Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by Sally
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by Michael Photo
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (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 by ChrisC
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alamy said:

Can you explain the changes to 4.1.5 and 4.1.6. Isn’t the contract now very one-sided?

 

 

4.1.5 –  This clause is intended to ensure that any prior restrictions and limitations that you place on the content are correctly disclosed and to ensure that these are accurate. It works in conjunction with the restrictions that you must supply under  4.1.10, which are automatically applied when Alamy licences Content through our website. When selling images Alamy will always respect any restrictions you place on your images and our customers are made aware of these restrictions and agree to abide by them in their terms of use. It is not in any way intended to grant Alamy the right to license content outside of those restrictions.

 

Wow, 'always' is a very long time.

So I can rest safe in the knowledge that you will always respect that I have restricted my images to RM?

 

(Does an anonymous post in a forum mean anything in Law [meaning a Court of Law, not the village I grew up in, for clarity]?)

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

"Every business makes decisions that balance the needs of its suppliers, customers, staff, community, and shareholders – in the context of the global market. In Alamy’s case, decisions are taken with the goal of long-term growth and sustainability. Profits are reinvested into the business to support this, and we believe our rates to be fair and sustainable."

 

 

 

So in a nutshell, you'll kick the contributors in the teeth for Alamy to make more profit for yourselves and your shareholders!  and your long term goal? .... no doubt to do the same thing over coming years driving commission down, because if other agencies have done it and getting away with it, why shouldn't we! 

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 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

 

It's true in my experience. I've made more money chasing infringements than I have from stock licences. I don't want Alamy hijacking my business model now though! 😄

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

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. 

 

Exactly, note the overall vagueness of the response "allow us to deal with some operational challenges", "we incur significant and rising costs", what operational changes, which significant costs?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alamy said:

Can you explain the changes to 4.1.5 and 4.1.6. Isn’t the contract now very one-sided?

 

 

4.1.5 –  This clause is intended to ensure that any prior restrictions and limitations that you place on the content are correctly disclosed and to ensure that these are accurate. It works in conjunction with the restrictions that you must supply under  4.1.10, which are automatically applied when Alamy licences Content through our website. When selling images Alamy will always respect any restrictions you place on your images and our customers are made aware of these restrictions and agree to abide by them in their terms of use. It is not in any way intended to grant Alamy the right to license content outside of those restrictions.

 

  1. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;

What this means, then, is that Alamy can license however they like "except for the rights granted" by the contributor (eg can only be editorial). I think that's OK, though I know a number of people were worried about the interpretation.

 

However, if for some reason Alamy does go beyond the rights granted, Clause 7.1 absolves them from any responsibility for selling a license outwith the restrictions imposed by the Contributor, but this isn't new. None of us have probably gone over the contract with a fine tooth comb until now. Another reason why folk may wish to opt out of Distribution.

 

"Alamy's obligations

  1. Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you."
Edited by Sally
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I probably won't be adding to this thread anymore. With no changes to the new contract, I will be leaving as of June 30.

 

edit: After this question--I've downloaded all my sales data and my image data. Is there anything else to download?

Edited by Bill Kuta
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

I'm not prepared to have have someone at Alamy contact direct clients of mine. My exclusive images with Alamy are not with other stock outlets but as agreed may have been sold or even given to my own clients directly. I will be taking legal advice over this move by Alamy to pursue possible infringements without contacting me first.

 

Emily has gone back on her word about not having any intention of lowering the royalty rates. The new contract appears to leave contributors in a rather vunerable place.

 

The rate cut is the last straw for me. My new material will now be going exclusively to other more lucrative outlets first. My once exclusive material with Alamy will now be marked as non exclusive and uploaded to several agencies ... I'm in business after all and I now have to find a way to generate the 20% shortfall.

 

Very sad day for loyal Alamy contributors.

 

 

 

Again, unless you are a Platinum contributor, just mark all of your images non-exclusive and Alamy wont chase any possible infringements.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I may stay under the new terms, provided my reportage uploads are non-exclusive only... However, I'd like to see Alamy chasing papers who are PA's shareholders for "possible copyright infringement" and asking if they have a license for my direct news pics...

Edited by RyanU
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

A good track record on infringement chasing (the other incentive) is yet to be proven.

 

Have PA/Alamy ever said what percentage of the infringement recovery would go to the photographer?   In all this, I don't remember that it has. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MizBrown said:

Have PA/Alamy ever said what percentage of the infringement recovery would go to the photographer?   In all this, I don't remember that it has. 

No, and not to do so, is in my view poor practice. Any other infringement service eg Copytrack does so.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MizBrown said:

Have PA/Alamy ever said what percentage of the infringement recovery would go to the photographer?   In all this, I don't remember that it has. 

 

 

in new contract:

 

  1. A percentage, equal to the applicable commission rate for that Content, of all amounts recovered by Alamy in connection with any claims or actions pursuant to clause 16.5 (after first deducting collection fees and reasonable legal expenses incurred by Alamy) will be paid to you.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

in new contract:

 

  1. A percentage, equal to the applicable commission rate for that Content, of all amounts recovered by Alamy in connection with any claims or actions pursuant to clause 16.5 (after first deducting collection fees and reasonable legal expenses incurred by Alamy) will be paid to you.

 

Lovely, 20% minus unspecified collection fees and what the lawyers got.  What are the collection fees and will SA/Alamy go after any of the papers owned by SA shareholders?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. One of the reasons I refuse have anything to do with Getty is because of the way they treat even the slightest possibility of infringement and how they hound and threaten potential thieves. It looks like Alamy may be going down the same path. I rather like that they are going to look for infringements, but they need to communicate with the photographers before chasing down a potential client. 

 

2. If I were just starting out in stock I would not upload to Alamy at 20% - although from Alamy's point of view that percentage is still a higher payout than microstock and they might still attract non-professionals or beginners who do things "for exposure". 

 

3. 45-years ago I went to art school and majored in photography. I'm not a recent  "pick up a camera and declare myself a photographer" type. I am not full time professional, but I am at the very least semi-professional, and I expect to be treated as such. For the agency to make more on my work than I do is a bit criminal.  

 

4. I recently took out a PPP Loan to replace stolen cameras and gear. Stock is the one thing that brings in pocket money for me and I will continue, at least for the next year, to upload and work exclusively with Alamy (as well as sell from my own web site). After a year I we re-evaluate the relationship - as I do every year. 

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Lovely, 20% minus unspecified collection fees and what the lawyers got.  What are the collection fees and will SA/Alamy go after any of the papers owned by SA shareholders?

 

 

 

also no clarity if these amounts are included in the Licence Fees used in determining said Level thereon 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

in new contract:

 

  1. A percentage, equal to the applicable commission rate for that Content, of all amounts recovered by Alamy in connection with any claims or actions pursuant to clause 16.5 (after first deducting collection fees and reasonable legal expenses incurred by Alamy) will be paid to you.

It's that bit that doesn't allow anyone to know what percentage they are actually getting. AFAIK other infringement services will pay you a smaller percentage if they have to take legal action, but at least you know what the actual amounts are. Otherwise, it is a straightforward split.

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.