Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[M.Chapman]

39 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

Personally, I could only certify the opposite to 4.1.6--somewhere in the world there is an Alamy buyer who could make a use of one of my images that could be offensive to someone else somewhere in the world. Pick any image, doesn't have to be sensitive.

And 4.1.5 appears to say that Alamy can choose to ignore any restrictions we place on an image... Or have I misunderstood...

 

4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

Cats? CATS?

 

And soon somebody will post a recipe and there we go....revolution over...

 

 

[Sally]

5 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

And 4.1.5 appears to say that Alamy can choose to ignore any restrictions we place on an image... Or have I misunderstood...

 

4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;

 

Mark

So, presumably that means that we can no longer restrict our portfolio to certain types of licenses such as personal use? That s a big red arrow for me if it is the case.

[John Richmond]

28 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

Also, I'm with Betty on no longer being interested in helping newbies with information that PA/Alamy should itself pay someone to write up and post on their site. 

Me too, Rebecca and Betty.  I've always made my specialist knowledge freely available to new contributors in the hope that it would benefit Alamy as a go to source for accurately labelled botanical and horticultural imagery.  No longer.  I've often spent hours researching specific IDs - time I will now put to better use to finish writing two gardening books, updating a third and planning more.

[Bill Kuta]

30 minutes ago, Sally said:

So, presumably that means that we can no longer restrict our portfolio to certain types of licenses such as personal use? That s a big red arrow for me if it is the case.

 

I'm saving a document with questions, and have added that one.  But note that clause 4.1.10 (renumbered and thus discussed in the change document under 4.7) discusses contributors adding restrictions. And Alamy being able to add more.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Bill Kuta

[meanderingemu]

37 minutes ago, Sally said:

So, presumably that means that we can no longer restrict our portfolio to certain types of licenses such as personal use? That s a big red arrow for me if it is the case.

 

 

t

25 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

 

I'm saving a document with questions, and have added that one.  But note that clause 4.1.10 (renumbered and thus discussed in the change document under 4.7) discusses contributors adding restrictions. And Alamy being able to add more.

 

 

also the Blog specifically mentions an opening of the window to restrict Distributors. 

 

[Bill Kuta]

I see that clause 8.3 of the new contract allows Alamy to promote "by offering discounted or complimentary Content." 

 

I don't have a copy of the 7 Jan 2019 contract, but the list of contract changes for 15 Oct 2018 shows clause 8.3 without the "or complimentary", and clause 8.3 does not appear in the changes for 7 Jan 2019 or 17 May 2021. 

 

Can anyone shed some light on this? Anyone have a copy of the 2019 contract?

Edited May 19, 2021 by Bill Kuta

[Bill Brooks]

56 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

And 4.1.5 appears to say that Alamy can choose to ignore any restrictions we place on an image... Or have I misunderstood...

 

4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;

 

Mark

 

Kumar and Mark. Ignoring restrictions has already started even before the new contract.

 

A Feb 8 2021 I was asked if I would allow commercial use of a editorial only RF image.

 

The image was a street shot focused on the storefront of one tourist business in Alaska. No property release. I said no and explained that I did not want to take the risk.

A few days later a sale of the same image appeared in my account as editorial only. Who is fooling who? Am I responsible under the new contract?

 

Anyway I saved the email exchange. I own a house and have pension investments. The new contract offloads responsibilities onto the photographer. Makes Alamy a dangerous place, in my opinion.

 

I guess Alamy is floundering.

 

Bill Brooks
--------------
Here is the sale details and email exchange.
------------
A7R058    0001162    Bill Brooks    23 February 2021    Editorial royalty-free    1 MB
802 x 643 pixels 
184KB compressed
Rights granted for the images to appear in editorial articles on a travel website, with in context rights to promote those articles through their social media platforms and e-newsletters. Format can be either as still images or within a video living on website, social media platforms, apps and blogs. Archival rights are included as long as the image appears in context of the original usage.
--------------

-------------------------------------

On Feb 8, 2021, at 11:46 AM, XXXXXXX wrote:

Hi Bill,

Hope you are well!

We have a customer that would like to use the following image:

Image ID: A7R058 / 0001162

The customer is looking to use the image for still images or images within a video format in the following client formats - website, social media platforms, apps and blogs. Archival rights are included as long as the image appears in context of the original usage

We have advised the customer that they will require 3rd party permissions for the image to be used in their project.  

Please confirm if you are happy for us to lift the commercial restriction and allow this use under these conditions.

Thanks,
XXXXX
Customer Service

Read our latest blogs for insider tips and inspiration here
-----------
Hi XXXX:

Do not lift the commercial restriction. Do not sell A7R058 for the intended use

 

Thanks for asking about this image A7R058. In spite of your advice to your customer, and as much as I would like to help the customer as a gesture of good will, the American business is clearly identified, and there are people in the image. I realize that the publisher has the ultimate legal responsibility. However when the shit hits the fan….

 

When I made this image in 1988 I was legally protected behind a firewall of two incorporated companies, and also errors and omission insurance. With stock photo prices today, that firewall has become too expensive to maintain. This is why today, I classify the particular image as editorial only.

 

Sorry about this. Thanks for asking.

 

Bill Brooks
 

[zxzoomy]

My comments in italics on the OP's Blog post:

 

1. "Since launching our infringements programme, we’re discovering that a significant minority of contributors have not been forthcoming about other arrangements, or forgot to change their settings when they listed elsewhere."

 

Please take action with those contributors. I've been assiduous in taking care to mark exclusive only those images which are exclusive to Alamy. This takes a lot of time. It's a minority of contributors, you say.

 

2. "overall sales via our website in 2021 are 45% higher than they were in the first 4 months of 2020"

 

Really excellent in a pandemic period. This sounds like it "supports sustainable growth", as is your goal. 

 

3. "In our video updates to you at the end of last year I talked about our ambitious growth plans for the business, and how these did not require changes to our commission rates"

 

Good. Please be congruent with what you talked about at the end of last year. It's only 6 months ago.

 

4. "The changes we are making outside of that core rate will not have a significant impact on Alamy’s financial performance – they are not a short-cut to profit growth"

 

So why are you making these changes? A 20% cut is a significant impact to contributors. You say it "will not have a significant impact on Alamy’s financial performance"

 

5. "20% if you are on Silver rates"

 

Recently joined contributors have little chance of arriving at $250 gross a year.  They joined on a promise of more than 20%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MizBrown]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Cats? CATS?

 

And soon somebody will post a recipe and there we go....revolution over...

 

 

I have friends who fought in the Usenet Meow War.  They now have an old age home group on Facebook.  

Edited May 18, 2021 by MizBrown
more than one

[Nathaniel Noir]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

So, presumably that means that we can no longer restrict our portfolio to certain types of licenses such as personal use? That s a big red arrow for me if it is the case.

 

Although if you do place a restriction, this info shows up next to the image, thus people less likely to buy the image once they see that.

[Panthera tigris]

I am so happy I don't have my good stuff with Alamy, just second and third tier average stuff. I pulled anything good a few years a go as the industry prices crashed for me. Photography has never been commercially viable for me, more of what to do with images I produce doing my "hobby". 

James may have backtracked in the past on the commission change but obviously the new owners and management are setting out their path, with the release of one of the most complicated and, purposely I believe, confusing commission models I have seen. Its time for a sojourn from this "industry" for me for a while. I liked the Alamy vibe but my time is worth more to me as I age. Nowhere else to go so putting my feet up is my only option at this stage.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Panthera tigris

[William Caram]

14 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

They are NOT the same people. ~the 'same people' sold us out.

 

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/pa-group-acquires-stock-images-firm-alamy

 

Ahh very good 😃                

 

We are but sheep...bleat  bleat bleat...just here to be farmed....so don't be alarmed....or Alamy charmed....but alas life goes on...and it used to be fun with Kodachrome and the sun ☀️but these are dark days...living with Covid and malaise....So pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile smile smile...

Ahh.... Bleat bleat bleat 😄

[Bill Kuta]

This has been an interesting thread for many reasons. I don't recall ever noticing so many forumites with tens of thousands of images.

 

I might be showing my observer bias here, but what with pensioners/day jobbers/hobbyists in it mostly for equipment money, and pro photographers who always say Alamy money is a very small part of their income, I think that Alamy might discover that they need a lot of the contributors more than the contributors need them. 

 

Personally, Alamy has kept me in equipment money plus a little net income (enough to satisfy the IRS), but I don't really need it. If my contract concerns are not addressed, I look forward to day trips and vacations where I don't feel the need to think stock photo opportunities, and just shooting for family and enjoyment.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Bill Kuta

[Colin Woods]

6 minutes ago, Sally R said:

It seems they are actually trying to morph into a microstock company without directly stating it. I could be wrong, but that is what I'm sensing.

Which does seem to have a ring of truth about it given the recent appearances of sub $1 licenses that have been discussed elsewhere on the forum.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Colin Woods

[Cryptoprocta]

Wildly speculating, it could even be that they always fully intended to backtrack on the commission cut, whereupon we'd be so relieved, they could sneak in their new 'massive wiggle room for them/slip knotted nooses for us' clauses on the fly.

[Bill Kuta]

3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Wildly speculating, it could even be that they always fully intended to backtrack on the commission cut, whereupon we'd be so relieved, they could sneak in their new 'massive wiggle room for them/slip knotted nooses for us' clauses on the fly.

 

Yes, the commission schedule is the first thing in the contract and contract change document. Not sure how many people got beyond that.

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Wildly speculating, it could even be that they always fully intended to backtrack on the commission cut, whereupon we'd be so relieved, they could sneak in their new 'massive wiggle room for them/slip knotted nooses for us' clauses on the fly.

i think the tier is there also for a reason, i don't see them backtracking on silver. 

[John Mitchell]

This thread is unearthing some interesting subjects. I have a lot of images of storefronts, commercial signs, logos, etc. Generally I don't mark them for editorial use only; I simply indicate that no model releases are available. Lately, though, I've been thinking that it would be a wise idea to go back and restrict them to editorial use (for reasons that Bill B. mentioned above). Any thoughts on this in light of the new contract clauses? Would it still be a prudent/worthwhile thing to do?

 

The last time Alamy contacted me about waiving restrictions on an image (a store sign), I agreed. However, the image ended up not being licensed.

[John Mitchell]

6 minutes ago, Sally R said:

 

I'm not sure yet John. I'm going to wait and see how Alamy responds to our concerns on the topic of the conditions of how our images might be licensed and what levels of protection we have (or don't have). I am RM too, but happy to also additionally mark more images than I have already as editorial if it seems wise. Already I have all artworks editorial and images of objects with logos. I haven't done so with shopfronts though.

 

Yes, wait and see seems to be the name of the game now. I always mark artwork (public and otherwise) as editorial only. Also, I have agreements with a few institutions that certain images will only be used editorially. Alamy contacted me about one of these once, and I refused to waive the editorial restriction. That said, one was used in a "marketing package" of some kind, which I wasn't too happy about.

Edited May 19, 2021 by John Mitchell

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Sally R said:

 

 

Yes, it doesn't make sense on the face of it. But this is why I'm starting to suspect an ulterior motive. They would know full well that making Platinum 50% commission unattainable will lead to many contributors choosing to no longer being exclusive. As people submit their images elsewhere in droves, which will substantially be to microstock, Alamy can then justify reducing license fees further because their contributors' images can be licensed much cheaper elsewhere. Before long, microstock prices may be the norm on Alamy. We might even find we get more sales but for much less per image, just like microstock.

 

So in the end, I'm not sure all this is really primarily about the contributors who have done the wrong thing regarding Exclusivity, and thus Alamy are hitting us all with a big stick because of the transgressions of a few. That actually doesn't make sense. It seems they are actually trying to morph into a microstock company without directly stating it. I could be wrong, but that is what I'm sensing.

 

When they started directing contributors in Alamy Image Manager to the forum instead of the contributor relations email, I already had my suspicions. I was briefly with a microstock agency before joining Alamy where there is a much greater distance between individual contributors and the machine of the company. It was so nice to come to Alamy where it felt more personable. The few times I have contacted contributor relations they have been really helpful to deal with. They may, however, increasingly put us at arm's length.

 

However, what concerns me more than changes to commissions, as a few others have mentioned, are changes to how our images can be licensed and used, thus potentially reducing or removing protections for the photographer. That is my deeper concern and I would like them to spell out clearly for us what the new terms really mean.

 

Well that was a futile attempt at sleeping. It's 3.30 AM now and I am lying here just thinking about things after having a much more detailed look at the contract. I had only glanced at it before. It was reading what Bill Brooks said earlier as well as what Sally is saying that inspired me to check it out. As Bill Kuta surmises, many of us never got past the first bit. But it's the licensing terms that cause me concern. I am not sure it wants to become a micro stock agency but that would be a part of it. Perhaps various pricing tiers.

 

Anyway it is clear that there is a huge change afoot in terms of the licensing itself. It seems, from late night reading of the contract, that Alamy wants to use any image in any way it likes, including advertising, and no restrictions are allowed. If this includes Editorial only restrictions, then I guess there is nowhere to go here. This needs clarification as a priority but I can't see how the clauses relating to licensing can be interpreted in any other way. 

 

I am getting the feeling that my Alamy days may be numbered, as I don't need the worry  and I make very little here anyway. I can make far better money from my imagery in other ways. 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by MDM

[MizBrown]

45 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i think the tier is there also for a reason, i don't see them backtracking on silver. 

 

Anyone want to bet against me that they're going to turn more and more to subcontractors who will be responsible for various sets of photographers and the individuals will be more and more encourged to get big or get lost.

 

I'm basically judgment proof since the only entity that can seize Social Security checks is the IRS.  Not keeping a strict boundary between editorial and released for commercial use is not understanding the huge range of rules in different countries.   And not realizing that there are hustlers out there who want to provide advertising photographs cheap is either to be another hustler or to be brutally naive.   I've had a couple people try to get me to sell movie rights (outright, of course) to a couple of my novels.  I always always pointed them to the agent of record for the book.  They always went away, sometimes after arguing that this was too early to get an agent involved.  I've even had a book editor try to get around my agent.  My agent nearly blew his top, but was calm enough to handle the deal.

 

Book agents and photo agencies do somewhat different things, and basically the book agent tends not to sell the project particularly but protects the author from being totally exploited.  Photo agencies take more of the money (last time I was in the game, book agents took 15%.  Don't know what it is now).  Unless the agency is actively selling the work (which probably only happens with a few photographers) and protecting the photographers from being exploited, I don't know why they're getting 80% of the money.  Not all of us are worth anything to them, but they don't have any money coming in without photographers who produce work that other people want to use.  That's not all Alamy's photographers, and not all the photographs even from people who do sell often.  But photographers are why PA/Alamy has a business.  And if we're truly all interchangeable, then you also don't have a business.   What sells fiction is strangers being able to lose themselves in verbal simulation of imaginary humans (or aliens, or rabbits) creating something the reader can experience vicariously.  People who can do that consistently and draw in a commercially viable audience are rare.  The really good photographers are also rare.  Good guess that zero of PA/Alamy's client ever look at Magnum, and for a lot of their uses, good enough is good enough.  So, someone came up with the idea of getting photographers to give away photographs, not that different from getting people to give away short stories "for the exposure."  If you can hand a file clerk a camera and tell him or her to center the subject on one of the grid intersections, then which customers need Alamy?   We're probably a few years away from cameras that have built-in composition algorithms.  

 

By the way, my writing pseudo is Rebecca Ore, in case anyone is curious. 

[MizBrown]

Logistics clearing unreleased people without the photographer being involved are not plausible economically.  The people I've photographed are in Nicaragua, Mexico, and various parts of the US.  I don't even have their names in most cases.  You'd have to have someone on the ground asking who such and such person is, which means developing local sources in several dozens if not over a hundred countries.   So what you're most likely to get would be forgeries from people who assumed that nobody in Nicaragua or Tibet or Australia would ever see the ad or know that they should have agreed in writing to that type of usage.  The thing that bothers people about stock often is the fictionalizing of who and what the photograph represents.

 

There's a whole industry in forged legal residency papers in most US cities.  The guy off the bus goes out with one of his fellow countrymen who knows where to get papers, and comes back with papers that the landscaping service knows are phony but which covers the employer's butt.   I can't imagine any way for a entity in the US or UK to get releases from people whose names the photographer doesn't know or who've long since moved somewhere else.  It's going to be forged.

 

I'm sure I could get releases for some of what I've taken by handing someone a 100 cordoba note.  Not all of them.   I don't trust in the least any company that claims they could get releases for people in Nicaragua for less than I could get them of the people I know by name that still live nearby and who may be cooperative.   I doubt even English photographers in England could get releases of everyone they've photographed.  "We'll clear it" just tells me that they're going to fake for anyone in Nicaragua, probably for anyone else. 

[DawnOne]

On 17/05/2021 at 14:52, BobD said:

 Make sure you don't get trampled on in the rush.

I just quit Alamy and will be removing my work. They just asked me to sell 2 photographs to a corporate client for $15. apiece, which amount to $7.50 each after Alamy removes their 50% commission, and less once it drops to 40%. While I hesitated before, as I’ve invested thousands of hours on the 4,621 photos I submitted, it was frankly a waste of my time. 

[DawnOne]

On 17/05/2021 at 15:56, vpics said:

I disagree. Some photographer will set their price at $100 per image whilst others, that don't rely on photography income, will undercut this big time. You'll end up with microstock prices.

They are already selling our work at microstock prices.