60% Commission too high

[Joolz]

I've noticed the photo's i'm selling are appearing on third party sites, how can i stop this please and also please explain why i'm getting 60% commission on some of my sales ? i really feel it's not worth the time i'm spending in sorting and uploading and adding relevant data to the material i'm sharing with Alamy

[geogphotos]

You can opt out of the distribution scheme.

 

I'm really interested in the vintage film shots that you have. Could you kindly explain how copyright works for them? Presumably the original copyright belongs to the various studios and not the photographer. I'm just curious because I'm always grappling with copyright problems with the old slides that I copy. 

 

Thanks

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

You can opt out of the distribution scheme.

 

I'm really interested in the vintage film shots that you have. Could you kindly explain how copyright works for them? Thanks

 

OP's main business is sales of original publicity prints and lobby cards. Of course that's perfectly legit, but there's no mention of rights in the ebay store. I'm curious as well.

[Joolz]

Image Copyright always belongs to the Studio

[spacecadet]

14 minutes ago, Joolz said:

Image Copyright always belongs to the Studio

The Alamy contributor contract requires you to have a licence from the copyright holder if you don't own it yourself.

Edited August 6, 2020 by spacecadet

[Joolz]

18 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

The Alamy contributor contract requires you to have a licence from the copyright holder if you don't own it yourself.

 

ebay is more profitable to me so that is where i'm looking to now,thnx

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Could you kindly explain how copyright works for them?

I think we have our answer.

6 minutes ago, Joolz said:

 

ebay is more profitable to me so that is where i'm looking to now,thnx

Without a licence you are at risk of breach of contract and copyright.

[geogphotos]

Why do I bother to follow the rules?🤕

[Brian Yarvin]

Ian, you don't know if you're following the rules until you get caught breaking one. 

[geogphotos]

37 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Ian, you don't know if you're following the rules until you get caught breaking one. 

 

 

That's true Brian. I've had a few removed when I pushed the boundaries - a photo of an old 1970s advert of Marlboro Man was dropped after Philip Morris noticed it, and some graffiti artist ones, also National Trust ones.

 

And I think that you have articulated the real situation. Nobody 'notices' until somebody else does and then the contributor has to face the music. 

[spacecadet]

deleted

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by spacecadet

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

old 1970s advert of Marlboro Man

Fair enough

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

graffiti artist ones, also National Trust ones.

Not fair enough. But hey.

[geogphotos]

12 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Fair enough

Not fair enough. But hey.

 

 

All fair enough.

 

But I would estimate there are millions of images on Alamy that break the rules and even when Alamy are made aware nothing happens. So I think inaction speaks louder than words.

[geogphotos]

What the Alamy contract really seems to mean is :

 

'We will take commission on sales from everything and anything you upload, we won't even look at it or care a jot or ask a  question.  Then if someone complains,  we will pretend to be very concerned and hold you responsible for breaking contractual rules we which have knowingly ignored all along.'

 

How likely is it that somebody uploading a collection, for example,  pictures of hundreds of movie stars in the 1960s has taken all those pictures or negotiated deals with all those  studios? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by geogphotos

[SRJUK]

On 06/08/2020 at 11:20, geogphotos said:

I'm really interested in the vintage film shots that you have. ....

 

 

 

Is Dances with Wolves really now a vintage film ? 😞

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, SRJUK said:

 

Is Dances with Wolves really now a vintage film ? 😞

 

 

I noticed ones from the 1960s. 

 

The OP made it clear that the copyright is with the studios. Alamy must be content to have these images on sale. The OP is prepared to take the risk - if there is one - I have no idea how this works, maybe studios allow this sort of thing for the extra  publicity?

 

It's the OP's business and Alamy's.  I was genuinely interested since I have been thinking about copyright a lot lately. I've probably been much too worried by it when I look at a LOT of the stuff on Alamy from reputable agencies and national collections ( photographer unknown).

Edited August 9, 2020 by geogphotos

[SRJUK]

19 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

I noticed ones from the 1960s. 

 

...The OP is prepared to take the risk - if there is one - I have no idea how this works, maybe studios allow this sort of thing for the extra  publicity?

my comment was tongue in cheek... I also have an interest as I've had a photo of a movie poster removed due to copyright, so I don't see how someone can just upload loads of movie stills and make money from them.  Dances with Wolves is produced by a company solely owned (I believe) by Kevin Costner, I doubt he gave permission.

[geogphotos]

On 10/08/2020 at 11:53, SRJUK said:

my comment was tongue in cheek... I also have an interest as I've had a photo of a movie poster removed due to copyright, so I don't see how someone can just upload loads of movie stills and make money from them.  Dances with Wolves is produced by a company solely owned (I believe) by Kevin Costner, I doubt he gave permission.

 

 

So where would you say that leaves us?

[SRJUK]

29 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

So where would you say that leaves us?

 

I think we shrug our shoulders, accept that it's some other person's problem and move on.  

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, SRJUK said:

 

I think we shrug our shoulders, accept that it's some other person's problem and move on.  

Yes, the silence from the OP is deafening, but the images are still up. He's running a tremendous risk.

Since he's admitted he doesn't have licences, and made no effort to take them down in the last fortnight, I've reported him to member services.

Edited August 23, 2020 by spacecadet

[geogphotos]

5 hours ago, SRJUK said:

 

I think we shrug our shoulders, accept that it's some other person's problem and move on.  

 

It leaves me thinking that Alamy turns a blind eye until somebody forces them to look. They get the commission, the contributor takes the risk. Alamy don't see nothing. 

 

Years ago I contacted Contributor Services over RF images that should not have been RF according to Alamy's rules on property. I did this because I felt my RM pics of the same subject were being potentially threatened by images that broke the rules. Each time I got a nice, standard reply thanking me and assuring me that they would look into it. Nothing ever changed. No skin off Alamy's nose if a contributor was offering a possibly attractive RF option on something that should not have been RF. 

 

I have always found Alamy's claim to be ethical dubious in this particular respect. It would be simpler and more honest to change the contract wording and stop the pretence. Just accept that Alamy is nothing but a massive image portal that does not police its content and state clearly that all risk is taken by the contributor. 

 

This would potentially have the positive effect of making the contributor very clear that they are not 'tricking' Alamy when they get an image up on sale. They are putting themselves, not Alamy, at risk. 

Edited August 23, 2020 by geogphotos