Changes to the Newspaper Scheme - official thread

[hotbrightsky]

Quote

you take half of your continutors DACS money, even if they never explicitly opted in

 

This was a particularly disgusting abuse of Alamy's power. DACS payments are intended for creators NOT administrators. Despite repeatedly instructing Alamy not to claim on my behalf they continue to do so, thus cheating other artists out of their share. This must be subject to legal challenge I would think.

[hotbrightsky]

Quote

we have UK's largest circulation newspaper paying considerably less for an image ... than does an individual buying Personal Use licence

 

And now Alamy is owned by a news organisation. Funny that. The regulatory authorities need to get their act together and thoroughly investigate the stock photography scam.

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

This was a particularly disgusting abuse of Alamy's power. DACS payments are intended for creators NOT administrators. Despite repeatedly instructing Alamy not to claim on my behalf they continue to do so, thus cheating other artists out of their share. This must be subject to legal challenge I would think.

I'll repeat myself as you do not appear to have read the whole thread.

You were given an opportunity to opt out in 2016 before the new contract became effective. I took advantage of it and you did not. You are therefore bound by the new contract term for the duration of the contract. I am not, I make my own DACS submission and get more money. It was your choice and you cannot opt out after the fact. If you think you can consult a commercial lawyer. I think they will tell you the same.

5 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

And now Alamy is owned by a news organisation. Funny that. The regulatory authorities need to get their act together and thoroughly investigate the stock photography scam.

I don't think that's the function of the regulator.

"Disgusting abuse" is a pretty strong phrase. If you truly think that a client is acting dishonestly you have the option of not supplying that client.

Edited November 10, 2020 by spacecadet

[hotbrightsky]

Quote

Would be interesting to hear from the 159,000 contributors who have already opted in

 

The greatest advantage of joining the newspaper scheme has been that it increases the likelihood of my images being seen and stolen by other organisations. I then pursue those people for the full licence fee (set by me). Using this strategy I have made dozens of times more money than I have through legitimate Alamy image sales. What a farcical industry this is.

[hotbrightsky]

"'Disgusting abuse' is a pretty strong phrase"

Yes it is. It's a disgustingly unethical business practice and its legality is highly questionable.

[hotbrightsky]

"If you truly think that a client is acting dishonestly you have the option of not supplying that client"

I thought Alamy was an agent. If they told me who their (my) clients were and gave me the option to blacklist the worst offenders I would.

[Skyscraperfan]

14 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

I thought Alamy was an agent. If they told me who their (my) clients were and gave me the option to blacklist the worst offenders I would.

Yes, we should get back more control about who can buy a license for my photos and who can't. I was not aware that Alamy and the Daily Mail are now part of the same company. So this new company could sell the image licenses to itself and even choose how much it pays for the license, because if you negotiate with yourself, you might choose a very low price at the cost of the contributors. So sales within the same company should not be possible unless there is a clear rule that the price has to be at least as high as a sale to a competitor.

 

When I joined Alamy, we still had the chance to put very specific restrictions on images, but now those restrictions are largely gone.

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, Skyscraperfan said:

I was not aware that Alamy and the Daily Mail are now part of the same company.

WHAT? That's an extraordinary thing to say.

 PA media is a press agency. The DM is just a shareholder. That's so far from "part of the same company" as to make your post misleading. Can I suggest that you correct it.

Edited November 10, 2020 by spacecadet

[Skyscraperfan]

If multiple news organizations own PA Media, that is even worse. So many of Alamy's clients own a part of the company. That should raise eyebrowse. Imagine Alamy would stop those cheap sales to newspapers. Wouldn't they even veto that decision in their own interest?

At least the annual report of PA Group states that they are aware of  those conflects of interest.That gives me some hope.

[meanderingemu]

Curious are all UK based main media outlets part of the Scheme.  If yes i would expect the reduce costs would be in exchange for speed in payment process, I still have a usage from January from a major UK Media organisation on their Web news that has yet to be paid, and one usage from the summer that took over 3 months to even appear as a sale (race on clearing between that and the Covid Pandemic)

[Alamy]

For clarity, this was an outdated scheme set up over a decade ago. We are not opting people “in”, we are ending the scheme and removing the option to exclude your images from newspaper clients view. There is no link between PA and their Group board and this decision, it is something that makes sense to do from both a business point of view and for our contributors. The sales value for licences outside the pool is indistinguishable to that of those in the pool now that the industry has moved on and newspaper websites use far more images than ever before. Abolishing the scheme will have no other effect than increasing sales as your images will be seen by more customers.

 

Thanks,

Elisabeth 

[geogphotos]

8 minutes ago, Alamy said:

For clarity, this was an outdated scheme set up over a decade ago. We are not opting people “in”, we are ending the scheme and removing the option to exclude your images from newspaper clients view. There is no link between PA and their Group board and this decision, it is something that makes sense to do from both a business point of view and for our contributors. The sales value for licences outside the pool is indistinguishable to that of those in the pool now that the industry has moved on and newspaper websites use far more images than ever before. Abolishing the scheme will have no other effect than increasing sales as your images will be seen by more customers.

 

Thanks,

Elisabeth 

 

 

Unfortunately, Alamy has lost the goodwill of many contributors when it comes to matters such as this.  

 

The way that contributors have been treated  over DACS and commission reductions are both good examples. 

 

When the relationship is all 'take' and no 'give' the loss of trust is inevitable. The cost to Alamy is actually incalculable. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by geogphotos

[Allan Bell]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Unfortunately, Alamy has lost the goodwill of many contributors when it comes to matters such as this.  

 

The way that contributors have been treated  over DACS and commission reductions are both good examples. 

 

When the relationship is all 'take' and no 'give' the loss of trust is inevitable. The cost to Alamy is actually incalculable. 

 

 

 

 

 

Be fair Ian. When Alamy reduced our cut to 40% (or whatever) there was an outcry then. So Alamy introduced the "Exclusive scheme" to give 50% to those who's images were exclusive to Alamy.

 

Allan

 

[geogphotos]

31 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Be fair Ian. When Alamy reduced our cut to 40% (or whatever) there was an outcry then. So Alamy introduced the "Exclusive scheme" to give 50% to those who's images were exclusive to Alamy.

 

Allan

 

 

 

The percentage was 65% originally Allan. As I recall we were told that it always would be because Alamy was the photographer's friend and not like other agencies.

 

About 20,000 of mine are non-exclusive so I get 40% for most sales because they are my best images. There was a time when we were encouraged by Alamy to submit elsewhere - then it turned out we got punished for it as a way for Alamy to back down for the rest of you. Okay for you not so great for me - divide and rule! 

 

So the 'outcry' might have saved your bacon but it didn't help many of us who are stuck with the 40%. 

 

I think that I am being fair in saying that Alamy has lost the trust of many contributors over commission changes and the DACS saga. A consequence of that is suspicion when changes are announced. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

We are not opting people “in”, we are ending the scheme and removing the option to exclude your images from newspaper clients view.

 

I shouldn't really comment because this doesn't directly affect me, but isn't that statement just playing with words??  The contributors who opted out of the newspaper scheme presumably didn't want to sell their images to newspapers. Now they have no choice and their images will now be sold to newspapers. The effect of removing the "scheme" seems to have the same effect on contributors as cancelling their opt out? Or have I misunderstood???

 

I didn't opt out and I get regular sales. It would be nice if the revenue per sale was higher and if newspapers always included a credit lines, and didn't sometimes post high resolution versions onlline which can easily be lifted. If Alamy introduced different pixel sized images at different prices it could help a lot.... Want more pixels, pay more money...

 

Mark

Edited November 10, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Panthera tigris]

This is all as clear as mud to me. Maybe Alamy can reword their release as I, as an opt outer, am confused. 

My understanding (confused admittedly) is that they are just cancelling the "newspaper scheme"???

[geogphotos]

This Alamy statement at the top seems very clear to me:

 

Only around 1000 of our 160 000 contributors are currently opted out of this scheme, but it is causing a more complex and confusing search experience for the customer. Given that there is now little to no difference in pricing and that this group of contributors are missing out on sales potential, we will be retiring the option to opt out.

 

Everybody will be offering their images to newspapers on 'scheme rates' like it or not. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by geogphotos

[AlbertSnapper]

How can it be confusing for the newspaper customers when searching ?  If they are not logged in , then they won't see the pictures of those who've opted out ?

 

I had an editorial website sale last month, for $18.69. It was used by the Guardian online. That's quite a difference from the newspaper scheme pricing I expect ($5 or so?).

 

If now those of us who'd opted out will now be in the scheme, and the newspapers use the same number of images, then surely those of you who were already in the scheme will now see your sales number drop ?  ...after all, there will now be more competition amongst ourselves for sales !

 

It's like it or lump it !

[AlbertSnapper]

7 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

This is all as clear as mud to me. Maybe Alamy can reword their release as I, as an opt outer, am confused. 

My understanding (confused admittedly) is that they are just cancelling the "newspaper scheme"???

 

Eveybody's images will now be in the UK newspaper scheme. No opt out.

[Colblimp]

25 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

How can it be confusing for the newspaper customers when searching ?  If they are not logged in , then they won't see the pictures of those who've opted out ?

 

I had an editorial website sale last month, for $18.69. It was used by the Guardian online. That's quite a difference from the newspaper scheme pricing I expect ($5 or so?).

 

If now those of us who'd opted out will now be in the scheme, and the newspapers use the same number of images, then surely those of you who were already in the scheme will now see your sales number drop ?  ...after all, there will now be more competition amongst ourselves for sales !

 

It's like it or lump it !

This is Alamy's way of saying 'we can do what we like and we don't care what the contributors think'  The whole 'confusing search experience' thing is utter BS.  I'm opted in anyway, but I'm disgusted Alamy is removing the opt out, er, option.

[MB Photography]

23 hours ago, AlbertSnapper said:

I had opted out of the newspaper scheme, although I was in it initially.

 

I still had newspaper sales, but obviously not so many.

 

I felt it better to have 1 sale at $20 a month, rather than 3 at $5.

 

 

I also used to be one of the “1000” because of the $3 -$4 newspaper sales. If you select “Don’t sell for editorial” I think it excludes all book and magazine sales which have always had higher returns ($$).

 

I had an image of a wooden mural sold for about $30 which was published in a book about the same mural and the person that had created it. One of the National newspapers ran an article about the book and wanted the same image, but as I was not in the Newspaper Scheme they had to pay more than the usual “token” payment. They took over a year to pay for the image.

 

I used to be in the scheme when it was first introduced, but I never noticed any significant revenue from these sales.

 

Isn’t this policy change more to do with the fact that Alamy is now owned by PA Media which has a significant number of Newspaper shareholders?

[Allan Bell]

18 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The percentage was 65% originally Allan. As I recall we were told that it always would be because Alamy was the photographer's friend and not like other agencies.

 

About 20,000 of mine are non-exclusive so I get 40% for most sales because they are my best images. There was a time when we were encouraged by Alamy to submit elsewhere - then it turned out we got punished for it as a way for Alamy to back down for the rest of you. Okay for you not so great for me - divide and rule! 

 

So the 'outcry' might have saved your bacon but it didn't help many of us who are stuck with the 40%. 

 

I think that I am being fair in saying that Alamy has lost the trust of many contributors over commission changes and the DACS saga. A consequence of that is suspicion when changes are announced. 

 

If I was in your shoes I would have said the same as you and I agree that Alamy made promises which they broke.

 

Yes I have always been exclusive to Alamy from day one, that is my day one not Alamy's, and I think I joined when the commission was already at 50%.

 

The way things are working out especially with regard to the takeover I am losing my respect for Alamy too but we can only work with what we have or we change things ourselves for ourselves.

 

I was just replying to your original comment about all take and no give, of which I agree there has been little on the giving side.

 

Allan

 

[Robert M Estall]

We have to face the fact that We are putting our stock out through a portal/agency which is now owned by a mixed group of newspapers. They can use Alamy to market their own material although I struggle to see that as a great match, but that's down to them. It's pretty obvious they won't be impressed by having even a modest chunk refusing them access. Newspapers have long found it convenient to do their own reporting of use and arrange how and when they might pay. As a professional photographer for a long time my approach has never been a good fit with the newspaper sector but we scrape along. If you really really don't want to play, I guess you'll have to think about taking your ball off and finding another park to play in. Good luck with that, none of the alternatives look very good.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Robert M Estall

[Sultanpepa]

16 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I didn't opt out and I get regular sales. It would be nice if the revenue per sale was higher and if newspapers always included a credit lines, and didn't sometimes post high resolution versions onlline which can easily be lifted. If Alamy introduced different pixel sized images at different prices it could help a lot.... Want more pixels, pay more money...

 

Mark

 

Unfortunately baulk deals to newspapers means there are only two winners. Alamy and the customer. The contributor sees license fees get smaller every year as "agents" compete to give the customers better deals. Regulators should consider banning baulk deals as the lines between who the agents actually work for get increasingly blurred.

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, Robert M Estall said:

We have to face the fact that We are putting our stock out through a portal/agency which is now owned by a mixed group of newspapers. They can use Alamy to market their own material although I struggle to see that as a great match, but that's down to them. It's pretty obvious they won't be impressed by having even a modest chunk refusing them access. Newspapers have long found it convenient to do their own reporting of use and arrange how and when they might pay. As a professional photographer for a long time my approach has never been a good fit with the newspaper sector but we scrape along. If you really really don't want to play, I guess you'll have to think about taking your ball off and finding another park to play in. Good luck with that, none of the alternatives look very good.

 

 

Pardon me and off topic but Grayson Perry's 'House for Essex' is on the River Stour not the Orwell - don't suppose it matters much but I happened to notice.