Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

 

cat pictures are a no-brainer 

 

"cute" cat pictures are even a safer bet 🐱

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The contract just says "in writing" and the Definitions do not include this term. The FAQs on the website say to email contributors@alamy.com, but that could be worth the paper it's printed on. Should add this to our list of questions.

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

60% of nothing or 50% of something ?

 

As a direct result of the email yesterday, and no one getting in touch with me to confirm my rate despite my contacting them, I uploaded a handful of news / weather pics to other agencies today.  I've allready had one use on line in the Sun.  It seems fairly simple to me, Alamy can either have 60% of nothing, or 50% of something. Tomorrow I've got another great shooting opportunity which is going to go elsewhere.

Feeling very much the same, especially when it is a shoot I have exclusive photos of. I won’t change anything this month as live news will be reported in June within the current contract. After that, it may be different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe if we each sent in a couple hundred cat photos?  I've got access to three cats but can only sign releases for two of them. 

 

My thinking on this is that jumping ship for the same rates doesn't make sense, but was the last time I got a low $$$ license before or after PA?  Hum, checks.   Last low $$$ was in February 26 2020.  PA bought Alamy in February 14, 2020, and I haven't had a sale over $50 since the one in late February 26, which was a unique photo from a series on Nicaraguan Sign Language and perhaps PA had not completely taken over at that point.   If PA is selling things cheaper than Alamy did, then, yeah.

 

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. 

 

One woman I worked with in Philadelphia saw the company hire an incompetent man for project manager, and said that her parents always told her if she worked for someone, she could always be let go.   In less than a week she was out of a company where she'd been the first employee and had a better job.   The guy they hired didn't even realize he was doing a bad job and was surprised when he got fired less than six months later. 

 

I like taking photos, but maybe this novel that's been building in my head needs more attention.  Big gamble -- it might not sell, but if it does sell to a commercial publisher, I'd get more for it than I've gotten in four and a half years with Alamy. 

 

What Alamy has now, I think I'll leave in place, but I am tempted to do a cat photo binge.  Either PA can get as many sales in the low $$$ range as Alamy did (and two of those photos in one year would have put me in the Gold), or they can't.   I doubt they'd miss me if I left, though.

 

PA and the rest of the world went through the pandemic, so that might have affected prices, but prices should be going up again.   And those of us who stay exclusive should be getting higher prices if not 50% commission.  If the prices aren't higher for exclusive photos, then maybe put energy to something else.

Edited by MizBrown
found the info I needed to look for
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...:wacko: 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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...:wacko: 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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Bill Kuta
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Bill Kuta
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...:wacko: 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
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by MizBrown
more than one
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Panthera tigris
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😄

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

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 by Bill Kuta
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Colin Woods
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by John Mitchell
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.