Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[M.Chapman]

8 hours 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.

Mmm... depending on how that's interpreted, could it negate some of the the protection for the model included in every Alamy model release uploaded to date?

 

Alamy model release

I hereby give the Photographer and Assigns my permission to license the Images and to use the Images in any Media for any purpose (except pornographic, defamatory, libellous or otherwise unlawful) which may include, among others, advertising, promotion, marketing and packaging for any product or service.

 

Looking back at the previous version of the contract, it's similar, (especially once Alamy removed the provision to upload releases to the website - so they can't know what's actually in the release).

 

4.6 Where you have indicated that a Model Release, Property Release or any other release of a third party right including without limitation any copyright, trade mark or other intellectual property right, is available. the release must (a) be legally binding and (b) (except as otherwise notified to Alamy via the website or, with the agreement of Alamy, via email) authorise all uses of the Images anywhere in the world including without limitation uses in relation to sensitive issues; you must make the release(s) available to Alamy if so requested.

 

Is there a clear legal distinction between "sensitive issues" and pornographic, defamatory and libellous ones and does the same distinction apply worldwide?

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

16 minutes ago, Radim said:

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

 

Jeff has never liked exclusivity. He hasn't been on the forum since the last commission change in 2019.

[Radim]

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Jeff has never liked exclusivity. He hasn't been on the forum since the last commission change in 2019.

I agree, I just remembered him

[geogphotos]

14 minutes ago, Radim said:

I agree, I just remembered him

 

I assume that most of his sales have been at 40% since Feb 2019 - mine have been because my non-ex are generally my best..

Edited May 20, 2021 by geogphotos

[Andreas]

Hi Alamy, the opening thread by you states:

"We'll be reading all responses and will respond where possible to clarify any questions as regularly as possible. "

 

Will you please step in and answer the multiple questions around liabilities of the contributor (chapter 4) , exclusivity and others ?

regards, Andreas

[Jansos]

15 hours ago, PuffinsPictures said:

Given the new scheme combined with the fact that my sales tanked from decent to nothing for months, I guess I'd better start rationing the instant noodles.

Noodles all round! 🙂

[Jansos]

14 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

EXIFTool.exe can do this automatically for all the jpgs in a folder using the Excel data, but unfortunately it's quite a complex program to use. https://exiftool.org/

 

Mark

Thanks! 🙂Do you know if there a Mac equivalent?

[Jansos]

7 hours ago, StanRohrer said:

My accountant gave me a piece of advice - which I'll pass along..... All of business is about relationships. Relationships with suppliers. Relationships with buyers. Relationships within the organization to add value to the product.

 

So I see all the business spreadsheet numbers to be just a measure of how all those strategic relationships are going. Good relationships drive good business numbers. But if the spreadsheets are driving the business decisions, then the relationships are very likely damaged and suffering. These contract changes appear to be the new boss pounding his fist on the table and yelling out how he is going to run the relationship. The new boss has not built his new relationships with the business partners. Pounding a fist can make a point on occasion, but is not generally useful to building a friendship, matching to a potential spouse, training a child, or running business relationships.

Would agree completely, lessons are, alas, often learned too late. It takes very little to sour a relationship but a huge amount of effort to restore trust and confidence. 😞

[imageplotter]

10 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Surely the information with the image is correct at the Date it was TAKEN.

 

Allan

 

 

Of course. But - as with so many of the clauses in this new contract - that isn't specifically mentioned in the text of that clause. 

 

Surely doesn't really reassure me. If going exclusive, it surely should also be ok to still sell direct via one's own website without Alamy then chasing my own clients for illegal use. But does it say so in the text?

[Joseph Clemson]

17 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Hi Alamy, the opening thread by you states:

"We'll be reading all responses and will respond where possible to clarify any questions as regularly as possible. "

 

Will you please step in and answer the multiple questions around liabilities of the contributor (chapter 4) , exclusivity and others ?

regards, Andreas

 

Alamy posted yesterday (p31) to say they will respond before the end of the week with an update to their original post on page 1

[Ed Rooney]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

 

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.

 

Yes, Steve -- I don't understand this rush to the exit. The last major contract change was revised. 

[M.Chapman]

31 minutes ago, Jansos said:

Thanks! 🙂Do you know if there a Mac equivalent?

Yes, although I've never used the Mac version. Downloads here https://exiftool.org/

 

I did write (or find?) some instructions on how to use the program to import metadata into jpgs. For some reason it uses a separate SD card, but that was probably to keep the command line directory paths simple.

 

1) Insert an empty flashdisk or SD card with sufficent space to hold a batch of jpgs you want to import CSV data into. For this example I'll assume its drive letter is L:
2) Copy the batch of jpgs you want to add data to into the root directory of L: (NB. Keep a backup of your jpegs in case of problems)
3) Download the Windows Executable: exiftool-9.69.zip from http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
4) Extract the Windows Executable exiftool(-k).exe from the zip file and copy into the root directory of L:
5) Rename exiftool(-k).exe to exiftool.exe
6) Make/Edit the Excel document of filenames and keywords (descriptions) so that it conforms with the following
    The first column must have "SourceFile" (without quotes) in the top row and the filenames of all the files must be in the rows underneath
    The second column must have "XMP:Description" (without quotes) in the top row and the descriptions (list of keywords) that you want to insert into each jpg in the rows underneath. NB. There mustn't be any commas in the descriptions and they must all be in the second column.
7) Save the Excel file as a csv file called Data.csv (ignore the warning messages) in the root directory of L:
😎 OK now you're ready to try it.
9) Click the Windows start button and type "cmd" without quotes into the search box
10) Right click on the program "cmd.exe" and select "Run as administrator". A black "DOS Command box" will appear.
11) Type L: and press return to change the current directory, the prompt should then show L:\>
12) Type exiftool -csv=Data.csv -overwrite_original -v *.jpg and press return
13) You should see a scrolling display of messages as each jpg file is updated. It's quite slow, few seconds/image.
14) If you want to run the same command again (with the next batch of images) then type <uparrow> and press return

    

Mark

[John Gaffen]

Not at all happy as in  semi-retirement, Alamy is now my soul source of income.  

[Allan Bell]

6 hours 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

 

 

 

 

 

Or, if you/we are still with PA/Alamy in two years time and had no licences from our ports any amount held in our PA/Alamy account under $50 will be forfeited.

 

Allan

 

It is all so bloody confusing having contradictory or unclear articles in a contract.

 

ITMA

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Allan Bell

[Allan Bell]

I sat in front of the computer early this morning to start processing some 100 + images for Alamy then started to read this thread again. Totally lost the will and energy to fire up the processing software as well as the will to live.

 

Will go out for a walk to clear my head and hopefully don't see a bus coming towards me.🤪

 

Allan

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Allan Bell

[Keith Douglas]

1 minute ago, John Gaffen said:

Not at all happy as in  semi-retirement, Alamy is now my soul source of income.  

I'm in retirement and I'm not happy either, but reduced commission and reduced licence fees has been the trend for as long as I have been contributing to Alamy.

 

My Alamy income is small. What I don't want to do is jeopardize my main sources of income due to possible legal disputes about the use of my images which are outside my control. That will be the main thing that guides my decision about whether to accept the new contract. The new commission rates and trend in fees will influence whether it is worthwhile adding more images if I do stay with Alamy.

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, MizBrown said:

"hijo puta."

Not a woman to mince words!  My Spanish runs to that.

And to think I was going to go for "madre de Dios". No imagination.

[Nathaniel Noir]

7 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

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.

 

 

 

That's the problem, everyone knows that once the money goes down it will never go back up again only further down. There needs to be a stock agency to show otherwise, if the company is having a better year, why shouldn't contributors have a better year.

 

I would say that there is somewhat of a turnaround happening with this, as you start hearing stories of companies who do share their profits with employees. More forward thinking companies have woken up to the fact that having happy staff benefits business and promotes loyalty. Like someone mentioned already, if a company has rewarded me in good times I would be more than happy to take a hit with them in the bad times, provided that the company operates in a completely transparent manner.   

 

The company I work for in my 9-5 is undergoing a massive transformation including a more horizontal structure, flexible working, permanent working from home arrangements and potentially a 4 day work week. It's the first time I have worked for a company that listens and supports its employees, there is a sense of trust and eagerness to contribute and I can tell you it feels great to be part of that. Especially post COVID there is a big shift happening and Alamy should take note and focus on creating good relationships with contributors. 

 

There is also a reason why positive reenforcement is proven to be more effective, instead of scolding and punishing people, because they didn't mark their exclusive and non-exclusive images correctly. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Nathaniel Noir

[Tony Collins]

This is "Fire and Rehire" with a 20% pay cut.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Tony Collins

[Doc]

8 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 hit  > $25,000 between 2014 and 2018 inclusive. Not since then, and with the reduction in overall fees paid am now on a likely downward slope. I would think the number of individual photographers reaching this amount with exclusive to Alamy images must be very few

 

Kumar

[Martin L]

6 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

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.

 

 

Unfortunately this is me.

I was on MS as I thought Alamy was slightly above my pay grade but dropped MS when I got accepted by Alamy.

 

I only have a small young port but it seems quite efficient. 

This year I have licensed 1-2 images per month on a port of up to 400 and my average CTR is 1.2.

The problem for me is that at 1-2 licenses per month and ever decreasing fees, I am unlikely to hit 'gold' and therefore my commission is likely will drop from 40/50% to 20%!

Seems like a pretty big stick to try and encourage me to expand my portfolio.

 

If I was Alamy I would try to encourage more efficient, tight ports. After all it would be less storage, less QC, better customer experience when searching for images etc

 

Rather than gross income as a level grade, wouldn't a percentage of number of sales against portfolio size be a better judge of how a portfolio should be rewarded?

Or even bring in CTR which according to the myths already has some impact on the whether our images get seen and potentially sold.

 

However like most others it is the potential liability that is the main issue for me and needs urgent clarification asap otherwise I too am outta here (or alternatively set up as a professional indemnity insurance salesman 😉)

 

[Ed Rooney]

52 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I tend to think that some of us realize Alamy seems to be kinda following the microstock path.

 

 

I agree, Oliver. I've never submitted anything to microstock agencies. You are still a working pro; I was but I'm retired. I'm just saying it might be a better idea to negotiating some before rushing out the door. Contributors are angry; I get it. I'm angry.

[Alex Ramsay]

I take it that everyone has already emailed Emily Shelley directly, as she suggests in the blog? Has anyone had a response, or at least an acknowledgement? I've had no replies to the two emails I've sent so far.

Alex

[Martin L]

2 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

I take it that everyone has already emailed Emily Shelley directly, as she suggests in the blog? Has anyone had a response, or at least an acknowledgement? I've had no replies to the two emails I've sent so far.

Alex

She is probably too busy forwarding e-mails about possible liability issues back to the contributors

[Ed Rooney]

Alex FYI on page 31:

 

"Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone.
 
We will of course be publishing a formal response here very soon, certainly by the end of the week. 
 
With so many responses we have to do things in this way rather than post here addressing each point. Thanks for your pateince on this, we are reading every post.
 
There will be no more responses from us here until then where we will update page one of the thread and also the latest post here too.
 
Best regards
 
Alamy" 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Ed Rooney