Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

So surely it makes absolutely no sense to reduce the main incentive (retaining 50% commission) for those contributors who have exclusive images to keep them exclusive. Not doubt you're already seeing the status of images being changed from exclusive to non-exclusive. A good track record on infringement chasing (the other incentive) is yet to be proven.

 

Mark

 

I think we have to remember that Alamy did the whole "exclusivity" thing to appease us. If they had really wanted it, they would have offered a real exclusive contract (as some other agencies do) option in addition to the existing non-exclusive contract. At least that's the way I've always seen it, so I'm not really surprised by the lack of incentive being given in the new contract. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Alamy said:

growth of the contributor base, which has been exponential over the last 12 months

 

Does Alamy know the meaning of the word "exponential" or is this rhetorical? Anyone got a graph?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alamy said:

we incur significant and rising costs bringing images to market

 

How? Why? Does Alamy not think photographers face similar or greater costs?

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Our infringements chasing will not affect that and when identifying a potential infringement, we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue.

 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

interesting interpretation, i actually assumed it as Alamy trying to steer Silver category away and leaving the agency.  We know they would be highest net revenue per licenced image, but are we sure they are higher profit makers?  I assume Alamy has more data of overhead, and per contributor costs.  speaking as a former pricing person, it would be an interesting pricing exercise, you sometimes get interesting results what ends up being more profitable. 

 

Alamy has a development and operations center in India.   Probably that where the photos are stored, so that's going to be relatively cheap compared to running it in the UK.   How much does it cost to keep individual photos on the servers given that's a business expense that can be written off?

 

Not all Silver category is the same.  Some of us have tried to fill holes in what Alamy offers even though we don't have large portfolios.  Others are people who figure they'd give it a try with vacation photos or various things around them, and that was that.  They do have nice cameras.

 

Cleaning up the database would cost active time beyond maintenance time.   Don't know what they're paying computer admins in Kerala, but suspect SA/Alamy got a tax break for setting up there.

 

One problem is that PA is a newspaper owners' organization and what they would be familiar with would be short form journalism including television and web sites, and advertising, and not the wild wide range beyond that (museum exhibits, books, informative web sites, long form journalism).

 

I think about setting up something that would let me do a long form photo essay about my part of Nicaragua, without having to sell it as a tourist destination or a political tragedy.   Dunno how to monetize that.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by CarloBo
edited after Alamy answer
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

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

Only around two years ago the 'core' commission to me was 60%.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  🤔

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by Allan Bell
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by Jill Morgan
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Only around two years ago the 'core' commission to me was 60%.

Shocking!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 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.