Jump to content

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Alan Gallery said:

This is the dirty, underhanded, slimesucking side of Disaster Capitalism. 

Yep! Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

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

 

To be honest Allan I felt the same way.

 

Everything was going OK up until the end of 2019 then literally earnings every where fell off a cliff, the the agency shennanigans of cutting rates started.

 

Alamy's was the final straw I actually wept when I saw what they were doing :(

 

This last year has been crap beyond belief with collapsed incomes, living under lockdown and in my case a death in the family during lockdown and then these corporate types think they can come along without a care in the world and announce this?

 

Just don't let the buggers get you down 😉

 

 

 

 

Me too but but I am treating it as a challenge and using it as an incentive to do positive things. Not for discussion here but feel free to find me and talk through other channels. Going back to my management consultancy  roots and doing some business planning and market analysis etc.

 

I am not going to do anything in a rush or in anger, I will do what is right for me. Eeven if that means leaving my old stuff on Alamy at reduced commission, even if only for the time being.

 

Thoughtfully,

 

Martin

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobD said:

I don't believe that the threshold was set to keep agencies happy. I think that agencies and large libraries would almost certainly have individual contracts.

In my opinion the threshold was set purely to exclude the vast majority on individual contributors.

It certainly isn't for the agencies as they won't be exclusive anyway. I'm guessing that agencies with large collections will have negotiated their own deals and contracts with Alamy.

I think you are right that the new contract and percentage split is to exclude the small to mid individual contributors. If it wasn't intentional it will certainly have that effect.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

So perhaps we should all contact some PA shareholders?

https://pamediagroup.com/about-us/

 

Some Alamy contributors might recognise a few customers! 

 

Must be grounds for an anti-competitive investigation surely?

Guardian, Sun and Telegraph... Aka, papers that get major discounts for online stock use...

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BobD said:

You should remove your images first, wait 6 months for them to be taken down fully and then close your account. that way if any sell in the meantime you will still get what's due, otherwise any that sell Alamy will keep all the commission.

The risk then is any sales after 1st July will have the usage/indemnity issues under the new contract. To avoid that you need to close your account before 1st July.

I clicked the delete button on all my images (status said would be deleted in Nov), then I closed my account, and today my dashboard status is zero on sale, zero not on sale.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

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

 

Allan

 

I doubt  you could argue 'surely' in a court of law.

The new contract clause expressly says: "You will ensure that all Metadata including, without limitation, any and all other information pertaining to the Content: (i) is *and will remain* accurate and factually correct; ", which implies that you need to keep going back to places to make sure your metadata is up to date. And in fact 'all other information' - does that imply that you shouldn't have something which doesn't look like it is nowadays? Can we get over that by putting expressly in our caption that it's as it was on X date? (not expecting a definitive answer from anyone on the forum - that's another way for the lawyers to make money. Maybe they have a percentage deal with their lawyers?!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

24 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

So perhaps we should all contact some PA shareholders?

https://pamediagroup.com/about-us/

 

Some Alamy contributors might recognise a few customers! 

 

Must be grounds for an anti-competitive investigation surely?

 

That would be the entire British Media then. Let's not go totally Chicken Little here. Yes the sky is falling but it's been falling all along people. These are the people who control the lives of most denizens of this country - right wing, very right wing, liberal, left wing - all are represented. Have you seen the make up of the Board. What's new? Nuff said.

Edited by MDM
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Let's see: Alamy has turned against us. My rental agency has turned against me. The weather sucks. I've lost the pleasure of restaurant dinning. Maybe it's time to get into a fistfight with a stranger. I'm old and weak and slow but I'll show him. Or her.  🤨

Me: (frantically calculating the distance between here and Liverpool)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RyanU said:

Guardian, Sun and Telegraph... Aka, papers that get major discounts for online stock use...

 

Last year I discovered (Alamy shareholder) Reach plc. using my image on one of their regional news websites without a licence. The organisation which supplied them with that image claimed to have been granted permission by Alamy staff for additional publicity uses, but the written terms of the licence did not cover it and Alamy denied it. Unsurprisingly, given the conflict of interest as I now realise, Alamy were not especially pro-active in pursuing it! Alamy does not act in our best interests and cannot be trusted, as this latest episode further illustrates.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

If I stay put and accept these insulting contract changes, I will lose many of my chat pals here on the forum? That's not good. Like Allan, I went out for a walk, although I was not looking for a bus to solve things. It was pouring rain with a stiff wind. I was going to eat out for lunch, Indian maybe, but the blush is off the rose with that too.

 

Let's see: Alamy has turned against us. My rental agency has turned against me. The weather sucks. I've lost the pleasure of restaurant dinning. Maybe it's time to get into a fistfight with a stranger. I'm old and weak and slow but I'll show him. Or her.  🤨

 

Edo, I share your pain ... Well, some of it.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Maybe it's time to get into a fistfight with a stranger.

 

So pretty much like looking for a bus 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MDM said:

That would be the entire British Media then.

 

A media which relies heavily on a wide selection of cheaply sourced images for their continued survival. If images start disappearing however they might begin to re-evaluate Alamy's tactics. Withdraw the results of your photographic labour...



51187088723_aab0d275ba_o.jpg

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

All these unfamiliar names posting on the forum with many of them having up to 18 years supplying Alamy.

I'm certainly one of those :)

 

I'm going to wait to see how Alamy respond to the many points raised on this forum.

 

Mainly the rather worrying legal implications in the new contract especially for exclusive material which will almost certainly mean that those who choose to stay with Alamy will go totally non exclusive asap. There is no longer any royalty incentive to stay exclusive and with this cut to our earning potential there is every incentive to place our images with other agencies.

 

I'm sure many on here have either photographic insurance or business insurance, mine has a free legal advice line which in the blurb covers contracts. I'll wait to see if Alamy amend theirs and if/when they do I'll be seeking proper legal advice.

I think I know what the answer will be but always best to check. I'm sure my options will be to either pull eighteen years of images off Alamy for legal peace of mind or to go totally non exclusive and relegate Alamy for the occasional images that I don't place elsewhere rather than as my main outlet for stock.

 

I'm hoping that in the UK the likes of the AOP, NUJ, BPPA and the RPS will get their legal teams to look at the contract too and give their members advice.

 

I'm probably very naive in believing that Alamy felt a bit like family and looked after it's contributors, sadly I think those days may have just gone.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Has anyone commented on:

New Clause "4.1.11. the author of the Content has waived all moral rights in respect of the Content"

According to Wikipedia:

"Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions.

The moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation". Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play"

Again, that's Alamy putting clauses into the contract which contradict the laws of many countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

(I'm composing my email to Ms Shelley and looking over some more of the new clauses which may cause concern.)

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

 

Again, that's Alamy putting clauses into the contract which contradict the laws of many countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

(I'm composing my letter to Ms Shelley and looking over some more of the new clauses which may cause concern.)

 

 

That is all to common for the creative professions, I have seen it with publishers treying for rights grabs from both writeing and photogarphy, and giving little back in return.  It is up there with wanting stuff for free for 'exposure'.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Aside from the issues around Exclusivity which I get and can totally understand why people feel betrayed and let down and for which there is a simple solution ( make your images non-exclusive), I would love to see a simple list of the NEW or ALTERED sections of the new contract that were NOT IN PREVIOUS CONTRACTS that are causing people to panic and even delete their accounts so quickly without even waiting to see what Alamy has to say.

 

Again without doing a forensic analysis of the various contracts over the years, it seems to me that a lot of this liability and indemnity stuff has always been there and it is standard legal fare for stock. In other words, you are currently indemnifying Alamy if you are uploading images from places where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, for example. And there are numerous other areas where little or nothing has changed. Let's hear it for the real differences (ASIDE FROM EXCLUSIVITY) in a calm, simple and rational manner.

 

 

 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MDM said:

Aside from the issues around Exclusivity which I get and can totally understand why people feel betrayed and let down and for which there is a simple solution ( make your images non-exclusive), I would love to see a simple list of the NEW or ALTERED sections of the new contract that were NOT IN PREVIOUS CONTRACTS that are causing people to delete their accounts so quickly without even waiting to see what Alamy has to say.

 

Again without doing a forensic analysis of the various contracts over the years, it seems to me that a lot of this liability and indemnity stuff has always been there and it is standard legal fare for stock. In other words, you are currently indemnifying Alamy if you are uploading images from places where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, for example. And there are numerous other areas where little or nothing has changed. Let's hear it for the real differences (ASIDE FROM EXCLUSIVITY) in a calm, simple and rational manner.

It's easy enough to read here:

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

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

If I stay put and accept these insulting contract changes, I will lose many of my chat pals here on the forum? That's not good. Like Allan, I went out for a walk, although I was not looking for a bus to solve things. It was pouring rain with a stiff wind. I was going to eat out for lunch, Indian maybe, but the blush is off the rose with that too.

 

Let's see: Alamy has turned against us. My rental agency has turned against me. The weather sucks. I've lost the pleasure of restaurant dinning. Maybe it's time to get into a fistfight with a stranger. I'm old and weak and slow but I'll show him. Or her.  🤨

 

If I were closer I would offer myself to you Edo. At least we would be a bit more evenly matched.🙂

 

Allan

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

A media which relies heavily on a wide selection of cheaply sourced images for their continued survival. If images start disappearing however they might begin to re-evaluate Alamy's tactics. Withdraw the results of your photographic labour...



51187088723_aab0d275ba_o.jpg

 

That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Protest is only effective if it hurts financially. For every one of you there will be another ten ready to take your place. It's a market thing. I have  spent more than 40 years involved in photography and invested enormous amounts of time and energy perfecting my work but the fact is that is very easy (and cheap) to take a picture that is suitable for publication these days. You don't even need a computer and you don't need a degree in photography - a phone is enough for a lot of images that get published online now. It's sad for us but it is true. Fortunately it does not apply to all areas of photography including many areas of stock. But the market is totally saturated for most types of imagery.

Edited by MDM
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, MDM said:

That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Protest is only effective if it hurts financially.

 

Anything which hurts Alamy financially will also hurt us financially in the short term. That's how a strike works. Short term pain for long term gain. The purpose is to irritate buyers in order to exert additional pressure.

Edited by hotbrightsky
  • Like 1
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.