Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I’m not real sure that will save your clients from being bothered. “The Statement” said they would concentrate the most on exclusive, but nowhere did I see them state they wouldn’t chase non-exclusive.

but the contract only allows them to go direct on exclusive, so if they did it on "non exclusive" they are in breach and then we have options. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of flagrant misuse of exclusivity as an argument for Alamy to change commission rates seems to be a complete red herring. They say that there are 17 million images marked as exclusive out of a total of 255 million. That is approximately 6%. Those that are incorrectly marked as exclusive must be a much much smaller proportion.

 

I hope that all contributors here recognise the implications of marking images as exclusive. No benefit in terms of commission (unless you are a Platinum contributor) and giving Alamy the right to chase your clients to whom you have licensed directly without asking you first.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

but the contract only allows them to go direct on exclusive, so if they did it on "non exclusive" they are in breach and then we have options. 

 

thats correct,  the contract is clear - they will only pursue infringements on images marked as exclusive to Alamy

 

 

 

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

 

I've just had an email from James Allsworth asking me to clarify that Alamy are not giving people red arrows here. I have met James on a few occasions and it was a friendly email. James has offered to answer any questions I might have in relation to the new contract as well which is much appreciated. So apologies to James and Alamy for getting things wrong. It was only meant as a joke anyway.

 i would like to clarify that my laughing reaction is not about Alamy asking to clarify that they are not giving people red arrows here but about the original post. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

thats correct,  the contract is clear - they will only pursue infringements on images marked as exclusive to Alamy

 

 

 

but their comment implied otherwise,  so there is reasons for concerns. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sally said:

The issue of flagrant misuse of exclusivity as an argument for Alamy to change commission rates seems to be a complete red herring. They say that there are 17 million images marked as exclusive out of a total of 255 million. That is approximately 6%. Those that are incorrectly marked as exclusive must be a much much smaller proportion.

 

I hope that all contributors here recognise the implications of marking images as exclusive. No benefit in terms of commission (unless you are a Platinum contributor) and giving Alamy the right to chase your clients to whom you have licensed directly without asking you first.

 

So it's about something else?

That would be quality then. It tells us that the quality of the images that are exclusive is just not as high as the quality of all the non-exclusives: the agencies; the micro-stockers.

 

wim
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

but their comment implied otherwise,  so there is reasons for concerns. 

Yes, that’s what I was getting at. What was said in their comments seems to leave the door open. But that means nothing if the contract says differently, one would hope. But hopes are 10 for a penny here.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for nothing, Alamy. It's a greedy corporate cash grab, nothing more

I'll be opting out from distribution of my images and I urge everyone to do the same.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I've just had an email from James Allsworth asking me to clarify that Alamy are not giving people red arrows here. I have met James on a few occasions and it was a friendly email. James has offered to answer any questions I might have in relation to the new contract as well which is much appreciated. So apologies to James and Alamy for getting things wrong. It was only meant as a joke anyway.

 

Yes, James is delightful and is from what I have come to think of as the "real" Alamy. If he clarifies this liability confusion I hope you will feel comfortable sharing that with us. My wildlife is not going to sue me but I'm uncomfortable about the unreleased people and property. I plan to stay. Perhaps it will not continue but, so far, I am making more sales with the new company. A few alarmingly low prices but also some $$$. I do miss the old "family" feeling with the awkward videos by James West. They made me smile.

 

Paulette

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I've just had an email from James Allsworth asking me to clarify that Alamy are not giving people red arrows here. I have met James on a few occasions and it was a friendly email. James has offered to answer any questions I might have in relation to the new contract as well which is much appreciated. So apologies to James and Alamy for getting things wrong. It was only meant as a joke anyway.

If this is right it would be nice if he had the balls to do so in person rather than via a third party 🤔

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bionic said:

If this is right it would be nice if he had the balls to do so in person rather than via a third party 🤔

probably a little harsh 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

So it's about something else?

That would be quality then. It tells us that the quality of the images that are exclusive is just not as high as the quality of all the non-exclusives: the agencies; the micro-stockers.

 

wim
 

 

or that no one ever found a way to use it for commercial purpose.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

or that no one ever found a way to use it for commercial purpose.   

 

Nah that can't be it, we just haven't found the exclusive button yet.

 

Besides I think I was right, but because I have not found that button yet I cannot prove it.

 

wim

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bionic said:

If this is right it would be nice if he had the balls to do so in person rather than via a third party 🤔

And better still if he could persuade 'them' to rewrite the contract clearly, from scratch if necessary.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NYCat said:

 

Yes, James is delightful and is from what I have come to think of as the "real" Alamy. If he clarifies this liability confusion I hope you will feel comfortable sharing that with us. My wildlife is not going to sue me but I'm uncomfortable about the unreleased people and property. I plan to stay. Perhaps it will not continue but, so far, I am making more sales with the new company. A few alarmingly low prices but also some $$$. I do miss the old "family" feeling with the awkward videos by James West. They made me smile.

 

Paulette

 

I think if you have detailed questions it would best to email Alamy as I am totally exhausted from this and not really intending to act as a voice for contributors. Secondhand stuff coming from me is not likely to have any impact anyway given the reaction to the Alamy post earlier in regard to its legal status.

 

If you read back through this thread, I have been posting lot and trying to point out and even reassure (with gut feeling) that a lot of the stuff that appears new has been around for a long time and is not really about Alamy trying to make sneaky modifications to the contract. Most of the liability stuff has been around for years in one form or another. I don't think that the  changes to section 4 are intended to screw contributors. Clause 4.1.6 is the odd one but I don't see it as a reason not to stick around for me at least, as my images are most unlikely to fall foul there. However, I think it is a good time to take stock and do some spring cleaning of my port. I have made all my images editorial only for now and I am going to work back through them and see what I want to delete and what I want to derestrict.

 

I do believe the main issue here is exclusivity as well as the new pay structure. However, as I have no exclusive images, so I am not even going to think about that any further. I do totally understand why people are very upset and angry about these changes. As has been said several times already, a lot of the problems are around trust. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

47 minutes ago, Bionic said:

If this is right it would be nice if he had the balls to do so in person rather than via a third party 🤔

 

I have no personal knowledge of James's reproductive organs but he emailed me because it was my post that he was questioning and he wanted me to correct it so third party is not really accurate. Having met James a couple of times at our meet-ups in Cambridge and Ely, he comes across as a very genuine guy and not someone who would have difficulty posting a correction here. In fact I appreciated the email rather than being publicly admonished which he could have easily done. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I think if you have detailed questions it would best to email Alamy as I am totally exhausted from this and not really intending to act as a voice for contributors. Secondhand stuff coming from me is not likely to have any impact anyway given the reaction to the Alamy post earlier in regard to its legal status.

 

If you read back through this thread, I have been posting lot and trying to point out and even reassure (with gut feeling) that a lot of the stuff that appears new has been around for a long time and is not really about Alamy trying to make sneaky modifications to the contract. Most of the liability stuff has been around for years in one form or another. I don't think that the  changes to section 4 are intended to screw contributors. Clause 4.1.6 is the odd one but I don't see it as a reason not to stick around for me at least, as my images are most unlikely to fall foul there. However, I think it is a good time to take stock and do some spring cleaning of my port. I have made all my images editorial only for now and I am going to work back through them and see what I want to delete and what I want to derestrict.

 

I do believe the main issue here is exclusivity as well as the new pay structure. However, as I have no exclusive images, so I am not even going to think about that any further. I do totally understand why people are very upset and angry about these changes. As has been said several times already, a lot of the problems are around trust. 

 

I understand. Thank you for your contributions.

 

Paulette

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

   😩  =  Weary face 

Edited by MDM
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After the last messing with the contract and rates I removed all my "best" images. Now Alamy want to cut more to provide me with infringement services that I don't want.

 

And even though they are going ahead with infringement services they have still told us nothing about how it works, how much infringement fees will be, whats their cut of the infringement (it should be zero if the are funding it through the commission reduction). 

Sales have dropped off a cliff for me this year, I am very de-incentivised to continue all this right now. It's getting to the point where the outputs are not enough for the inputs. As a hobby photographer I have to ask myself is this enjoyable anymore?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I think if you have detailed questions it would best to email Alamy as I am totally exhausted from this and not really intending to act as a voice for contributors. Secondhand stuff coming from me is not likely to have any impact anyway given the reaction to the Alamy post earlier in regard to its legal status.

 

If you read back through this thread, I have been posting lot and trying to point out and even reassure (with gut feeling) that a lot of the stuff that appears new has been around for a long time and is not really about Alamy trying to make sneaky modifications to the contract. Most of the liability stuff has been around for years in one form or another. I don't think that the  changes to section 4 are intended to screw contributors. Clause 4.1.6 is the odd one but I don't see it as a reason not to stick around for me at least, as my images are most unlikely to fall foul there. However, I think it is a good time to take stock and do some spring cleaning of my port. I have made all my images editorial only for now and I am going to work back through them and see what I want to delete and what I want to derestrict.

 

I do believe the main issue here is exclusivity as well as the new pay structure. However, as I have no exclusive images, so I am not even going to think about that any further. I do totally understand why people are very upset and angry about these changes. As has been said several times already, a lot of the problems are around trust. 

 

 

i want to say i totally recognise and appreciate all the efforts you have put into this.   I do agree with you that i don't think the current management is there to use the clauses as they are written, my concerns are and still will remains then why write them as such.  The issue that exist is once something has been put in, it will be easy for someone else coming in to not have any qualms in using it as written- i have been part of too many management changes.   

 

 

 

I too have made all image with potential content issue "editorial only", will likely remove the exclusivity label July 1 on 90%- they can pursue infringement on some highly technical content that i took specifically for Alamy.

 

 

again, I highly respect your input throughout this week. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

i want to say i totally recognise and appreciate all the efforts you have put into this.   I do agree with you that i don't think the current management is there to use the clauses as they are written, my concerns are and still will remains then why write them as such.  The issue that exist is once something has been put in, it will be easy for someone else coming in to not have any qualms in using it as written- i have been part of too many management changes.   

 

 

 

I too have made all image with potential content issue "editorial only", will likely remove the exclusivity label July 1 on 90%- they can pursue infringement on some highly technical content that i took specifically for Alamy.

 

 

again, I highly respect your input throughout this week. 

 

Merci beaucoup mon ami. 😀

 

 

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

 

I understand. Thank you for your contributions.

 

Paulette

 

And thanks for the thanks to you Paulette. 

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

 

I think if you have detailed questions it would best to email Alamy as I am totally exhausted from this and not really intending to act as a voice for contributors. Secondhand stuff coming from me is not likely to have any impact anyway given the reaction to the Alamy post earlier in regard to its legal status.

 

If you read back through this thread, I have been posting lot and trying to point out and even reassure (with gut feeling) that a lot of the stuff that appears new has been around for a long time and is not really about Alamy trying to make sneaky modifications to the contract. Most of the liability stuff has been around for years in one form or another. I don't think that the  changes to section 4 are intended to screw contributors. Clause 4.1.6 is the odd one but I don't see it as a reason not to stick around for me at least, as my images are most unlikely to fall foul there. However, I think it is a good time to take stock and do some spring cleaning of my port. I have made all my images editorial only for now and I am going to work back through them and see what I want to delete and what I want to derestrict.

 

I do believe the main issue here is exclusivity as well as the new pay structure. However, as I have no exclusive images, so I am not even going to think about that any further. I do totally understand why people are very upset and angry about these changes. As has been said several times already, a lot of the problems are around trust. 

 

I understand why you're suggesting that we wait and calm down.  For many people that's not a bad thing to do. 

 

We have some control over our earnings, but not complete control.   There's a triangle -- quality, rarity, demand.  I can have control over quality and some control over rarity, but not demand.  Very rare things may be licensed very rarely.  Almost no major cityscape or tourist attraction on land is going to be unique to Alamy given that most of the world does tend to be saturated by tourist photographers, local pros, and staff photographer for Reuters.   A photographer can take a better photograph of these, but even then, sometimes, good enough is good enough for less money.   Every cathedral in Nicaragua was been photographed from the outside, including the one in Jinotega. 

Looks to me that Alamy wants to outsource the stock photography to various agencies and collections and outsource sales staffing to various distributors, which makes some sense in terms of national connections.   Understand why they're doing it. 

 

But they're not making those changes for my benefit, not that they should, but my staying would just be frustrating to me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Through Twitter Alamy actively encourage amateur photographers to join and upload their photographs so to my mind they should accept that not all of them will understand the complex issues of stock sales. Many new contributors struggle with even the basics let alone confusing contract clauses. Anything Alamy can do to simplify and protect their contributors legal rights should be part of their business model but it seems that there is no duty of care for contributors. Alamy seem more interested in protecting buyers and the company than they do for the very people who supply their product. Confusing contracts with too many grey areas are also as likely to put off potential new contributors as the extortionate commission rates. There seems to be no justifiable reason for the increased commission demand other than to satisfy shareholders in the company. Some contributors have already posted their intent to leave whilst some have indicated they will remain. For those that will remain I wonder how long before they're faced with another percentage increase and then another and another. For people like myself (retired) maybe it's time to get out and find a cheaper hobby or at least one that I won't lose my home over. I have a month to decide.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm of the opinion that the controversial (read potentially damaging) clauses that Alamy have chosen to insert/amend cannot legally be retrospectively applied. I believe both parties are bound by the TC's applicable at the time of supplying our images. If this is so, we need only to consider future submissions (if any) that may fall foul of legal eagles.

 

Hope I'm right and that the promised response from Alamy will pour some light on this.

  • Confused 1
  • 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.