Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[meanderingemu 2,010]

2 hours ago, Homy said:

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."

 

 

but where is the explanation where this must be funded by those who are exclusive? The average non-exclusive no distribution seller will be contributing NOTHING to this required cost increase.  

 If this is required, wouldn't it make more sense to charge it on those that were not exclusive, especially those that seem content with up to 85%  commission at MS? 

[John Mitchell 5,665]

6 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

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.   

 

It's perhaps worth noting that a certain really biG stock agency has thousands of zoo animal pics available, many of them RF. Perhaps the photographers all got permission from the zoos to offer their photos as stock, but I kinda doubt it.

 

When I was doing a lot of travel writing in addition to photography, I was often able to get permission to photograph in places where photography was usually verboten. The rules were dropped simply because I was going to write newspaper and magazine articles. Not that I ever made a lot of money. Travel writing isn't exactly a lucrative line of work.

[meanderingemu 2,010]

4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

It's perhaps worth noting that a certain really biG stock agency has thousands of zoo animal pics available, many of them RF. Perhaps the photographers all got permission from the zoos to offer their photos as stock, but I kinda doubt it.

 

When I was doing a lot of travel writing in addition to photography, I was often able to get permission to photograph in places where photography was usually verboten. The rules were dropped simply because I was going to write newspaper and magazine articles. Not that I ever made a lot of money. Travel writing isn't exactly a lucrative line of work.

 

 

it is also worth nothing that on the moderated forum of a Sizeable Stock agency when people get rejections due to possible restrictions from such locations, they are advise to just resubmit removing any reference to zoo and the likes in KWs and caption. also note that most rejections used to be followed by a "try again" e-mail from the agency, inviting them to resubmit. 

[hsessions 194]

I have followed all 119 pages of this topic, still confused and more confused.  I am putting restrictions on my collection, but am afraid I'll put so many that nothing will sell.

Can anyone who has understood this contract better than I have, help with just a few specific questions I have.

 

1. If I had images at another agency which have never sold; have since been removed and are not available for licensing there, can I mark those as Exclusive to Alamy?

(Anything with Logos, Brands, Trademarks, Statues etc., I know what I need to do.)

2. Opting out of distribution is just to avoid the distributor licesing images (ignoring restrictions one has put on them, distributor does the bad and the client also, and I pay for it), plus, to not offend anyone in that country in case the image is deemed offensive?  And so your opinion/s advice - Opt out?

3. Rationale for Opting out of PU kind of same as above except its the client ignoring license terms/contract, misusing, getting into trouble and I have to pay for it? So opinion/advice Opt Out?

 

I will do all these things also curious how many of you feel that ticking the editorial box is enough protection on RM images, if Alamy has the right to offer the image for commercial use as per the blurb above the license options and fees where it asks the client to contact them about a license for commercial use.  I have added a note in the additional info field:  Image available for Editorial Use ONLY.  I get the feeling that it is pointless, not worth much, and could be ignored.

 

And now I suppose, I see me doing more cut outs of fruits and mounds of peanuts.

Ranking will hit rock bottom, why should one's rank remain up there, Alamy would prefer to present images to buyers that are actually licensable, available through distribution and without all those conditions and restrictions placed on them and those will float up to the top and first pages.  Don't know if I am ready to embrace, Silver, at some point in the future  But,  ...This is the end, hold my breath and count to ten...  Let the sky fall...

 

I understand everyone is busy and have their own ports and things to sort out, but will appreciate if could spare a few minutes to respond to the above.

Thanks

Helen

Edited June 22 by hsessions

[GeoffK 67]

Surely with all these restrictions etc bing put in to place, which will cost contribs revenue, why don't a number club together and ask a lawyer..... I would suggest Swan Turton as IIRC Alamy used/maybe still do get their advice/services. Might be a conflict of interest but photographers mulling over and pronouncing on legal issues might be great for popcorn sales but it's not really getting anywhere.

 

 

[Ed Rooney 4,756]

. . . and round and around we go.

[Steve F 1,234]

13 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

Surely with all these restrictions etc bing put in to place, which will cost contribs revenue, why don't a number club together and ask a lawyer..... I would suggest Swan Turton as IIRC Alamy used/maybe still do get their advice/services. Might be a conflict of interest but photographers mulling over and pronouncing on legal issues might be great for popcorn sales but it's not really getting anywhere.

 

 

 

I used up all my popcorn 50 pages ago.... 🙄

[Russell Watkins 852]

22 hours ago, geogphotos said:

So why wasn't this known to Alamy in December 2020?

 

At that time we were told that no commission change was necessary to fund these planned developments because they could be paid for from increased sales.

 

Two options:

 

1) Alamy doesn't know what it is doing so has had to reverse what we were told six months ago

2) Alamy knows full well what it is doing and decided not to tell us about it in advance

 

So as I've said all along, cock-up or conspiracy.

 

Either way, it doesn't bode well.

[BobD 845]

6 hours ago, hsessions said:

I have followed all 119 pages of this topic, still confused and more confused.  I am putting restrictions on my collection, but am afraid I'll put so many that nothing will sell.

Can anyone who has understood this contract better than I have, help with just a few specific questions I have.

 

1. If I had images at another agency which have never sold; have since been removed and are not available for licensing there, can I mark those as Exclusive to Alamy?

(Anything with Logos, Brands, Trademarks, Statues etc., I know what I need to do.)

 

 

I understand everyone is busy and have their own ports and things to sort out, but will appreciate if could spare a few minutes to respond to the above.

Thanks

Helen

 

Why would you want to make anything exclusive to Alamy. There would be no advantage to doing so.

[Fungijus 6]

26 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

Why would you want to make anything exclusive to Alamy. There would be no advantage to doing so.

But what if your images are exclusive? Wouldn’t the advantage be that Alamy will chase infringements on behalf of the photographer?

[meanderingemu 2,010]

37 minutes ago, Fungijus said:

But what if your images are exclusive? Wouldn’t the advantage be that Alamy will chase infringements on behalf of the photographer?

 

we have no proof that they will.  to date we have had zero report of infringement award from anyone nor Alamy, and the process must have been going on for a while since this is own the Identified the need to alter the commission schedule structure as per the director.  the only thing that seems to happen are late licences, without even any late fees and certainly no penalty for steeling copyright property.  

[hsessions 194]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

 

Why would you want to make anything exclusive to Alamy. There would be no advantage to doing so.

Hoping to hang on to the 50%, BobD.  I batch processed some images yesterday, not image by image, whether they were or not exclusive I removed the exclusive checkmark and this morning $-20.00 other fees.  not sure if the deduction is related to that plus some other restrictions I have put on the images some are just in a straight jacket right now.  Will be going through the port again now and more carefully and selectively applying restrictions.

Helen

[Alamy 723]

Hi All

 

As per our note last Wednesday (page 114) we're now locking this thread. Thank you for all the feedback up to this point and for any further questions on the contract please email contributors@alamy.com and the team will be happy to help.

 

Thanks,

Alamy