Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, bokane said:

and just remember that a  cut on commission of 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction (not a 10% one!) in the amount paid to contributors.

 

 

Actually it's a 20% increase on Alamy's commission, which results in a 20% drop in our revenue. 

[AndrewP]

12 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

Not at 20% they won't they will be chasing their tails for a long time if they will ever achieve $250 sales per

Martin, the first 12 months is at Gold/40% so there would be a chance!

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

This is probably a query built on misunderstanding, but there is a difference between 'sales' and 'earnings' (refer to the dashboard). My query is: does the tier cut off refer to 'sales' (ie total amount which includes Alamy commission ) or 'earnings' of the contributor..

 

 

as per contract:

 

 

Based on total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BidC]

19 minutes ago, bokane said:

(My image manager page says I have 27,607 images - but the side panel here says 23,990 - why the difference?)

 

Have you deleted many images ? Or perhaps had some not pass QC (apologies, its just a question - no inference, as I'm sure you haven't). My total is 1500, but actual around 1100. However I have deleted quite a few and at times had images that were of incorrect size (for example) and a small number at the outset (in 2016) that didn't pass QC.

[Joseph Clemson]

The change to 40% instead of 50% for exclusive images for the vast majority of contributors is unreasonable. The uncertainty about whether images are truly exclusive or not is a failure of company management as well as a failure of contributor honesty in a minority of cases. The company should carry the cost of correcting the issue, not punishing the contributors for the company failure. Pond5 manage to operate an exclusive scheme alongside non-exclusive content for contributors. Why not Alamy?  

 

It is particularly galling for me, having assiduoulsy kept my Alamy portfolio 100% exclusive from the beginning and having long urged new contributors to do the same. Having held of Alamy as a shining beacon in this industry, it really hurts to get my fingers burnt. 

 

Reconsider, please.

 

[BidC]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

as per contract:

 

 

Based on total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

which means ... ? Does not the 'total licence fee' refer to the total sale figure

[Colblimp]

Yet another example of desperate money grabbing from Alamy.  All that rubbish about how important contribs are to your business, encouraging us to stay exclusive.  For what?  So we can be treated like dog cr*p later on?  This will backfire on Alamy spectacularly as everyone will now go non-exclusive.  What a scandalous turn of events this is.

[AndrewP]

This is all a continuation of a long term trend. Alamy Live News became application only to filter out most of us from submitting anything. The $250 limit will filter out a lot of contributors who only make occasional sales and don't forget that the company that rhymes with Petty went all RF so they only had to pay out 20% royalties across the board.

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, AndrewP said:

Martin, the first 12 months is at Gold/40% so there would be a chance!

Not really, it's within the First Revenue Year, which is always based on July 1 to June 30th.

 

"

1. If you register for an Account after the 1 July in any one Revenue Year: (i) you will automatically be subject to Alamy Gold; and (ii) Alamy will not monitor your License Fees and clause 12.12 will not apply until the following Revenue Year."

 

I think this means you only have until the following July first to reach it.  So if contract was in place today, someone joining now, would drop to 80% commission in 45 days.  Maybe Alamy can validate this. 

[Martin P Wilson]

All the best everyone.

[Pearl]

I am extremely disappointed with Alamy but not surprised.  When I first joined they were a photographer friendly and fair agency so became my main port of call for selling.  However they have gradually changed and with the recent takeover have gone downhill even more.  This latest insult to loyal contributors says it all.

 

In all the years of selling here I have only once made more than $25,000 gross and that was only because I had two four figure sales, the likes of which I have not seen since and the way prices are now I don't expect to see them again.  Although I feel I sell consistently well here I am a long way short of $25,000 gross each year.

 

I am now concentrating my efforts elsewhere.

 

Pearl

[Foreign Export]

Have Alamy explained the why?

[Foreign Export]

Just received an email advising of a sale on Redbubble - 70% commission- in my favour

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

The change to 40% instead of 50% for exclusive images for the vast majority of contributors is unreasonable. The uncertainty about whether images are truly exclusive or not is a failure of company management as well as a failure of contributor honesty in a minority of cases. The company should carry the cost of correcting the issue, not punishing the contributors for the company failure. Pond5 manage to operate an exclusive scheme alongside non-exclusive content for contributors. Why not Alamy?  

 

It is particularly galling for me, having assiduoulsy kept my Alamy portfolio 100% exclusive from the beginning and having long urged new contributors to do the same. Having held of Alamy as a shining beacon in this industry, it really hurts to get my fingers burnt. 

 

Reconsider, please.

 

 

 

it's because they are using that as the excuse for the change, as stated blaming us.  The change would happen regardless of this.  They do not value exclusive content.   

[Joseph Clemson]

1 minute ago, Foreign Export said:

Have Alamy explained the why?

 

The Why? is explained away (briefly) in the blog page

[meanderingemu]

7 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

which means ... ? Does not the 'total licence fee' refer to the total sale figure

 

it means the total licensing fee- how much image is licensed  for.  Regardless how my the distributor get, or Alamy takes.  

 

Not sure where there could be any confusion. 

[Joseph Clemson]

While the changes to commission are, not surprisingly, attracting lots of comment, it's worth noting that there are a considerable number of other changes too, detailed in the change of contract summary.

 

I haven't gone through this in details, but I do notice that they seem to be strengthening or making more explicit the requirement for a contributors to have copyright or the legal right to licence any content they submit. There seems to be more than just money to consider in whether to accept this new contract or say bye-bye to Alamy.

[Bill Allsopp]

13 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

 This will backfire on Alamy spectacularly....

If only.

[BarryD]

5 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

it means the total licensing fee- how much image is licensed  for.  Regardless how my the distributor get, or Alamy takes.  

 

Not sure where there could be any confusion. 

So if you are on Silver and make enough sales to actually get paid in the year you'll move to Gold

[Nathaniel Noir]

1 hour ago, German said:

 

Basically everyone's earnings are going down to <40% per image (this dramatic pay cut has been euphemistically named "Gold" as if it was a good thing, or maybe it is gold from Alamy's perspective) unless you are selling 25K worth of photos per year (a tiny minority I imagine?) who would go to the Platinum segment.

Exactly my first thought, as if Gold was the most desirable one....

[Colblimp]

14 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

Have Alamy explained the why?

Greed - no more, no less.

[geogphotos]

15 minutes ago, AndrewP said:

This is all a continuation of a long term trend. Alamy Live News became application only to filter out most of us from submitting anything. The $250 limit will filter out a lot of contributors who only make occasional sales and don't forget that the company that rhymes with Petty went all RF so they only had to pay out 20% royalties across the board.

 

 

The RF rule only applies to Getty Creative. All mine in Editorial ( via UIG) are non- exclusive and RM. 

[Sultanpepa]

At the time of the PA takeover contributors said that it would hasten an increase in commission. Alamy said no. Alamy would remain as it was. This is just sheer greed on Alamy/PA's part that they do this now. Those contributors were right. Alamy/PA don't even offer crumbs of comfort like 'increased sales'. This is a straight forward money grab. Photographers are being squeezed out of the stock industry. Equipment purchases can't be justified. Alamy and PA are about to put another nail in their own coffin. I predict they'll drop the $25k platinum threshold after much anger from contributors to around $15k then a majority will be happy again and Alamy will have their change. I can't see the point in working for less than an equal share so on principal alone I shan't be uploading more stock. 

[Colin Woods]

1 hour ago, kay said:

reduce commission as often as they want . . .

and they will.

[steve18]

This will continue on the downward spiral until contributors react in large enough numbers to stop it, which will never happen. Stopped uploading to all sites except 2 which have not reduced their %. I'm sure some people would still upload to 'agencies' if their cut was 0% which isn't far off!