Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Shergar said:

Have we ever been told how much are Alamy going to give back to the photographers. They don't have a very good track record on these things. Personally I would rather go after the infringers myself . Looking at the new contract that won't be happening anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

Shergar

 

 

as per new contract.

 

A percentage, equal to the applicable commission rate for that Content, of all amounts recovered by Alamy in connection with any claims or actions pursuant to clause 16.5 (after first deducting collection fees and reasonable legal expenses incurred by Alamy) will be paid to you

 

 

 

Of course similar to DACS they will not provide what is "collection fees and reasonable legal expenses incurred by Alamy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've also done away with the "audit of its Systems and its allocation of payments due to Contributors on a yearly basis by an independent firm of chartered accountants."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

to be honest I can see the reasoning for the lower tier.  There is still a cost to Alamy to review submission, maintain images, opportunity cost of mislabelled off market images etc.. So if you won't bring Alamy a minimal amount of sales you are lower on scale  In fact this has been requested many times in the forum (of course it wasn't linked with a reduction- more a bonus for diamond and platinum level)  In addition giving the first year to prove yourself- new contributor starting at Gold is beyond the competition- would however favour a rolling 12 months over date specific.  

 

That said, the rest falls flat.  99% of the bread and butter individual contributor will be in the Gold level, with as you stated no chance whatsoever of going up to Platinum.

 

I can see the reason for the lower "Silver tier" for the reasons that you mentioned. However, the door is now open to other tiers and minimum earnings' thresholds being imposed in the future -- e.g. $10K gross annually  or you drop to the Iridium level.

 
Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Barry Hitchcox said:

This is the end for me. Alamy is now run by a journalist and look what has happened to journalism. So she is taking it out on photographers by grinding us down to journalistic rates. (i.e: nil) The writing was on the wall as soon as PA took over.

As for content, how dare they judge what might or might not sell? Several years ago I attended a lecture where former Alamy CEO James.... gave an example of a pic. that had made a big sale. £15,000 for a terrible shot of an extremely obscure subject. It made his point very effectively, that you can never tell!

With only a very small portfolio I am sentenced to 20% for life! They are just common thieves.

 

I've worked at the other side of things where we did photo and video research projects for clients in publishing, educational publications and other. We used a selection of many varied stocksites for our research, incl Alamy, Getty, Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Corbis (RIP) and so on. All I can say that Alamy had the upper hand because it accepted all pics, even the most mundane and non artistic ones, and this is why we went to Alamy for a lot or images that didn't need to be super fancy of edited. This is what first made me get started on Alamy, you can never tell what kind of image is going to sell.

Edited by Nathaniel Noir
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Shergar said:

You would think that someone in Alamy would be smart enough to come up with a way of increasing profit rather than the old and trusted screw the supplier method.

 

You do both - you make the business work smarter not harder and you screw your suppliers. Like this

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9562059/Billionaire-founder-Shutterstock-lists-oceanfront-Hamptons-home-52-million.html

 

Why settle for a $25 million dollar house when you can have a $50 million one.

Edited by Colin Woods
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I can see the reason for the lower "Silver tier" for the reasons that mentioned. However, the door is now open to other tiers and minimum earnings' thresholds being imposed in the future -- e.g. $10K gross annually  or you drop to the Iridium level.

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

At least that's not as low as the Polonium level, where you have 0% and pay extra £2 for every of your images sold

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

All of that time we spent fighting for our 50% until we got it with exclusivity, I can see it now. People behind closed doors, rubbing their hands, saying, “We’ll let them think they won for now. Wait until they see our next move...hahahaha!”

 

Also at issue with our permission for Alamy to chase uses...they can recover costs of chasing??? Hmmm. I wonder if a contributor will ever see a $ of recovery? More likely, a clause will be written where they chase, but Alamy charges us for the chase. We get nothing or may be debited for the chase. You all notice the timing of this “benefit to us” was released first.

Then this new contributor contract which makes all of us who were grateful to Alamy for chasing, now feel like if we want our images chased, we must stay exclusive.

From now on, anything Alamy announces for our benefit must be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Fool me once.....

 

That's a favourite management tactic. When you get something for nothing you know it's gonna cost you plenty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver tier - it is damn absurd, honestly.

With earnings at just 20%, someone with already low volume is only bound to stay there a long time. The effort to increase the portfolio size significantly would be a thankless task, as the contributor might feel disillusioned and be long gone from the site by the time sales start catching up to potentially move them up to the Gold tier.

I had a total of 7 sales last calendar year, and yes my portfolio is rather small. No sales this year in 5 months, already posted about this on the forum.

 

Atrocious. Utterly disappointed and frustrated this morning.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This change is quite a hit in the gut.  All of my images on Alamy are exclusive to Alamy, and I have been working every day since the pandemic started, to process, upload, and keyword additional images to max optimization so that when the pandemic is finally behind us, I can count on some income from Alamy.  I have been with Alamy since 2006, and I sold my first image in April of the following year.  There have been so many years when I haven't grossed $250 for the year!  I have thousands of images yet to process to add to the over 3,100 images I already have on the service, but I am disheartened at the prospect of only getting 20% for all my efforts.  If this is the case, one might make more money in micro stock, and I will have to really think about where I want to put my future images.

 

Alamy, please rethink this move, and reverse course here!

Edited by weshoot
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, I am a small fish in this barrel (some 600 images), and I do, strangely make sales 🙂 I am also exclusive to Alamy - Question, if I am so moved to delete all my images and try my luck elsewhere, can I go exclusive with my new agency and not be penalised by Alamy - the reason I ask is because Alamy would keep my images live for 180 days after deletion...what say the wise ones 🙂            
               
               
               
               
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

New Clause:

 

 

2.10. By marking Content as Exclusive, you grant Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. Where pursuing such infringements if it is found that the Content has been licensed through another licensing platform, Alamy has the right to recoup any fees incurred in the pursuit of any action taken.

 

 

 

Wait, didn't we just make this election a couple of weeks ago and were allowed to opt in/out?  Now it's mandatory (or just remove "exclusive") 

 

This makes no sense to me - we can mark something as exclusive even if we sell directly through our own websites. I don't want Alamy chasing someone I have sold a license to directly without consulting me first, which is why I responded as such when that recent email was sent out. Some clarification is needed please.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Malcolm Park said:

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned in this thread, perhaps the top level should be rebadged the Unobtainium Level.

 

...or Pie in the Sky level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I do not want to agree to the new contract, is there an opt out button or do I have go through the usual process to delete my account? Because the website says account deletion takes 45 days and the contract goes "into force" on July 1 (in 44 days.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gabbro said:

 

...or Pie in the Sky level.

hmmm - Pie In the Sky - PITS

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Photo said:

If a magazine buys a photo of Big Ben and a photo of the front line in Afghanistan, for example, surely these should not be sold at the same price?

 

This is what makes wildlife stock photography unsustainable. If I sit in a hide for 2 weeks to get a unique shot of a rare species I expect to get paid accordingly. Alamy offers no mechanism for that to happen. And now they demand 60% of my earnings for zero effort?!

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sally said:

I don't want Alamy chasing someone I have sold a license to directly without consulting me first

 

And I don't want to chase someone who Alamy has sold a licence to either. But since Alamy won't disclose which customers have licensed which images this creates a farcical situation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

This is what makes wildlife stock photography unsustainable. If I sit in a hide for 2 weeks to get a unique shot of a rare species I expect to get paid accordingly. Alamy offers no mechanism for that to happen. And now they demand 60% of my earnings for zero effort?!

Yep - this week I was paid an average of 4 cents per image ( 5 images) of images in Tibet and south west China - dist bulk sale...long way to go for 20 cents from UK lol

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Looks like I’ll be spending more time working on my art and POD sites.

 

Yeah, I've already been doing that, since my POD income handily exceeded my Alamy income for 2020. (Granted, last year was my lowest Alamy revenue since 2005--but still well above the $250 threshold.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

If Alamy starts charging contributors to upload their images to them I will be out immediately.

 

Allan

 

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

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned this isn’t about ‘Alamy’ at all. Back in the year 2000 there was a budding company that was for the contributors. 80% commission was where we started.

Now it is ‘Alamy’ only in name but not in principles...the big boys have taken over and they have no morals. 

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

the big boys have taken over and they have no morals

Nope. Big business is entirely amoral. Anything that you read about how they value the clients or the suppliers is just window dressing. They (not just alamy but your insurance company, telephone company, etc, etc) value us solely as a means to generate income. In fact in my frustration with Alamy I am being hypocritical because when I buy food in the supermarket I never ask if the suppliers are being fairly treated. Now I am on the receiving end of getting screwed (again) and I don't like it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked 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.