?  all the current Rainbow drawings?

Edited April 15, 2020 by meanderingemu

[Alex Ramsay]

6 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

Silly question maybe... but did you email them back to ask them to clarify why they regarded your images as being wrongly tagged exclusive?

 

I did - they sent me the pics they felt were in breach of their contract. These included a couple of unique original World War II prints in my possession originally taken by members of my family (which I've disputed) - I imagine they thought these were copied from books. Also some frescoes in private houses in Italy, where I was granted permission by the owners. The pics where I was definitely in error were my copies of wood engravings from a Victorian book, also some pages from vintage magazines - I had forgotten about these. And of course a stained glass church window, which I would have considered an architectural shot.

 

Alex

[JaniMarkus Hasa]

I just don't get the logic here. Alex takes an image that he submits only to Alamy, so it is exclusive no matter how you look at it. Now, Alamy says they don't want that sort of images marked as exclusive. Fair enough, but why should they take 60% instead of 50%? 

[meanderingemu]

15 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

 

Ok, got it. So Alamy has expanded their definition of artwork. Does an image have to be marked as non exlcusive if the artwork is shown with context around it?? And does Alamy define what artwork is?

 

where?  what section is it defined?

 

[geogphotos]

10 minutes ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

I just don't get the logic here. Alex takes an image that he submits only to Alamy, so it is exclusive no matter how you look at it. Now, Alamy says they don't want that sort of images marked as exclusive. Fair enough, but why should they take 60% instead of 50%? 

 

 

Because they can.

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

From bitter experience I'd like to suggest that there is a lot more to photographing stained glass successfully compared with standing in front of a painting in an art gallery. 

 

Low light, awkward angles, perspective problems for starters. 

 

Then there is the research to find out about the image - my reference work on Suffolk stained glass in the 19th century cost £85

 

I've also gone to the trouble of tracing down the heir of one famous stained glass artist to double-check and get approval over copyright for modern images. 

 

Why bother?😑

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[Niels Quist]

42 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

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!

 

I'll bet you know that you can use filters to find exclusive and non-exclusive images. Attributes in the AIM - lower half (hidden normally). A very good check.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Niels Quist

[Avpics]

8 minutes ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

I just don't get the logic here. Alex takes an image that he submits only to Alamy, so it is exclusive no matter how you look at it. Now, Alamy says they don't want that sort of images marked as exclusive. Fair enough, but why should they take 60% instead of 50%? 

That was a 'fudge' to try to calm the backlash when they took a larger commission.

[geogphotos]

Just now, Avpics said:

That was a 'fudge' to try to calm the backlash when they took a larger commission.

 

 

And it illustrates the truth that laws made in haste are seldom good laws.

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, Niels Quist said:

 

I'll bet you know that you can use filters to find exclusive and non-exclusive images. Attributes in the AIM - lower half (hidden normally). A very good check.

 

Yes thanks but where do I start with 68,000 images??

 

I spent months on this, losing commission on every single sale, and now have become aware of big gaps - whose fault I don't know, and I can't download the data spreadsheet because that isn't working!  And they certainly won't refund when mistakes are made in Alamy's favour, just clawback when the reverse happens.

 

Great isn't it?😠

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[george]

13 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

where is that categorisation ?  I have yet to find one.  

Is the quilt my mother did artwork?  The design on my birthday cake? my nephew's Hama beads project?  all the current Rainbow drawings?

Just my opinion, an artist is someone who creates a unique piece of artwork, be it a painting, sculpture etc. A stained glass window will be a unique piece of art, albeit created with the use of glass as opposed to paint. And yes, I think your mothers quilt may well be a piece of art  

[geogphotos]

4 minutes ago, george said:

Just my opinion, an artist is someone who creates a unique piece of artwork, be it a painting, sculpture etc. A stained glass window will be a unique piece of art, albeit created with the use of glass as opposed to paint. And yes, I think your mothers quilt may well be a piece of art  

 

In that case there should be no modern stained glass windows on Alamy until 75 years after the artist's death without copyright permission. Or pictures of other artworks come to that.

 

Have you marked your Azulejos as non-exclusive? I don't think I have.

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

10 minutes ago, george said:

Just my opinion, an artist is someone who creates a unique piece of artwork, be it a painting, sculpture etc. A stained glass window will be a unique piece of art, albeit created with the use of glass as opposed to paint. And yes, I think your mothers quilt may well be a piece of art  

 

 

based on your definition most image on Alamy cannot be marked as exclusive.  You could argue that a piece of sushi is art, the protest sign is art, any piece of architecture, Christmas lights,. In fact 75% of my sales this year would be curtailed based on your wide definition.   Doing so after the fact is bad faith.  

Edited April 15, 2020 by meanderingemu

[george]

9 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Have you marked your Azulejos as non-exclusive? I don't think I have.

I don't think I have, but you may well have a point there. Hopefully Alamy will come along at some point and define this for us.

[Phil Robinson]

I've also had that email and am waiting for a reply to my request for clarification.

I don't know which images they are referring to but I have also had recent sales of stained glass windows.

The message refers back to a reminder we were sent in November and they are taking that as the point from which these sales are being judged. As far as I know, that email was the same as the one on the forum and referred only to "artworks". 

I quite understand that photos of a 2 dimensional painting or other work of art taken under the same lighting conditions are basically copies of someone else's work and will, if exposed correctly, be essentially the same image. My email also mentioned book covers. I can understand that as well.

Stained glass windows, however, are a different matter. For one thing they are quite difficult to photograph well. Some people change the perspective to make the sides straight, some don't. Exposure and contrast vary widely. Look at pics on here of the same window and they look different. Some, quite simply, are better than others.

 

Does this also mean statues are included? Or gargoyles? Or indeed any architectural detail or other man-made object in a public place that could be photographed by someone else from the same position?

Stained glass windows are not subject to copyright (the vast majority at least) so what makes them different from a statue, a pulpit or a pillar?

 

I would like to suggest that Alamy delay this recovering of commission from sales until we have had a MUCH CLEARER definition of what the term "artwork" is taken to mean.

Does it cover statues, architectural decorations, stamps, coins, medals, banknotes... etc? It is clearly a separate issue from copyright, so we need MUCH clearer guidance than just the word "artwork".
Please, before taking money back from already struggling photographers who currently cannot go out to earn a living, give us a definitive guide to what can and what can't be marked as "exclusive" whether or not it is placed with other libraries. I have over 40,000 images that I need to consider. One thing I have plenty of at the moment is time - not so money.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Phil Robinson

[geogphotos]

+ 1 

 

One problem now is we used to be able to address concerns to James West as CEO and he would answer and often reconsider. 

 

Who do we address our concern to now?

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

 

 

I would like to suggest that Alamy delay this recovering of commission from sales until we have had a MUCH CLEARER definition of what the term "artwork" is taken to mean.

Does it cover statues, architectural decorations, stamps, coins, medals, banknotes... etc? It is clearly a separate issue from copyright, so we need MUCH clearer guidance than just the word "artwork".
Please, before taking money back from already struggling photographers who currently cannot go out to earn a living, give us a definitive guide to what can and what can't be marked as "exclusive" whether or not it is placed with other libraries. I have over 40,000 images that I need to consider. One thing I have plenty of at the moment is time - not so money.

 

 

the problem is also exacerbated by fact that if we interpret the definition too wildly we are penalised  as they will not come back and tell us, well this should have been marked Exclusive.   Alamy needs clear definition of Artwork stated, and illustrated.  

Edited April 15, 2020 by meanderingemu