Exclusivity - beware!

[geogphotos]

 

Presumably this has to be 'non-exclusive'?

 

 

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, M.Chapman said:

 

They could if Alamy's definition of "exclusive" was simple.

In other words, the same as anyone else's. Alamy isn't marketing exclusive images as such- there's no indication on the image sales page. As I see it, it was just a concession to placate contributors- a concession which it's in Alamy's sole interest to rein in. Alamy has put forward no other logical reason other than "because we say so".

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

Presumably this has to be 'non-exclusive'?

 

 

 I'd say not as it's just a printed design and not too artistic, but who knows? The graphic designer might disagree. I've got a fair few of those and mine sell too.

The worms are starting to overflow this particular can.

[geogphotos]

 

Non exclusive? The art work occupies the bulk of the frame and is not in context.

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

[geogphotos]

 

[M.Chapman]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

It just does not make sense.

 

The only way it makes sense to me is that Alamy are using it as an "excuse" to claw back as much of the U-Turn they made on the commission cut from contributors as possible.

 

In no way can this interpretation guarantee that "Exclusive" images on Alamy are always unique. There are thousands or even millions of images taken of the same thing from the same viewpoint, sometimes at almost the same time with insignificant differences. 

 

Mark

[Phil Robinson]

 "the exclusivity elements introduced in February 2019 are contractual terms and need to be followed by contributors"

That means they need to be made very clear and understood by contributors. 

That has now happened - thank you.

We are now in a position to comply with the terms of the contract in a way we were not before this clarification.

It would make sense, and be fairer, therefore, to start the policy of recovering money for incorrectly annotated images from now or, preferably, from the date that this clause in the contract is amended to include what you seem to have accepted is a necessary legal clarification of the term "artwork" which is too vague and open to interpretation for a legally-binding contract.

[M.Chapman]

11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

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'. 

+1

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

That means they need to be made very clear and understood by contributors. 

That has now happened - thank you.

Not yet it hasn't!

[M.Chapman]

39 minutes ago, Alamy said:

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.  

 

IMHO these terms are equally unfair to all contributors.....

As lenient as possible??? They are your own T&Cs.

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

The only way it makes sense to me is that Alamy are using it as an "excuse" to claw back as much of the U-Turn they made on the commission cut from contributors as possible.

You could be forgiven for drawing that conclusion

8 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

In no way can this interpretation guarantee that "Exclusive" images on Alamy are always unique.

You could also be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that it's not meant to. Otherwise why would images not be marketed to clients as exclusive?

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by spacecadet

[BobD]

29 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

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?

 

There is no extra money for Alamy to make to regard 'exclusive' in the normal sense of the word.

[geogphotos]

4 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

There is no extra money for Alamy to make to regard 'exclusive' in the normal sense of the word.

 

There can't be any positives unless they advertise and promote exclusive content. There is no point providing exclusive images to Alamy only for them to classify them as non-exclusive and punish the contributor. 

 

What incentive is there to give exclusivity to Alamy for the sort of image now being classified as 'slavish' copies of artworks? 

[BobD]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

There can't be any positives unless they advertise and promote exclusive content. There is no point providing exclusive images to Alamy only for them to classify them as non-exclusive and punish the contributor. 

 

What incentive is there to give exclusivity to Alamy for the sort of image now being classified as 'slavish' copies of artworks? 

 

 You're preaching to the converted Ian. 

I went non exclusive at the last commission cut and wish I had done it earlier.

[geogphotos]

3 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

 You're preaching to the converted Ian. 

I went non exclusive at the last commission cut and wish I had done it earlier.

 

 

I also supply Getty Editorial but otherwise options for RM are limited.  

 

I assume that those mentioning being non-exclusive are talking about RF and micro-stock? 

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[Marianne]

I've had images that I didn't mark as exclusive sold here, much to my chagrin, but assumed that was my fault for not marking them that way. 

 

But from this discussion it would seem this new definition of "exclusive" is beyond the pale - no other stock agency defines "exclusive" as the only photo of a certain subject. It is certainly far from the standard definition in the industry. When the terms from micro agencies are more generous, it is concerning. 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Marianne

[meanderingemu]

45 minutes ago, Marianne said:

I've had images that I didn't mark as exclusive sold here, much to my chagrin, but assumed that was my fault for not marking them that way. 

 

But from this discussion it would seem this new definition of "exclusive" is beyond the pale - no other stock agency defines "exclusive" as the only photo of a certain subject. It is certainly far from the standard definition in the industry. When the terms from micro agencies are more generous, it is concerning. 

 

 

 

 

 

As stated by Alamy above:

 

Quote

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.  

 

 

so are you saying that even though the image were Exclusive as per the contractual term they refused to pay you 50% just because you didn't check-mark them properly?  That doesn't seem lenient to me.

[Richard Tadman]

To me this is very simple. An "exclusive" image is by legal definition an image that is inherently unique. The subject matter is irrelevant. It is no more complex than that.
If I take photo of Blackpool Tower and it differs in any way, however slight from any other picture of Blackpool Tower - then it is unique.
Following on from that, provided I only make this "unique" image available to Alamy (with the permissible personal sale exclusions) then that satisfies the requirement of being "exclusive to Alamy"

If anyone interprets that differently - speak to my legal team.

[bchris]

Alamy, is it possible to make AIM filter or search only Exclusive and/or Non-exclusive images?  Ability to filter images for one or the other would make setting the proper assignment much easier, quicker, and accurate.  As it is now, one has to view each image to check whether an image is marked exclusive or non-exclusive. 

 

[geogphotos]

When photographing a painting the purpose is to end up with what is a copy of the painting. Simple. 

 

When you photograph stained glass in a church you are not doing the same thing at all. You might want to end up with a version of the artwork which would only be visible if you were able to erect scaffolding and view it straight on. In a church there is usually low light, the stained glass is above you with converging verticals, there are difficulties with depth of field because the bottom of the window is much closer to the camera than the top ( if you are standing fairly close to it). Often there are obstructions to the view such as altar candles or hanging lights and you have to shoot at an angle, the light coming through the window is variable from moment to moment, and needs to be consistent for good results rather than varying across the window. If you use a high ISO because of the low light and the need for depth of field you will face the problem that the tracery/surround of the glass may show a lot of digital noise.

 

I'm not going to argue that it is the most advanced form of photography or anything remotely close to it but there is some skill involved both in taking the picture and in post-production.

 

Frankly, I find it insulting to be told by Alamy that this is just a 'slavish' copy. I can only think that the person describing it as 'slavish' hasn't actually tried it for themselves. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

3 minutes ago, bchris said:

Alamy, is it possible to make AIM filter or search only Exclusive and/or Non-exclusive images?  Ability to filter images for one or the other would make setting the proper assignment much easier, quicker, and accurate.  As it is now, one has to view each image to check whether an image is marked exclusive or non-exclusive. 

 

 

 

This is possible already. Scroll down the Attributes tab. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by geogphotos

[bchris]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

This is possible already. Scroll down the Attributes tab. 

Oh, a hidden feature, I see.  Thank you, geogphotos.

[Marianne]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

As stated by Alamy above:

 

 

 

so are you saying that even though the image were Exclusive as per the contractual term they refused to pay you 50% just because you didn't check-mark them properly?  That doesn't seem lenient to me.

 

True, but if I didn't mark it that way, how would they know? So I'm mad at myself, not them. I wouldn't expect them to pay me for something they didn't know.

 

But I am chagrined at uncollected amounts. I have one sold on S over a year ago that appeared in over a dozen US newspapers along with 49 other Alamy images and I still haven't been paid. In that respect, they're being too lenient on their buyers, and unfair to us. Why not collect upon download like everyplace else? Now that would be a change that would make a big difference, and it would be for their benefit as well as ours. 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Marianne

[M.Chapman]

2 minutes ago, Marianne said:

Why not collect upon download like everyplace else? Now that would be a change that would make a big difference. 

+1

 

Eliminates usage without payment and saves a whole pile of admin costs too.

 

Mark