Exclusivity - beware!

[geogphotos]

Alamy certainly knows how to put the boot in.

 

What timing - wait until the middle of a global pandemic lockdown when a 35% slump in GDP is forecast and sales are already suffering, income dropping like a stone....

 

I think we can see who is going to be expected to pay the price of all this. 

[Phil Robinson]

33 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Crikey. Hadn't occurred to me.

Only a matter of time then.

This is nothing more than a money-making exercise. As I said before, great timing, Alamy. I could really do with losing another 20% of my income right now.

 

I don't think it's a money-making exercise, I think it's just a badly handled implementation of an unclear policy.

I agree with some of it in principle - it's hard to say an image of a postage stamp or a book cover is 'exclusive' - it's about the lack of clarity and information.

I do agree on the timing.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Phil Robinson

[Jim_Grady]

2 hours 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?

Bloody Hell, ANYTHING manmade could be construed as "ART"

[spacecadet]

15 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

 

 it's hard to say an image of a postage stamp or a book cover is 'exclusive' -

Straight copies, yes. But this is being applied much more widely than that.

[meanderingemu]

23 minutes ago, Jim_Grady said:

Bloody Hell, ANYTHING manmade could be construed as "ART"

 

 

it is.  the issue is what is Alamy's definition

[Matt Ashmore]

I agree, it is all a little unclear...

 

The 'line in the sand' as to what cannot be sold as exclusive and what can be sold as exclusive but must be sold as editorial is unclear.

 

I'm assuming that a photo of a tin of baked beans can be sold exclusive but editorial (it has a label with a picture). But then the example of stamps is not a million miles detached from this... both are consumer products which bear some kind of artwork. 

 

[Phil Robinson]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

it is.  the issue is what is Alamy's definition

That's exactly it. I'm hoping this clawing back of money will be postponed until that is made clear.
By the way, I'm looking forward to meeting your friend Erin Gemu one day.

 

[Mr Standfast]

41 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

 

I don't think it's a money-making exercise, I think it's just a badly handled implementation of an unclear policy.

I agree with some of it in principle - it's hard to say an image of a postage stamp or a book cover is 'exclusive' - it's about the lack of clarity and information.

I do agree on the timing.

Deja vu

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

That's exactly it. I'm hoping this clawing back of money will be postponed until that is made clear.
By the way, I'm looking forward to meeting your friend Erin Gemu one day.

 

😁  I have had people ask me who Erin was....

[BobD]

Just another reason to not be exclusive to Alamy.

 

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, BobD said:

Just another reason to not be exclusive to Alamy.

 

 

 

this has nothing to do with that.  In fact even though i am not exclusive, most of the images that would potentially be affected by a wide definition of Art would still be exclusive to Alamy for distribution purpose since they are not distributed by many of the agents that would disqualify them

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

Just another reason to not be exclusive to Alamy.

 

You misunderstand. Take a look at the thread, and the references.

The problem isn't exclusivity, it's Alamy's definition, and its extension to the subject matter rather than just the image.

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by spacecadet

[BobD]

12 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

You misunderstand.

The problem isn't exclusivity, it's Alamy's definition, and its extension to the subject matter rather than just the image.

 

 

No I am not misunderstanding.

If Alamy regard an image as not being exclusive for commission purposes, what is the point of having it only on Alamy.

[Phil Robinson]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

Just another reason to not be exclusive to Alamy.

 

It is a reason to send images that are exclusive to Alamy elsewhere if it's not going to affect your commission. 

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

No I am not misunderstanding.

If Alamy regard an image as not being exclusive for commission purposes, what is the point of having it only on Alamy.

A contract is a two way street. The problem is that their definition of "artwork" is unclear, appears to be a moving target and may well be unfair as well.

Edited April 15, 2020 by spacecadet

[BobD]

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

A contract is a two way street. The problem is that their definition of "artwork" is unclear, appears to be a moving target and may well be unfair as well.

 

Agreed, but there is nothing in the contract that says you have to be exclusive. They are in fact saying you cannot be exclusive with some images. They already seem to be moving the goal posts, how long before statues are added. Anything that is created by humans can be considered art.

This is just another way to take money from contributors.

This is not the Alamy of 10 years ago, nor 5 years for that matter. There is nothing to be gained for loyalty here anymore.

[Alamy]

To give more context to the marking of images exclusive on Alamy. Images can never be marked exclusive  that are available via third party licensing, such as any another stock agency or image site but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

  

In addition images that are solely of artworks and copyright free artworks that would fall within the public domain cannot be marked as exclusive. This can include images taken of murals, stained glass windows, album artwork and postage stamps that feature solely the artwork.  

 

We’ve received legal advice on these matters and in most cases the key element comes down to the amount of context in the image. Any direct slavish copy of a 2-dimensional artwork that has fallen into the public domain, are not afforded their own copyright protection due to the lack of originality. So if there is no surrounding context to the artwork at all then the image would not be eligible to be classed as Exclusive. We have not included statues or sculptures in our definition of artwork for exclusivity as they are 3-dimensional.  

  

If featured in the wider context then images of artworks may be eligible but should be taken with as much context as possible e.g. in the wider context of a church in the case of a stained glass window.  

 

We have been as lenient as possible, but the exclusivity elements introduced in February 2019 are contractual terms and need to be followed by contributors, and to be fair to all Contributors Alamy has to enforce these terms.  

 

If you've received an email from us on this we can give you a detailed list of the images that have been flagged.  

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, BobD said:

you cannot be exclusive with some images.

Effectively some subjects, and with the definition of which subjects getting wider and wider. Stained-glass windows and medieval sculptures!

I don't think my images would be accepted elsewhere- besides I've already invested the effort in preparing them here. Potentially having money taken away retrospectively- in respect of images that were uploaded before the contract change on the basis that they could be exclusive- is doubly unfair.

[spacecadet]

9 minutes ago, Alamy said:

To give more context to the marking of images exclusive on Alamy. Images can never be marked exclusive  that are available via third party licensing, such as any another stock agency or image site but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

  

In addition images that are solely of artworks and copyright free artworks that would fall within the public domain cannot be marked as exclusive. This can include images taken of murals, stained glass windows, album artwork and postage stamps that feature solely the artwork.  

 

We’ve received legal advice on these matters and in most cases the key element comes down to the amount of context in the image. Any direct slavish copy of a 2-dimensional artwork that has fallen into the public domain, are not afforded their own copyright protection due to the lack of originality. So if there is no surrounding context to the artwork at all then the image would not be eligible to be classed as Exclusive. We have not included statues or sculptures in our definition of artwork for exclusivity as they are 3-dimensional.  

  

If featured in the wider context then images of artworks may be eligible but should be taken with as much context as possible e.g. in the wider context of a church in the case of a stained glass window.  

 

We have been as lenient as possible, but the exclusivity elements introduced in February 2019 are contractual terms and need to be followed by contributors, and to be fair to all Contributors Alamy has to enforce these terms.  

 

If you've received an email from us on this we can give you a detailed list of the images that have been flagged.  

Still no explanation as to why the definition of exclusivity has been extended beyond the images themselves to certain types of subject.

AFAIK our images aren't marketed as exclusive, so there's no issue of misdescription. So why would you need legal advice unless it's to be able to enforce this new, wider definition of "artwork" against contributors? There doesn't seem to be any external legal issue.

And still, what an excellent time to take money from contributors.

Edited April 15, 2020 by spacecadet

[meanderingemu]

8 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

 

We’ve received legal advice on these matters and in most cases the key element comes down to the amount of context in the image. Any direct slavish copy of a 2-dimensional artwork that has fallen into the public domain, are not afforded their own copyright protection due to the lack of originality. So if there is no surrounding context to the artwork at all then the image would not be eligible to be classed as Exclusive. We have not included statues or sculptures in our definition of artwork for exclusivity as they are 3-dimensional.  

  

 

 

 

can you point to where that definition is?  we are asked to make a call before if something is allowed to be exclusive or not, and in order to do so we would need to have said definition, or guarantees from Alamy that if we marked something as Non-Exclusive, that did not fall under the definition, Alamy would later pay us the additional commission of 25% we are entitled. 

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

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

 

This has been my complaint all along. Alamy needs to supply us with a list of subjects/images that cannot be marked as "exclusive" if they want us to comply with their requirements. Without such guidelines, the whole process is too subjective and totally confusing for contributors.

[M.Chapman]

The irony of this is, as far as I can see, there is still no way for a customer to select exclusive only images on the search page.

 

IMHO the announcement of our commission cut to 40% (just before Xmas 2018 if I recall), followed by a "roll back" to effect non-exclusive only, followed by a broadening to include artwork has been a total cock-up from start to finish. 

 

When I joined Alamy in 2010 I did so because I felt there was a spirit of friendly co-operation. But as time has gone I feel this has been steadily eroded. As a result of the commission cut I started submitting elsewhere too, and I'm glad I did because;

 

a) I'm no longer exclusive to an agency who I no longer hold in such high regard.

b) I find I can earn more per image elsewhere

 

Come on Alamy, sort yourselves out. I have made a significant investment in terms of time an effort to build my portfolio on Alamy and I still feel a great deal of loyalty to you. I would love to continue working with you to help drive your business forward on an open and collaborative basis. But, if you treat us like "the opposition" rather than "valuable suppliers" it becomes increasingly demotivating. I had hoped that when PA Media took over I would see a change in focus and some clear direction on how Alamy and their contributors could work together to move the business forward.

 

Mark

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

I'm sure this wide definition wasn't in the discussions we had with admin nor mentioned by James West in his videos. It seems to be a bit of gold plating introduced afterwards. And the gold seems to have got a bit thicker in the last year.

There's still no explanation as to why it was extended. No-one here understands how "non-exclusive" can be extended to the subject and not just the image. It's nothing to do with copyright. Does any other library define the term in this way?

Edited April 15, 2020 by spacecadet

[M.Chapman]

25 minutes ago, Alamy said:

In addition images that are solely of artworks and copyright free artworks that would fall within the public domain cannot be marked as exclusive.

 

They could if Alamy's definition of "exclusive" was simple. i.e. When communicating with your customers "An image is marked as exclusive if the photographer has stated that they are not selling licences to this image anywhere else".

 

Simples.... 

 

Mark

Edited April 15, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

28 minutes ago, Alamy said:

To give more context to the marking of images exclusive on Alamy. Images can never be marked exclusive  that are available via third party licensing, such as any another stock agency or image site but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

  

In addition images that are solely of artworks and copyright free artworks that would fall within the public domain cannot be marked as exclusive. This can include images taken of murals, stained glass windows, album artwork and postage stamps that feature solely the artwork.  

 

We’ve received legal advice on these matters and in most cases the key element comes down to the amount of context in the image. Any direct slavish copy of a 2-dimensional artwork that has fallen into the public domain, are not afforded their own copyright protection due to the lack of originality. So if there is no surrounding context to the artwork at all then the image would not be eligible to be classed as Exclusive. We have not included statues or sculptures in our definition of artwork for exclusivity as they are 3-dimensional.  

  

If featured in the wider context then images of artworks may be eligible but should be taken with as much context as possible e.g. in the wider context of a church in the case of a stained glass window.  

 

We have been as lenient as possible, but the exclusivity elements introduced in February 2019 are contractual terms and need to be followed by contributors, and to be fair to all Contributors Alamy has to enforce these terms.  

 

If you've received an email from us on this we can give you a detailed list of the images that have been flagged.  

 

 

No other agency applies this 'definition'. All other agencies regard an image as exclusive if it is only available for licence through them. 

 

Certainly that is how the market leader Getty Images treats exclusivity. 

 

The paragraph I have highlighted is conflating two completely different subjects. Either the writer is confused or is seeking to confuse the reader.

 

There may well be legal advice regarding the copyright position of a photographic copy of a two dimensional subject, but that has no relevance at all to Alamy decision to accept such images, and then regard them as 'non-exclusive'. 

 

It just does not make sense.

 

I'll tell you that there is nothing particularly 'slavish' about photographing stained glass. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos