hotbrightsky Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 26 minutes ago, Alamy said: Our aim is to establish that these images really are exclusive So we're paying Alamy to establish that we're not lying to them? What a lovely gesture. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 30 minutes ago, Alamy said: We’re aware that some people are having a tough time at the moment, that’s true of our staff around the world too But you've given your own company a pay rise at our expense, so don't expect any sympathy! 2 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarloBo Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) 39 minutes ago, M.Chapman said: I'm not particularly interested in a separate "clarifications", I want to see the clauses amended so that confusion can't arise in the first place. The contract is key. Clarification of intent may not carry legal weight, it's the contract we sign up to. Mark I could not have expressed it in a better way, if they don't amend I'm out. It's already pathetic and laughable that they haven't answered any questions after 50 pages of comments. Edited: They did, but laughable anyhow. Edited May 21, 2021 by CarloBo edited after Alamy answer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 9 minutes ago, AndrewP said: I won't be investing in any new camera gear for a while but at least there'll be an improved website. Can you be sure. I mean that is what they say. They have said other things which were not true or changed soon after. Allan 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 8 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said: But that's not what the contract says. So this will be changed? 2.10. 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. They will ask the user not the contributor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 35 minutes ago, Alamy said: We’re aware that some people are having a tough time at the moment, that’s true of our staff around the world too. We are all having a tough time so why does that make PA/Alamy so special. Allan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) Only around two years ago the 'core' commission to me was 60%. Edited May 21, 2021 by geogphotos 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Allan Bell said: Can you be sure. I mean that is what they say. If Alamy had any genuine plans for website improvements I would expect them to have listed one or two. Nothing. 🤔 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) 43 minutes ago, M.Chapman said: Indeed. I'm not particularly interested in a separate "clarifications", I want to see the clauses amended so that confusion can't arise in the first place. In a previous employment our employer gave us a nice friendly booklet "clarifying" in plain English the terms and conditions of the company pension scheme. At the back, in small print" was a statement that said if there's any discrepancy between this booklet and the "Pension Trust Deed Legal Document", the Trust Deed takes priority. The Trust deed was a huge legal document full of legalise, so employees never read or understood it , and relied on the booklet. Then, when the pensions crisis struck, the Company did indeed exploit their legal "wiggle room" and overrode some of what was stated in the booklet. The contract is key. Clarification of intent may not carry legal weight, it's the contract we sign up to. Mark ER! PA/Alamy! Did you read this post??? HUH! No! we don't want a booklet like you have given us above. Allan Edited May 21, 2021 by Allan Bell 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaKevin Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 37 minutes ago, Alamy said: ... when identifying a potential infringement, we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue. This is an absolutely terrible experience for my customers. Someone who has properly licensed an image from me should not be harassed by someone they have never heard of asking if they have a license. You require me to ask you before chasing infringements. 1 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, geogphotos said: They will ask the user not the contributor. You are right Ian, I did misread, but in the email they sent, they specifically asked if you were to be contacted before they pursued infringement. And does that leave us open to them charging us costs? I think when the mistrust raises its' ugly head, every statement becomes suspect. And as SeaKevin says, who wants their clients bothered by Alamy? Jill Edited May 21, 2021 by Jill Morgan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 12 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said: Does Alamy know the meaning of the word "exponential" or is this rhetorical? Anyone got a graph? A very high prestige photographer's coop agency went from one probationer a year to six in one recent year, which I suspect came after another higher end agency started playing games with its contributors, too. I wouldn't be surprised if SA/Alamy didn't get a range of people from other agencies that re-arranged their terms in favor of the house. Exponential growth of contributors would show up in a near exponential growth of photographs, though, if these were stock photographers coming from other houses. I suspect this is rhetorical. Improving the sales site and all is good, but someone's idea of a good thing was extracting single tags from tag phrases, which gave me a lot of false positives. Focusing on distributors and agencies -- I was pretty sure that was the game all along and that SA/Alamy was pretty sure we Silver people wouldn't leave because it is all about egoboo (SF fan term). Glad I resigned. June 30, this won't be my concern any long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 10 minutes ago, geogphotos said: Only around two years ago the 'core' commission to me was 60%. Shocking! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewP Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 The word Infringement appears eleven times in the response - that seems a bit like a retail shop wanting a business model that makes more money out of shoplifters than genuine customers. 1 9 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Joiner Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 4 minutes ago, SeaKevin said: This is an absolutely terrible experience for my customers. Someone who has properly licensed an image from me should not be harassed by someone they have never heard of asking if they have a license. You require me to ask you before chasing infringements. Indeed. That's a guaranteed way to lose our long-term clients. Nice one Alamy. Alamy don't want us contacting their clients direct, but its ok for them to annoy ours. @Alamy you need to re-think this madness. Contributors should be the first contact for these infringements if we have told you we license direct. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 Still very unhappy about the commission cut. However, it's just as well that I will never get to Platinum level since there is no way I'd want Alamy Infringements team to bother people to whom I have sold a direct license with the question "Do you have a license for this use?" as there is no way to opt out of Alamy's policy to make contact without asking the contributor first. I think that will be a deal breaker for some. I'll be culling my portfolio - it needs it anyway - removing exclusivity from all my images even though 99% of them are since exclusivity has no benefit to me, and have already started the process of establishing other revenue sources. As for Live News - I may use another agency more than I do at the moment where I get way more than 50% and paid much more quickly, especially for events where I am the only photographer. Alamy's reach may be greater for news uses but it may be worth changing strategy to see what happens. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Noir Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, Craig Joiner said: Indeed. That's a guaranteed way to lose our long-term clients. Nice one Alamy. Alamy don't want us contacting their clients direct, but its ok for them to annoy ours. @Alamy you need to re-think this madness. Contributors should be the first contact for these infringements if we have told you we license direct. Agree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 49 minutes ago, Alamy said: 4.1.6 – By submitting content to Alamy you agree that you will not use the system to upload content that could be considered as threatening, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar and/or indecent. Clause 4.1.6 details that, as a result of the submission of the content, any use of the content by Alamy, its customers or distributors will therefore not be considered threatening, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar and/or indecent. In simple terms, you have to decide that it isn’t offensive, but also a wider audience, including Alamy and its customers and distributors, will also need to consider that it isn’t offensive. Vulgar's first meaning in several dictionaries is along the lines of "lacking sophistication or good taste." Who is going to be the arbiter? You need to amend this clause, and indeed the whole contract, to make your intentions crystal clear, so that you don't have to say 'this is what that clause means' or 'this is intended ...'. We're not mind readers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Photo Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 Every year, employees get pay rises. Every year, contributors get pay cuts. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, AndrewP said: The word Infringement appears eleven times in the response - that seems a bit like a retail shop wanting a business model that makes more money out of shoplifters than genuine customers. Yes, I've been thinking that all along. A big agency seemed to have that as a strategy for a while, but it backfired on them to such an extent that they've scaled it down a lot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewP Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, Sally said: there is no way I'd want Alamy Infringements team to bother people to whom I have sold a direct license I make a few direct sales to design agencies who are working for their clients so I'll need to mark any images I've licensed to them as non exclusive. I can't have a design agency getting contacted by their client and risking my relationship with them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sally Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, AndrewP said: I make a few direct sales to design agencies who are working for their clients so I'll need to mark any images I've licensed to them as non exclusive. I can't have a design agency getting contacted by their client and risking my relationship with them. Well, unless you are earning over $25,000 gross pa with Alamy, there is no point in having any images exclusive as you wont get any more commission for them. Edited May 21, 2021 by Sally 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Photo Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) The 20% pay cut aside, (Like others, I remember a time I was getting 60% commission rate). A couple of things still bother me. 1. I DO NOT want Alamy contacting my direct customers. Ask me instead! Alamy will damage my relationships with my customers if they do this. (Surely Alamy would get a far quicker response from us than they would from end users?) 2. I am still unclear where I stand legally should my images be used in a way I said they cannot. Is Alamy still going to hold that I am legally liable? Somehow I can't see a judge viewing it Alamy's way, but I'd rather not go there. Edited May 21, 2021 by Michael Photo 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Sally said: Well, unless you are earning over $25,00 gross with Alamy, there is no point in having any images exclusive as you wont get any more commission for them. In theory, the infringement team will be chasing down infringments, but you guys who are remaining still don't know how that money will be distributed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) So as predicted by some, they did wait until the end of the day, GMT that is, bar a few minutes, but are saying basically, it's tough, we've had a bad time, so are you, but we can take more money off you, so we will take more money off you. ".....They simplify the rate structure and support fair growth of the contributor base, which has been exponential over the last 12 months." No it was simple before when it was 50/50 for all images Edited May 21, 2021 by ChrisC 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts