Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

So let's explain what is going on so we all understand this - (not a lawyer, this is not legal advise)

The new contract includes an indemnity clause, which in part reads: "You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses ..." the key words here are any and all claims.

 

 

 

"Any and all" sounds contradictory to me. If I told someone that I didn't eat "any and all" of my dinner, I think they would be very confused. Who dreams these weasel terms up, one wonders, and how much do they get paid. 🙄

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

"The grief" occurs when you realize that you have accepted a duty to defend Alamy and third party distributors and agents around the world even in the absence of a finding or allegation of negligence and that such liability is uninsurable.


The more I read up on the law, the scarier this all becomes. For Alamy to hold us legally responsible for another's liability is simply unfair. I am willing to accept responsibility for my own errors and omissions but am unwilling to be liable for the mistakes and oversights of others, completely out of my control. What do we do when a plea for basic fairness does not work? Speaking for myself, my guiding principle is that I will not accept unlimited or uninsurable liability imposed by a self-serving indemnity agreement. I insist that liabilities remain with those parties who are in the best position to control them.

 

Yes, I've spent a couple of hours this evening (one of several) making sure my portfolio is as watertight as can be but deep down I feel like I should just nuke the whole lot. Shame really as my sales figures aren't all that bad and there are a couple of promising repeat sellers. I just don't know if it's a risk worth taking to be potentially held hostage over whatever transgression Alamy may decide is my fault. On the other hand, one doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I don't see much of an alternative.

Edited by Cal
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, David Pimborough said:

 

Oh well, I guess the few bucks I make from Sun sales should help Rupert make some profit on the Sun then 😆

 

The financials of the Sun would be slightly healthier if their 'journalism' didn't cost them £30,000 plus costs earlier this year re a libel case brought by Labour MP Richard Burgon, and recently a substantial sum to settle Simon Hughes phone hacking claim. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

The new contract includes an indemnity clause, which in part reads: "You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses ..." the key words here are any and all claims.

But don't the followings words in that clause restrict the scope of the any and all to only those claims

 

"arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System".

 

Not saying whether that's acceptable or not, but it does appear narrow the scope significantly.

 

Mark

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

unfair.

...and under English law, which governs the contract, unfair terms are unenforceable. There's also precedent that a term is unfair if it imposes uninsurable obligations on any party. One hopes, and it is no more than a hope, that Alamy would not start a case in those circumstances, although the fact that their lawyers have written in a potentially unfair term is unhelpful.

My point was that you expressed a willingness to sue, which isn't an attitude prevalent here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

3 red arrows to each of us who mentioned jabs before her post, a brand new red arrow seconds after her reply to me. Yeah right. Sometimes I wonder why I love the Australian Bush.

 

 

Ok. Once again, just in case - I have not given you or the other people you mention red arrows. Is that clear now?  Sigh.

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

...and under English law, which governs the contract, unfair terms are unenforceable. There's also precedent that a term is unfair if it imposes uninsurable obligations on any party. One hopes, and it is no more than a hope, that Alamy would not start a case in those circumstances, although the fact that their lawyers have written in a potentially unfair term is unhelpful.

My point was that you expressed a willingness to sue, which isn't an attitude prevalent here.


Not just Alamy’s contract, both other types of contracts often contain unenforceable clauses. The all important Employment Contract for example. Often tribunals find for employees against unlawful contract terms.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is now 110 pages long and I haven't read all of it so forgive me if this has already been mentioned... But is anyone else experiencing a recent drop in sales?

 

I've been averaging more than one sale per week for several years now but suddenly, with an increase in Alamy's commission pending, I've had no new sales reported for five weeks and counting. The last time I went that long without a sale was about five years ago. What's more I know there's been at least one sale because I had an image in The Guardian at the beginning of the month, correctly credited to me and Alamy.

 

It's a measure of just how much I now distrust Alamy that I strongly suspect them of deliberately holding back sales until the new commission structure comes in. Difficult to see how I can prove it but if I'm right it's not just sneaky, underhand and an appalling way to treat a contributor, but it's also fraud - plain and simple.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else is experiencing similar.

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Paul J said:

Just been looking at my previous sales, the gross figures always look better in USD,  $65 sounds good eh! I still don't know why a UK based company is dealing with USD then converting it at an unknown exchange rate. The Terms and conditions state the exchange rate 'will be within 2.5% of the spot rate on that day'. A hidden slice to Alamy. 

 

Anyway, once the new contract is in force that $65 sale will mean £18.50 to the photographer on 'Gold' although reduced to £15.70 for affiliate sale (minus up to 2.5% for exchange rate conversion)

 

Or £9.25 if on 'silver' - £7.85 for affiliate sale.  (minus up to 2.5% for exchange rate conversion)  I had to double check my maths, it reads that bad once written down.

I've always wondered about this dubious conversion, frequently from Sterling to Dollars and back to Sterling with a 2.5% spot rate conversion .. looks horribly like another deduction from the photographer that goes to Alamy. Maybe if they read forum posts they might care to explain it and why it is necessary for all transactions and not just those in foreign currencies.

Thanks for doing the maths Paul, that really is an awful return on our work!

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the change at all but that can be caused by the language (i'm dutch). I don't have any exclusive images at Alamy. Now I have a blue model. What will that be when I don't change anything? All the changes in the past years weren't any advantage for the photographers at all. Is this another one?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jan said:

I don't understand the change at all but that can be caused by the language (i'm dutch). I don't have any exclusive images at Alamy. Now I have a blue model. What will that be when I don't change anything? All the changes in the past years weren't any advantage for the photographers at all. Is this another one?

 

There is no advantage for any photographer (except possibly agencies) with the new contract.

 

With the number of images in your portfolio I would imagine you make more than $250 a year from Alamy. If so your return will drop from 50% to 40% (effectively a 20% reduction in income) when the new contract comes in.

 

John.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dave P said:

This thread is now 110 pages long and I haven't read all of it so forgive me if this has already been mentioned... But is anyone else experiencing a recent drop in sales?

 

I've been averaging more than one sale per week for several years now but suddenly, with an increase in Alamy's commission pending, I've had no new sales reported for five weeks and counting. The last time I went that long without a sale was about five years ago. What's more I know there's been at least one sale because I had an image in The Guardian at the beginning of the month, correctly credited to me and Alamy.

 

It's a measure of just how much I now distrust Alamy that I strongly suspect them of deliberately holding back sales until the new commission structure comes in. Difficult to see how I can prove it but if I'm right it's not just sneaky, underhand and an appalling way to treat a contributor, but it's also fraud - plain and simple.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else is experiencing similar.

 

 

I've only had 1 sale so far this month and I usually average 10-15, so I should have sold at least 5 by now. Having said that, most of my sales come in the last few days of the month.

 

John.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dave P said:

This thread is now 110 pages long and I haven't read all of it so forgive me if this has already been mentioned... But is anyone else experiencing a recent drop in sales?

 

I've been averaging more than one sale per week for several years now but suddenly, with an increase in Alamy's commission pending, I've had no new sales reported for five weeks and counting. The last time I went that long without a sale was about five years ago. What's more I know there's been at least one sale because I had an image in The Guardian at the beginning of the month, correctly credited to me and Alamy.

 

It's a measure of just how much I now distrust Alamy that I strongly suspect them of deliberately holding back sales until the new commission structure comes in. Difficult to see how I can prove it but if I'm right it's not just sneaky, underhand and an appalling way to treat a contributor, but it's also fraud - plain and simple.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else is experiencing similar.

 

 

There's always been ups and downs in stock photography; lots or licences, few licences, at differing times.

I doubt Alamy are witholding sales until the new contract starts.

 

I've had 3 this month so far.

But for a total gross of $21 I can see why people are fed up.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dave P said:

This thread is now 110 pages long and I haven't read all of it so forgive me if this has already been mentioned... But is anyone else experiencing a recent drop in sales?

 

I've been averaging more than one sale per week for several years now but suddenly, with an increase in Alamy's commission pending, I've had no new sales reported for five weeks and counting. The last time I went that long without a sale was about five years ago. What's more I know there's been at least one sale because I had an image in The Guardian at the beginning of the month, correctly credited to me and Alamy.

 

It's a measure of just how much I now distrust Alamy that I strongly suspect them of deliberately holding back sales until the new commission structure comes in. Difficult to see how I can prove it but if I'm right it's not just sneaky, underhand and an appalling way to treat a contributor, but it's also fraud - plain and simple.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else is experiencing similar.

 


Similar to you Dave, with a small license sale last week. I had put it down to ups and downs and having a relatively small port.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave P said:

This thread is now 110 pages long and I haven't read all of it so forgive me if this has already been mentioned... But is anyone else experiencing a recent drop in sales?

 

I've been averaging more than one sale per week for several years now but suddenly, with an increase in Alamy's commission pending, I've had no new sales reported for five weeks and counting. The last time I went that long without a sale was about five years ago. What's more I know there's been at least one sale because I had an image in The Guardian at the beginning of the month, correctly credited to me and Alamy.

 

It's a measure of just how much I now distrust Alamy that I strongly suspect them of deliberately holding back sales until the new commission structure comes in. Difficult to see how I can prove it but if I'm right it's not just sneaky, underhand and an appalling way to treat a contributor, but it's also fraud - plain and simple.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else is experiencing similar.

 

 

4 sales so far this month. 5 last month. Same as normal (for me....)

Edited by Steve F
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave P said:

I strongly suspect them of deliberately holding back sales until the new commission structure comes in.

That would be a stupid thing to do. Forgo sales out of spite? Now you're getting paranoid.

There's enough to complain about without making up conspiracies.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That would be a stupid thing to do. Forgo sales out of spite? Now you're getting paranoid.

There's enough to complain about without making up conspiracies.

Perhaps he meant not holding back sales but holding back reporting them to the contributor, since he mentioned knowing of a sale that was already published but not reported to him.

Sometimes meanings get lost in the written word.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stokie said:

 

There is no advantage for any photographer (except possibly agencies) with the new contract.

 

With the number of images in your portfolio I would imagine you make more than $250 a year from Alamy. If so your return will drop from 50% to 40% (effectively a 20% reduction in income) when the new contract comes in.

 

John.

actually OP said no image were exclusive, so will see little impact, except on distribution sales .  The Only ones that Alamy is actually targeting with the change are those of us who were idiotic enough to load our better stuff exclusively to them.   This is who Alamy is going after with the change. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Perhaps he meant not holding back sales but holding back reporting them to the contributor, since he mentioned knowing of a sale that was already published but not reported to him.

Sometimes meanings get lost in the written word.

 

a sale from UK news scheme at start of the month, that has never appeared until month end under current contract. How is that indicative? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

actually OP said no image were exclusive, so will see little impact, except on distribution sales .  The Only ones that Alamy is actually targeting with the change are those of us who were idiotic enough to load our better stuff exclusively to them.   This is who Alamy is going after with the change. 

 

True, I missed the bit where he said he didn't have any exclusive images. So he will still only get 40% except for distributors.

 

John.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stokie said:

 

True, I missed the bit where he said he didn't have any exclusive images. So he will still only get 40% except for distributors.

 

John.

 

 

still remains something that baffles me from the change.  Who Alamy is targeting the hardest. The average contributor that supported them and felt they were different.    

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

That would be a stupid thing to do. Forgo sales out of spite? Now you're getting paranoid.

There's enough to complain about without making up conspiracies.

They're not foregoing sales! The sales are still being made. I'm suggesting that they're just not posting them to my account straightaway but are waiting until the end of next month when they can charge me 60% instead of 50%. Is this really so hard to understand? I can't see any other reason why there are suddenly no sales showing on my account in a period which would normally rack up four or five. Especially when I know there was a sale to the Guardian.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave P said:

This thread is now 110 pages long and I haven't read all of it so forgive me if this has already been mentioned... But is anyone else experiencing a recent drop in sales?

 

I've been averaging more than one sale per week for several years now but suddenly, with an increase in Alamy's commission pending, I've had no new sales reported for five weeks and counting. The last time I went that long without a sale was about five years ago. What's more I know there's been at least one sale because I had an image in The Guardian at the beginning of the month, correctly credited to me and Alamy.

 

It's a measure of just how much I now distrust Alamy that I strongly suspect them of deliberately holding back sales until the new commission structure comes in. Difficult to see how I can prove it but if I'm right it's not just sneaky, underhand and an appalling way to treat a contributor, but it's also fraud - plain and simple.

 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else is experiencing similar.

 

I've been averaging 3 sales a month for a few years and my last sale was May 16. Maybe just a coincidence...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dave P said:

They're not foregoing sales! The sales are still being made. I'm suggesting that they're just not posting them to my account straightaway but are waiting until the end of next month when they can charge me 60% instead of 50%. Is this really so hard to understand? I can't see any other reason why there are suddenly no sales showing on my account in a period which would normally rack up four or five. Especially when I know there was a sale to the Guardian.

Other people are still getting sales at 'normal' numbers...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.