Changes to the Newspaper Scheme - official thread

[Alamy]

On 12/11/2020 at 13:47, Cryptoprocta said:

How can that be a "more complex and confusing search experience"? How stupid do you think these customers are? How stupid do you think we are when you feed us this guff?

 

Could the truth really be that you don't want the overheads involved in keeping files out of that search?

 

To be clear, in this situation we don't think anyone is being stupid. 

 

The reasons we have provided are genuine - it would make absolutely no sense for us to be any other way. If it was down to managing the "overhead" as such, we'd say so.

 

Where you say "It has been said many times that UKNS buyers just didn't see opted out files." - although that is in essence, true, the reality is far more complex.  Let's take the following scenario - Newspaper 'X' has 10 picture researchers who use Alamy to source images, plus a bunch of freelancers they use occasionally. Each of them performs searches for images on Alamy but there is only one central purchasing account - these are the people finding the images, not processing the billing. For a start then, in order for them all to be able to view images that were only previously opted "in" - they would all have to be logged in. There's your first problematic touch point. With the best will in the world this doesn't always happen - picture researchers will be using multiple outlets at the same time and often working quickly to tight deadlines. You then end up with a situation where they have found the right image, logged in to download (or pass the info onto a colleague to do so) and then they can't find the image because it's not opted in. Over time, this happens enough for a newspaper to see our search results as unreliable and messy - Newspaper 'X' uses Alamy less as a result.

 

That is just one example of how some images being in and some being out can cause problems. Add to that the fact that pre-negotiated "contract" rates are very similar to the non-pre negotiated rates now (again, this is market forces, not us deliberately cutting prices) then that means there is even less reason to carry on experiencing the above scenario. Our newspaper pricing is by far not the lowest in the industry and as detailed by others above in this thread - very strong fees can still be obtained. 

 

That's the reality - we are not assuming customers are "stupid" and we are not being insincere with you, our contributors, in our reasons for doing this. It's not how we operate and it's not in our interests to do so. It's often stated in this very forum that contributors would like to hear more from us and be given notice of our reasoning for changes - I'm totally on board with doing that and I think we should continue to do more in the future. When we do, I can assure you that we do so with the required level of respect and honesty - these are values by which we work by.

 

Thanks

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

[spacecadet]

James,

Thankyou.

[Broad Norfolk]

35 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

James,

Thankyou.

I'll second that.

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

 

To be clear, in this situation we don't think anyone is being stupid. 

 

The reasons we have provided are genuine - it would make absolutely no sense for us to be any other way. If it was down to managing the "overhead" as such, we'd say so.

 

Where you say "It has been said many times that UKNS buyers just didn't see opted out files." - although that is in essence, true, the reality is far more complex.  Let's take the following scenario - Newspaper 'X' has 10 picture researchers who use Alamy to source images, plus a bunch of freelancers they use occasionally. Each of them performs searches for images on Alamy but there is only one central purchasing account - these are the people finding the images, not processing the billing. For a start then, in order for them all to be able to view images that were only previously opted "in" - they would all have to be logged in. There's your first problematic touch point. With the best will in the world this doesn't always happen - picture researchers will be using multiple outlets at the same time and often working quickly to tight deadlines. You then end up with a situation where they have found the right image, logged in to download (or pass the info onto a colleague to do so) and then they can't find the image because it's not opted in. Over time, this happens enough for a newspaper to see our search results as unreliable and messy - Newspaper 'X' uses Alamy less as a result.

 

That is just one example of how some images being in and some being out can cause problems. Add to that the fact that pre-negotiated "contract" rates are very similar to the non-pre negotiated rates now (again, this is market forces, not us deliberately cutting prices) then that means there is even less reason to carry on experiencing the above scenario. Our newspaper pricing is by far not the lowest in the industry and as detailed by others above in this thread - very strong fees can still be obtained. 

 

That's the reality - we are not assuming customers are "stupid" and we are not being insincere with you, our contributors, in our reasons for doing this. It's not how we operate and it's not in our interests to do so. It's often stated in this very forum that contributors would like to hear more from us and be given notice of our reasoning for changes - I'm totally on board with doing that and I think we should continue to do more in the future. When we do, I can assure you that we do so with the required level of respect and honesty - these are values by which we work by.

 

Thanks

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

Hmmm, it's complex for sure. Hadn't thought about the freelance thing. Thanks for the reply.

[losdemas]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

To be clear

<SNIP>

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

Thank you, James for taking the time to explain this clearly.

 

I must confess that, having always been opted out of the (soon-to-be former) UKNS, I am not a fan (!), but your explanation makes sense and I can understand Alamy's reasoning.

 

Sadly, for a number of reasons, I don't see this having a positive outlook for me, personally (though clearly, as one of only 1,000, I am in a tiny minority). All I can see is low fees c/w (often unnecessarily) hi-res images available to customers, a number of whom seem forgetful or reluctant to report usages, with licensed images then flooding around the Internet after being lifted from customers' websites, making chasing infringements increasingly challenging.

 

If only Alamy would limit Web use images to low-res versions (not just news images, but across the board!) and/or be far more pro-active in chasing infringers - and clients who are slow to report and/or pay, I would be far more happy.

 

Thanks, anyway. Looking forward to a veritable flood of incoming licences in the New Year. 😉🙂

Edited November 13, 2020 by losdemas

[geogphotos]

Thanks for the explanation. In the same spirit and expectation of respect and honesty I asked a question in the Alamy section - the one that we know is read and considered - about the lack of transparency over the DACs amounts posted in our accounts ie) what the total amount is that Alamy receives, what share Alamy takes ( 50% I think), and what the admin charge is. 

 

I would simply like to know what these amounts are and see them in my Accounts. Or understand the reasoning behind this information not being given. 

 

I have not had any answer. Any chance of that please?

[Skyscraperfan]

I could imagine a separate search page for the UK News scheme that even works without login. At Amazon Prime theree is also some content that you can watch with your subscription, while other content can only be watched for an extra fee or without an additional package for example.The system at Amazon Prime is quite complicated, but you can see what you get for your subscription even without logging in. So one solution whoul be putting an "available under the UK news scheme" under every photo that is available under that scheme. At least for visitors from the UK. That would have the nice side effect of advertising that scheme.

[geogphotos]

What do I know but pandering to the needs of the likes of the Mail so that they can buy images for $6 a go for a 2 million print run doesn't strike me as much of a winning strategy or basis on which to organise one's business.

Edited November 13, 2020 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

What do I know but pandering to the needs of the likes of the Mail so that they can buy images for $6 a go for a 2 million print run doesn't strike me as much of a winning strategy or basis on which to organise one's business.

If they remember to report that they've used the image in the first place.

[hotbrightsky]

Old topic. New problem...

I restricted my entire Alamy image collection to 'Consumer goods' only months ago. Every image page clearly states:

 

"This image can only be licensed for consumer goods"

 

And yet this week I find my image published on the website of a UK newspaper.

 

Am I now to believe that the Newspaper Scheme overrides ALL other licence restrictions set by the contributor? In which case I will have no option but to terminate my Alamy account.

[Nodvandigtid]

6.4 Alamy has full authority to negotiate all terms of commissions, licences and reproduction rights of the Content including the fee, duration and scope of any Licence at its absolute discretion. You authorise Alamy to agree to any cropping, manipulation, combining and creation of derivative Content.

 

7 Alamy's obligations

7.1 Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.

7.2 Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to obtain reasonable Licence Fees.

7.3 Where you act on behalf of the Copyright Owner, this Contract is with you only.

 

[Rebecca Ore]

On 11/11/2020 at 02:11, geogphotos said:

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. 

 

I remember opting in to the newspaper scheme when I was first here.   Now I can't find any reference to it on my Alamy dashboard under additional revenue options, so yeah.

[hotbrightsky]

Alamy now claim that my image was downloaded by the customer before my restrictions were added (9 months ago). I'm told customers have 2 YEARS to license an image after downloading it. In effect this means that copyright holders' restrictions only come into full effect after those 2 YEARS have elapsed. A ridiculous situation.
 

• Photo taken: May 2020
• Uploaded: September 2020
• Restrictions added: May 2021
• Published: February 2022

Edited February 9, 2022 by hotbrightsky