Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[MariaJ]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Which obviously conflicts with the new contract:

"4.1.7. where you have indicated that a Model Release is available: (i) the Release is legally binding; (ii) your representation that a Release is available is true and accurate; (iii) (except as otherwise notified to Alamy via the System) the Release allows the Content to be used for all uses anywhere in the world without restriction including without limitation uses in relation to sensitive issues; (iv) you hold all permissions needed for the exploitation by third parties of the Content, including, without limitation, from subjects, depicted in the Content and/or original clients for whom the Content may have been created. and (v) any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not violate the rights of any model depicted in the Content, including without limit, any privacy or publicity rights anywhere in the world."

Again, I have to wonder what Alamy is intending to use the content for, that they have to pre-pardon themselves.

This needs further clarification.  What does "except as otherwise notified to Alamy via the System" mean?  If the model release indicates the image cannot be used in sensitive ways, is that still binding?   If not, I'm removing all of my model released images of friends and family.

[MariaJ]

10 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I think Kumar/Doc might have said that he is (deservedly, if so). I've never made even half of 25K in one year. It would be interesting to know how many do qualify.

I doubt that there's many.  And likely the prolific photographers and agencies aren't exclusive anyways, so that very very few will have to paid 50%.

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Could it be that the lawyers went ahead and made all these changes, and even Alamy doesn't really have a good handle on them? I encountered that with print publications when I was doing a lot of freelance writing -- i.e. some publications didn't even understand their own contracts.

 

 

highly possible.  I encountered that in insurance also.  I remember having arguments with our contract team about content they wrote, where they would tell me once i pointed out weakness and gaps  in the clauses, "it doesn't matter, this is not the way we administer it".  They didn't understand that the judge wouldn't care in cases where the text could be interpreted in a more generous way as the "administered" - which are the only cases that would go to trial. 

[Cryptoprocta]

22 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Could it be that the lawyers went ahead and made all these changes, and even Alamy doesn't really have a good handle on them? I encountered that with print publications when I was doing a lot of freelance writing -- i.e. some publications didn't even understand their own contracts.

You mean, Alamy doesn't know what it's doing?

[John Mitchell]

1 minute ago, Cryptoprocta said:

You mean, Alamy doesn't know what it's doing?

 

More like the left hand doesn't know (or totally understand) what the right hand has done.

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

More like the left hand doesn't know (or totally understand) what the right hand has done.

i think we saw example of this with the Infringement team launch.  

[MizBrown]

40 minutes ago, MariaJ said:

I doubt that there's many.  And likely the prolific photographers and agencies aren't exclusive anyways, so that very very few will have to paid 50%.

 

Some of the newspaper archives, including one recent acquired, are.  SA was created by a consortium of British newspapers.  History here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Media

 

 

[Bill Kuta]

The new contract changes this:

 

12.6. If any remittances made to you by Alamy shall not have been cashed in any 2 year period, Alamy may remit the balance in your account to a charity of our choice.

 

to this:

 

12.7. If any payment made to you by Alamy is not withdrawn from your Account within a period of two (2) years from the date on which such payment was made, you agree to forfeit that amount.

 

Um, withdrawn from what account? 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Bill Kuta

[Foreign Export]

22 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

The new contract changes this:

 

12.6. If any remittances made to you by Alamy shall not have been cashed in any 2 year period, Alamy may remit the balance in your account to a charity of our choice.

 

to this:

 

12.7. If any payment made to you by Alamy is not withdrawn from your Account within a period of two (2) years from the date on which such payment was made, you agree to forfeit that amount.

 

Um, withdrawn from what account? 

 

suspect it means if you have havent provided current bank details so Alamy is unable to make the payment to you

I note it used to go to charity - now it goes to Alamy and they dont say what they will do with it - i strongly suspect they will keep it

 

 

 

 

[Foreign Export]

In business when changing a contract it is standard practice to issue a contrast and compare document - to inform what clauses have been changed/amended/deleted or introduced.

As a minimum to that Alamy should and could have issued a spreadsheet so contributors can more readily see the changes

As they havent done this - it just creates added suspicion of their motives

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

In business when changing a contract it is standard practice to issue a contrast and compare document - to inform what clauses have been changed/amended/deleted or introduced.

As a minimum to that Alamy should and could have issued a spreadsheet so contributors can more readily see the changes

As they havent done this - it just creates added suspicion of their motives

 

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.aspx

 

 

though as some have mentioned, some changes seem to be missing

Edited May 20, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Bill Kuta]

5 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

suspect it means if you have havent provided current bank details so Alamy is unable to make the payment to you

I note it used to go to charity - now it goes to Alamy and they dont say what they will do with it - i strongly suspect they will keep it

 

 

 

 

 

The new clause 12.7 says that Alamy has paid an amount to you. Banking details are covered in subsequent clauses. I suspect that new clause 12.7 was cut and pasted from the contract for a different organization that has a different payment/account arrangement.

[meanderingemu]

Just now, Bill Kuta said:

 

The new clause 12.7 says that Alamy has paid an amount to you. Banking details are covered in subsequent clauses. I suspect that new clause 12.7 was cut and pasted from the contract for a different organization that has a different payment/account arrangement.

 

do they ever pay anyone by cheques?

[Bill Kuta]

I don't know, but "is not withdrawn from your account" is not the same thing as not cashing a check.

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

I don't know, but "is not withdrawn from your account" is not the same thing as not cashing a check.

but i assume it would be one way it wasn't withdrawn from account from a legalise point of view

[Autumn Sky]

2 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

What I would like to see is what perceived problems these changes should remedy.

And: what is the business case?

 

Wim, this is first thought that came to my mind as well.   Primary reason might be simple cost-cutting, and it's designed in such way to minimize # of contributors that might end pissed off & closing ports.  Big cats (>25K,  studios, I don't know who they are, they don't come to the Forum, are essential to the business) - so don't touch them.  Then majority of "average" contributors (i.e most of us on the forum) will stay the same, and even blog says something along these lines.  Largest impact is to "average", but exclusive contributors <25K as they take cut from 50% to 40%.   Those that sell <250 gross/year are deemed casual / sporadic i.e not really important.

 

It's a tricky subject.  I've been in stock ~4 yrs and have yet to see any agency raise contributor compensation (except for one I can't name, but nobody sells there anything anyways)

 

One bad thing this is doing is (de)motivation of new contributors.  Yes, they will start as "Gold" but everyone knows how hard it is to make Alamy sale, specially when your port is small.  So most of these guys, that might have super content, are likely to be dropped off after 12 months to 20% and lose interest.

 

 

[MizBrown]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I think Kumar/Doc might have said that he is (deservedly, if so). I've never made even half of 25K in one year. It would be interesting to know how many do qualify.

 

I checked his post from Monday on this thread.  He hasn't made $25K a year in recent years, close one year but not into the Platinum.

[Panthera tigris]

Within all this hoopla theres a thing that is escaping us. The chasing of non-alamy usage for "exclusive images". Theres been no description of what this will entail but we have to assume from the past they are not going to go in hard on their own customers are they?.So what is the idea - do PA have software like Pixsy and copy track? Are they going to farm out to Pixsy or copy track and take a percentage on top of the contractors fee? If we don't have the details to sign up why would we choose their tracking service over doing it ourselves or using one of the services. What are their fees to users they catch with non-licensed usage? If they catch the sun do I get a percentage of a 5 dollar fee or is the fee structure going to be for higher values. Are self reporters the usages/mis-usages they want to track or do they intend to globally track our images?

[DawnOne]

22 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

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.

 

All mine are presently exclusive to Alamy but come July I don’t believe that will even exist as there is no longer an incentive. 

[DawnOne]

5 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Buena suerte MizBrown. 

Good luck!!!

[DawnOne]

7 minutes ago, DawnOne said:

All mine are presently exclusive to Alamy but come July I don’t believe that will even exist as there is no longer an incentive. 

Would you suggest I change this now? 

[DawnOne]

3 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

The new contract changes this:

 

12.6. If any remittances made to you by Alamy shall not have been cashed in any 2 year period, Alamy may remit the balance in your account to a charity of our choice.

 

to this:

 

12.7. If any payment made to you by Alamy is not withdrawn from your Account within a period of two (2) years from the date on which such payment was made, you agree to forfeit that amount.

 

Um, withdrawn from what account? 

They pay me directly into my bank account- do some have a different arrangement?  

[Radim]

6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I think Kumar/Doc might have said that he is (deservedly, if so). I've never made even half of 25K in one year. It would be interesting to know how many do qualify.

I think one of the candidates is Jeff Greenberg, who used to be active on the forum and still contributes pictures to the stock

[Flash68]

This problem is by no means one-sided. Alamy have a serious issue here, a ticking time-bomb. They have no idea how many of us will leave at the last minute. Most of us on here are Alamy's bread and butter - we have a thousands of images and provide regular guaranteed sales. They surely know that many of us do this as a side-line and are not willing to risk our livelihoods by opening ourselves to litigation risk. If enough leave they will not have a viable business. A large proportion of images and contributors will be those who have tried Alamy once or twice, realised how much time needs to be invested and have given up. Those, like us, who stick at it and invest thousands of hours cannot be regained overnight once lost. Even those newcomers coming in on Gold will lose heart when they don't make $250 in their first year (which they wont) and drop to Silver. That's a big gamble. It would be interesting to know the opinion of the big guns - I mean the contributors who are in the platinum region. How many of them will be concerned about possible relegation to Gold - that would be a considerable reduction in income for sales over $25k and their liability risk based on their volume of images would also be a lot higher. They presumably are taking the Email route to voice their concerns (or maybe they have a direct line to the president). The damage is already done for many judging by comments. Those who have not left already must surely be considering it - (personally I'll stay for 40% but go non-exclusive, I won't say for 20% and I won't stay with the current contract terms)  - and many, myself included have taken this as a wake-up call and are looking at alternative opportunities - whether those are in addition with Alamy or instead of will depend on Alamy's response. But this action has lost all loyalty regardless. The forum as well is a powerful bargaining tool - I've obtained help from many on here and been grateful for it - the forum is still the route advised by Alamy for support. A concerted boycott of support would surely make the powers that be, realise what they are standing to lose. Let's just hope someone with some business sense is listening.

[Steve F]

2 hours ago, DawnOne said:

Would you suggest I change this now? 

 

I personally would wait and see what the actual contract changes are, before making any changes. There may yet be changes to the new contract. There's no rush is there.