Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

It will stay confusing and confused because Alamy are not in a position to require us all to actively respond to the new contract. They can't insist on a Yes or No by a certain date because there would just be too many non-replies. It is contract change by default, by assumption, by passivity. 

I have alreadt resigned and my contract comes to an end on the 30 June 2021 - what I am alluding to is that between the 17 May 2021 and the 30 June 2021 I am not in contract with Alamy - I am waiting for a response...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paul J said:

One problem with this new contract is the deletion of images, they will still be on sale for 180 days after deletion and when the new contract is in force. 

I checked this issue with Emily (MD). Her emailed response is that if I wish to ensure images are deleted before the new contract comes into force I need to make a request to Contributor Services and not use AIM (which takes 90 days to take effect). She also states that the new contract places no greater risks on the contributor than the old one. Here's exactly what she said.


"If your images are not deleted for 90 days then they would be bound by the new contract for any sales made after July 24. If they are deleted before July 24 by way of a request to the Contributor Relations team, then they would be covered by the old contract up to that point. I should point out however, that both these contracts place the same liabilities and obligations on you so one is no greater risk than the other."

 

Although Emily states the risks haven't changed, I'm still going to request imediate deletion of some images. Even if the contract's laibilities have not have changed I feel the "climate" has on 3 scores.

 

  1. we are moving towards being a more litigous society.
  2. I previously felt (possibly incorrectly) that if a third party made a claim Alamy would work with the contributor to defend. Now I fear that they might simply pass the buck....
  3. The decreasing licence revenue and % commission mean it's not worth the risk

 

Mark

 
Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Some of us take our own view about this clause It cannot possibly apply retrospectively- as Crypto says, you can't be liable for something which was acceptable when you did it- and one cannot imagine damages beyond the venue's photography fee being awarded even if a case were lost.

 

Not so sure about that ... not so long back we had the Network Rail fiasco ... images taken before Network Rail even existed and were fine before were deemed to be not ok and even though they backed down a bit after pressure from Alamy, those images are still only allowed to be used as editorial ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

small victory but probably the contract, section 12.5.3  only allows them to recoup indemnity from Section 5, not 2.10. 

 

Except 12.5.3 contains the words "but not limited to"....

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Except 12.5.3 contains the words "but not limited to"....

 

Mark

 

 

i would be comfortable in court to argue that the fact the specifically name section 5, and specifically had 2 in a totally different section, where it could have been included in 5,  that intent was not there, since they are the one who wrote it.  A global "and anything else" has little weight when you think time to make such a distinction, and would generally be more to include related things they didn't include.   Burden of proof is always on the contract writer.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Chasing infringements without consulting the contributor is going to be fraught with problems.


I suspect that chasing infringements is going to be limited to those contract users such as the media who have accounts with Alamy. Its just too fraught with problems otherwise. I also suspect its just an excuse to cut "50%" and will go the way of "video", "exclusive" etc. Ideas that sound good but end up being quietly dumped or not reported on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Although Emily states the risks haven't changed, I'm still going to request imediate deletion of some images. Even if the contract's laibilities have not have changed I feel the "climate" has on 3 scores.

 

  1. we are moving towards being a more litigous society.
  2. I previously felt (possibly incorrectly) that if a third party made a claim Alamy would work with the contributor to defend. Now I fear that they might simply pass the buck....
  3. The decreasing licence revenue and % commission mean it's not worth the risk

 

Mark

 

My thoughts too. That applies to my current portfolio. Add in the fact that uploading more images would be done at an effective hourly of about a pound. I just can't see much point in taking the risk.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2021 at 16:44, Steve F said:

 

Exactly. Companies generally don't sue people with no money (i.e. general members of the public). It's not worth it and bad publicity.


That has always been my understanding too.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2021 at 16:44, Steve F said:

 

Exactly. Companies generally don't sue people with no money (i.e. general members of the public). It's not worth it and bad publicity.

Even more if the sued person lives in a country very difficult to get something. I am thinking to move to Russia, China, or even North Korea.

  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alamy

 

Whether the terms in the new contract are more 'risky' than the old or not, I think it has quite rightly made a lot of us think hard about what those risks are.  I do have professional indemnity insurance but need to find out if that does in fact cover the 'hold harmless' clauses etc before deciding what to do

Before I contact my insurer could you please clarify how your overseas offices are legally structured - ie under what legal jurisdiction they fall.  For example the office in the USA.  If a case were to be brought by a customer of the American office against you/me/us would it fall under UK or American law??  Similarly with distributor sales - would any case be heard in the UK or wherever in the world the distributor's company is based?  I would really appreciate some clarity on this please (maybe it's obvious and I'm just missing it?). 

 

Thanks

Kay

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kay, if there has been no clarity after 118 pages of opinions and speculation, I don't think you will find it on Page 119.

 

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Key, if there has been no clarity after 118 pages of opinions and speculation, I don't think you will find it on Page 119.

I'm sure you're right.  Have also emailed direct

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Paul J said:

It was pointed out to me that there is a good chance there will be two currency conversions per sale, once if the purchase currency is not is USD, and again if payout is not in USD. So potentially up to 5% of each sale could be taken as part of Alamy's currency conversion fee. 

There isn't and it isn't.

I've checked and Alamy's rate is usually within 2.5- 3% of the spot rate.

In any case, there's no "currency conversion" when Alamy quotes, and is paid, a price in a different currency. Alamy hedges against changes in exchange rates.

13 hours ago, Paul J said:

a fellow 'Vote Leave' Alamy supplier.

And you mention this because.....? Surely no connection with not understanding economic facts? Alamy had to decide its main currency 20 years ago. It chose USD because it expected that to be its main market. I assume this reduces the hedging that it needs to do.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Haha 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, spacecadet said:
21 hours ago, Paul J said:

a fellow 'Vote Leave' Alamy supplier.

And you mention this because.....?

 

7 minutes ago, Paul J said:

Because I am closing my account, as are others. 

Huh? You mentioned voting leave because you're closing your account???????? Quite a non-sequitur!😀

I can cope with the childish Red Arrows, btw whoever it is. Quite a lot of greenies to count down there!

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Exactly. All we have had is woffle and prevarication. Letting the days go past until they lock down the discussion.

 

What are the reasons for our commission being cut to 40%? In particular having been given the assurance at Xmas that this was not being planned and another assurance that sales are on the increase and could fund developments.  What changed?

 

Without a reason this just seems like greed and legalised theft - an opportunistic grab of contributor's income and nothing else.

 

Before you lock the the thread don't you think that your contributors deserve a clear explanation from one of those responsible for making the decision?

 

Please stop hiding behind feeble excuses and tell us the truth. 

This.  All of this. ^^^^^

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Exactly. All we have had is woffle and prevarication. Letting the days go past until they lock down the discussion.

 

What are the reasons for our commission being cut to 40%? In particular having been given the assurance at Xmas that this was not being planned and another assurance that sales are on the increase and could fund developments.  What changed?

 

Without a reason this just seems like greed and legalised theft - an opportunistic grab of contributors' income and nothing else.

 

Before you lock the the thread don't you think that your contributors deserve a clear explanation from one of those Alamy leaders taking responsibility for making the decision?

 

Please stop hiding behind feeble excuses and tell us the truth. 

Morning Ian, keep asking the question, but corporate culture won't permit a candid answer. 

Stay safe.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

What are the reasons for our commission being cut to 40%? In particular having been given the assurance at Xmas that this was not being planned and another assurance that sales are on the increase and could fund developments.  What changed?

 

Without a reason this just seems like greed and legalised theft - an opportunistic grab of contributors' income and nothing else.

 

Before you lock the the thread don't you think that your contributors deserve a clear explanation from one of those Alamy leaders taking responsibility for making the decision?

 

Please stop hiding behind feeble excuses and tell us the truth. 

 

This exactly!    For over a 118 pages Alamy have evaded an explanation to the commission cut without any answers, and we, as contributors to Alamy's profits deserve an answer

(and not a politician's answer either please!)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

Put simply.....

 

....it's like it or lump it.

 

 

 

Most likely, and that tells us everything we need to know about our relationship with Alamy.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

But they have answered on the first page. They need our money to invest in and improve their website and marketing resources. Apparently 261,976,344 images aren't enough so they need to reach every human being on the planet with more ads. Maybe they also want to launch a space program so they can reach the aliens and make them to contribute with some extraterrestrial images from the galaxies far far away, to go where no photo agency has gone before...

 

"How can Alamy justify earning more from a sale than the photographer?

 

Our core rate for direct sales continues to be 40% for the vast majority of our contributors. We believe this is fair because we incur significant and rising costs bringing images to market – especially as competition increases. This allows Alamy to invest, as it is doing currently, in an improved website and platform, and in sales and marketing resource. It’s also one of the most generous rates available in a very competitive market."

Edited by Homy
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2021 at 11:19, imageplotter said:

 

Yes, it probably does. Here's where it gets a bit murky though. I, together with many others (sometimes up to 40 press photographers, freelance, wire agency and the few remaining staffers, plus camera crews) often attend zoo press photo calls, at London Zoo, Whipsnade etc. ZSL want us to take those images (and whilst they also mail out freebies by their own tog to the editors, these are often not as nice and tend to be for online use or smaller publications who rely on freebies), and they keenly want to get coverage. So far so good. If we were to all have these images available for the live news period only (as used to be the case for a brief while with the Tate and their photo calls), far fewer photographers would attend. A few hastily edited pics from the better photo calls get usage on the day after/48hrs (not all of the pressers are visually that interesting), but quite a few more get usage in the weeks and months afterwards. And ZSL are generally quite happy about the extra PR they get. This year, I should think they'll be extra keen on any coverage they get (except for the odd negative headline), given that all zoos struggle during covid and really need to make up for lost revenue.

 

 After the presser, once I've filed, I tend to hang around for a bit (if there are no other news events or photo calls immediately afterwards) and do some add-on shots of other animals that might fit a news theme (hot or cold temperatures, seasons, zoo babies etc) and file a few more. A few times, these have then also been used by newspapers (occasionally with Alamy, more often when pinged out by another news pic agency) because they may just happen to have been visually more appealing, and the paper needed a vibrant 'happy' pic to fill a space somewhere. Again, the zoos tend to be quite happy about this (I often send them a quick mail that I've filed a few more, but not always), it rarely generates negative PR and may translate into ticket sales for them. 

 

My point is - there is a grey area in all this. I for one will be unlikely to still attend all of their photo calls if I had to delete the images after the news period, I suspect it could create friction with wires distributing via Alamy, too, if their images are deleted soon after submission, plus it creates additional work. 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.  my other worry is by definition plenty of News images would likely fit on the "Will offend someone" category.  

 

 

As for your zoo images, i would still personally upload them, but these would be clearly images where i would keep the automatic "For Editorial use only" notation that comes from Live News, and would put it on any images I Uploaded directly to stock.  I think fact the Zoo invited you in clearly shows this was allowed by them.   

  • Upvote 2
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.