Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[DawnOne]

4 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

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.

I never submitted my most valuable work either, and I’m also removing my photos which are presently on Alamy. 

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Colin Woods said:

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.

 

Those micro-like sales are disturbing. However, I'm seeing some good prices this month -- average PPI is over $74 so far. I don't think that Alamy wants to become a microstock agency. The competition is overwhelming, and the existing micros are in the process of eating each other alive.

[gardenbush]

Just sent my termination email notice to Emily Shelley - mainly because I had 5 sales last week via bulk distribution for a total of $0.67 - the total for me was a wacking 20 cents.

[sb photos]

3 hours 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.

 

All my images but one with Alamy are RM, Editorial only, no releases and Alamy exclusive other than 2. I cannot imagine any of my current images being considered for commercial use. I suspect most of us will be busy considering what options will bring in the most revenue from current and future photography after the Alamy contract change. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by sb photos

[AlbertSnapper]

4 minutes ago, gardenbush said:

Just sent my termination email notice to Emily Shelley - mainly because I had 5 sales last week via bulk distribution for a total of $0.67 - the total for me was a wacking 20 cents.

You might feel better doing this.

But Alamy won't care. Plenty more images in their library.

[sb photos]

48 minutes ago, DawnOne said:

I just quit Alamy and will be removing my work. They just asked me to sell 2 photographs to a corporate client for $15. apiece, which amount to $7.50 each after Alamy removes their 50% commission, and less once it drops to 40%. While I hesitated before, as I’ve invested thousands of hours on the 4,621 photos I submitted, it was frankly a waste of my time. 

 

As it takes 6 months before images are deleted, will you be reverting any Alamy exclusive images to non exclusive so they can be marketed elsewhere.

 

[riccarbi]

I guess many here are focusing on the new commission scheme, but too few on other one-sided clauses in the new contract.
While I'm not happy at all with the new commissions, I could cope with them (though I think that someone who takes 60% (or more) of your work's value must give you a very valuable service in exchange, and I don't think this is the case with Alamy, currently). Yet, what really worries me are the new terms related to obligations, indemnities, and appointment.
I report below some clauses from the new contract:

 

Quote

"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."

 

"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"

 

"any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."

 

"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 (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and (iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract."

 

 

"Alamy has full authority to negotiate all terms of commissions, licences and reproduction rights of the Content including the fee, duration and scope of any Licence at its absolute discretion. You authorise Alamy to agree to any cropping, manipulation, combining and creation of derivative Content."
 

 "Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you."

 

So, basically, you are granting Alamy permission to do whatever they want with your images, but YOU are legally and financially responsible for what they'll do.
Nobody in his/her right mind would sign a contract like this and, if Alamy won't amend it, I'll certainly terminate my business collaboration with them.

Edited May 19, 2021 by riccarbi

[AndrewP]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

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

I have lots of images of similar. Surely the buyers have to agree that they will only publish the image in a way that is suitable when there's no MR or PR in place. We can't be expected to be liable for the actions of buyers who should know better if they publish a store front as commercial and not editorial.

Edited May 19, 2021 by AndrewP

[Lynchpics]

8 minutes ago, riccarbi said:

I guess many here are focusing on the new commission scheme, but too few on other one-sided clauses in the new contract.
While I'm not happy at all with the new commissions, I could cope with them though I think that someone who takes 60% (or more) of your work value must give you a very valuable service in exchange, and I don't think this is the case with Alamy, currently. Yet, what really worries me are the new terms related to obligations, indemnities, and appointment of Alamy.
I report below some clauses from the new contract:

 

 

So, basically, you are granting Alamy permission to do whatever they want with your images, but YOU will are legally and financially responsible for what they'll do.
Nobody in his/her right mind would sign a contract like this and, if Alamy won't amend it, I'll certainly terminate my business relationship with them.

"By marking Content as Exclusive, you grant Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you." Unless you are in the $25,000 tier, why would you mark your content as exclusive? There is no benefit for a contributor  having exclusive images at Alamy if you are in the lower tiers. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Lynchpics

[Dylan B Garcia Art Photography]

Hi 

Personaly I Will not upload any more pictures under these conditions, if there are more cuts in income I will start deleting my images, When I find a New Agency, I will delete the images they want, so Alamy will be with the left overs, but I think no bonus for exclusivity will do this anyway. 

 

Yours Dylan B Garcia Art Photography 

[Foreign Export]

22 minutes ago, riccarbi said:

I guess many here are focusing on the new commission scheme, but too few on other one-sided clauses in the new contract.
While I'm not happy at all with the new commissions, I could cope with them (though I think that someone who takes 60% (or more) of your work's value must give you a very valuable service in exchange, and I don't think this is the case with Alamy, currently). Yet, what really worries me are the new terms related to obligations, indemnities, and appointment.
I report below some clauses from the new contract:

 

 

So, basically, you are granting Alamy permission to do whatever they want with your images, but YOU will are legally and financially responsible for what they'll do.
Nobody in his/her right mind would sign a contract like this and, if Alamy won't amend it, I'll certainly terminate my business collaboration with them.

You are quite right - these clauses are something of abuse of power.

The risk being transferred to the contributor is significant and the financial implications are considerable - for the contributor 

I need to consider these risks further - but I am very uncomfortable with them, and in the context of a typical business relationship they would never be agreed to by the party carrying the risk, and because we don't have to physically sign to execute this contract that is the reason I would say they are an abuse of power.

It would make an interesting test case if Alamy decided to pursue a contributor through the courts for financial recovery

 

[M.Chapman]

30 minutes ago, riccarbi said:

So, basically, you are granting Alamy permission to do whatever they want with your images, but YOU will are legally and financially responsible for what they'll do.
Nobody in his/her right mind would sign a contract like this and, if Alamy won't amend it, I'll certainly terminate my business collaboration with them.

 

That's my reading of the new clauses 4.15 and 4.16 in combination too. This concerns me even more than the commission rate changes.

 

Mark

[Foreign Export]

46 minutes ago, riccarbi said:

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 (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and (iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract."

 

This of courses applies worldwide and the way it is worded we are indemnifying Alamy and its cohort even against unreasonable or unproven claims, losses etc.

Basically any spurious claim against Alamy launched from wherever in the world - we carry the can.

And its a lifetime obligation on the contributor

Frankly I don't think its enforceable under English Law - but if Alamy wanted to purse a contributor they don't have to use English law to do so

THIS IS AN APPALLING CLAUSE - it has no balance , no reflection on which party is best able to manage or control the risk, and the burden is entirely disproportionate to the potential returns for the contributor - I would want to be clearing minimum 100k per annum from Alamy before I would even consider accepting this risk

 

[Thyrsis]

Obviously not happy with the commission changes but if the new clauses about liability are going to be enforced we’re out. 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Thyrsis

[Nathaniel Noir]

6 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

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.

 

Same here really, I don't remember the last time when I was on holiday and I wasn't working on stock at the same time, my mind is constantly on stock photography wherever I go

[Radim]

Of course, each of us does not have to sign this agreement.

 

After reading the agreement, I think there are good reasons that the Alamy is abusing its position vis-à-vis contributors from a position of power.

 

This is not a good signal that Alymy is trying to build a mutually beneficial relationship with contributors.

I am disappointed

[Foreign Export]

1 minute ago, Radim said:

Of course, each of us does not have to sign this agreement.

 

After reading the agreement, I think there are good reasons that the Alamy is abusing its position vis-à-vis contributors from a position of power.

 

This is not a good signal that Alymy is trying to build a mutually beneficial relationship with contributors.

I am disappointed

 

I think they lost that intent re mutual relationship many years ago

 

 

 

[riccarbi]

1 minute ago, Foreign Export said:

 

This of courses applies worldwide and the way it is worded we are indemnifying Alamy and its cohort even against unreasonable or unproven claims, losses etc.

Basically any spurious claim against Alamy launched from wherever in the world - we carry the can.

And its a lifetime obligation on the contributor

Frankly I don't think its enforceable under English Law - but if Alamy wanted to purse a contributor they don't have to use English law to do so

THIS IS AN APPALLING CLAUSE - it has no balance , no reflection on which party is best able to manage or control the risk, and the burden is entirely disproportionate to the potential returns for the contributor - I would want to be clearing minimum 100k per annum from Alamy before I would even consider accepting this risk

 

 

Right. For example, in many countries there is no such thing as "editorial content" in the law. Therefore, if someone in one of those counties asks for an indemnity or, worse, takes Alamy to court because he thinks some kind of local rule has been breached, the contributor will have to pay all legal expenses and the like. Maybe, after having got pennies from Alamy for that picture. This is simply unacceptable.

[Radim]

4 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

Myslím, že tento záměr ztratili před mnoha lety

 

 

 

I'm not saying that's not the case, I'm just saying that the new contract is worse and worse for the contributor again

[Thyrsis]

6 minutes ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

 

Same here really, I don't remember the last time when I was on holiday and I wasn't working on stock at the same time, my mind is constantly on stock photography wherever I go

Uploading images from trips abroad to Alamy was a legit way of claiming travel expenses back through our business. But as we won’t be travelling much in the near future that won't be a problem! 

[Foreign Export]

1 minute ago, riccarbi said:

 

Right. For example, in many countries there is no such thing as "editorial content" in the law. Therefore, if someone in one of those counties asks for an indemnity or, worse, takes Alamy to court because he thinks some kind of local rule has been breached, the contributor will have to pay all legal expenses and the like. Maybe, after having got pennies from Alamy for that picture. This is simply unacceptable.

 

absolutely 

 

 

[Alan Gallery]

If Alamy self destructs that would be a result.  It would reset the business to an extent.  The current owners do not have a clue what Alamy's USP is and while it could coast along for a some time it will suffer through lack of new input and pulled collections.  (note to self - put Alamy ref. number in keywords). 

[MDM]

Deleted apologies to all for any confusion. I misread the changes document. Time to to go back to bed.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by MDM

[Jansos]

13 hours ago, Joe Gaul said:

I don't believe the myoptic bean counters at Alamy realize exactly what they have done by in one fell swoop destroying everything that made Alamy a unique place for image buyers. Instead of playing to their strengths of a rights manages exclusive collection to increase sales and sales value they are copying the micro model where SS and G hold all the aces. This may be an easy short-term option however I do not believe that Alamy can compete in that market. Sad times.

Very sad times. Reading all the posts and replies is very disheartening. The contract side of things is the most worrying.  We would have to be mad to agree to those T&Cs. It would appear that the only option is to delete all images and keywords to protect oneself against any future legal claims. Surely this is not what Alamy/PA intended, or was it?

[Colblimp]

Haha, just had a warning for 'swearing' and my comment removed, as if I could care less. Seriously, this company is laughable.