Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Foreign Export]

1 hour ago, Foreign Export said:

I have enjoyed reading everyone's contributions in this thread, we are all of a similar mind re Alamy's behaviour and treatment of us as contributors.

I suspect Alamy had to make this change, their business model seems confused, I doubt they have a clear plan and strategy. Certainly judging by their mixed messages re exclusivity they don't.

They may well wither for a while until they sort out a proper plan.

One thing seems clear - the new terms are here to stay-sadly.

I will now opt out of further discussion on this thread.

 

 

the coward with the red pen strikes gain - one post after another - fool

 

 

 

[Travelshots]

The whole Alamy short term contract is unsatisfactory to both Alamy and its contributors. A new Contract should be made that lasts for one year snd renews annually . It should require 6 months notice of any proposed changes in terms and 6 months notice if you wish to leave.  The commission rate especially should be guaranteed for 12 months. Nobody can operate a business where their financial return can be altered with 45 days notice. 

The whole thing should be reviewed and put on ice for a while .  Peter

[Martin P Wilson]

35 minutes ago, Graham Morley said:

Back in 1970, when I first starting submitting to picture libraries and the percentage to photographers was 60%, I felt valued by the Library I was with. Submitting to Libraries has only ever been a small part of my professional photographic activities, but rewards were excellent for many years.  The libraries I stayed with worked for each others mutual benefit.  This positive working relationship with libraries continued until 2015, when one I had been submitting to (run by a photographer and his wife) closed due to retirement.

 

I have always sort positive working relations with clients and suppliers, but if at any time I have had an uneasy ‘gut’ feeling about any business relationship, by being undervalued or taken advantage of, I have pulled the plug, and withdrawn from the business relationship.  I have always felt that if one door closes another will open, and it has.

 

I have felt uneasy about Alamy for some years, and a disillusionment in the market and the way Alamy has responded have led to me submitting few new pics to Alamy in recent years.  Retirement from pro photography also led to other more creative paths in photography, too.

 

But now the red line has been crossed – lowering the commission rate to below 50%!  That, together with ambiguous legal clauses indicate to me that the new contract is not acceptable to me.  Late at night I have been tempted to stay with Alamy with thoughts of 40% is better than nothing, and that some of the legal vunerabilty can be covered by Photographer’s Personal Indemnity cover, (which I had together with Photographer’s Personal Liability cover when a working pro), but in the cold light of day my ‘gut’ feeling is no – pull the plug!  So I have notified Alamy that I will not accept the new contract.

 

I can now move forward with restored self respect and sense of security.  Also, I can concentrate more on my personal photo projects.

 

I wish everyone well as they make decisions about the future.

 

Graham

 

Stay part of the stock photography professional community Graham.

[Ed Rooney]

 

We have CEOs in the States. What does MD mean? Master of Deceit? 

[ReeRay]

8 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

We have CEOs in the States. What does MD mean? Master of Deceit? 

Or Miss or Mrs. Woke bods would call you out for being a sexist!

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by ReeRay

[Martin P Wilson]

6 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

We have CEOs in the States. What does MD mean? Master of Deceit? 

But I like your interpreation!

 

[helsbells20]

Alamy replied to contributors:
"We’re aware that this changes the commission incentive for many contributors to sell exclusively with us, although there will be the benefit of potential infringements revenue as exclusive images will be given a higher priority in any work going on in this area."
Alamy mentioned infringement(s) eight times within their response to contributor's questions but what they did not inform contributors of is, what benefit there will be for them.
Q.
When Alamy discover an infringement, are they intending to penalise the user of the image, that is, charge them more for not declaring the usage in a timely manner, or is this all covered by the proposed contributor's percentage reduction?  If so, we are penalised for someone using our image and not intending to pay for it?
Currently, if a contributor reports a usage that has not been declared in their account the contributor often has to wait  perhaps as much as three months or more before they actually receive payment for this usage and in some cases the payment is less than they would have been paid if the usage had been declared at the correct time.
As it would appear that the contributor is to be financing the cost of Alamy employing others to find and follow up on infingements that Alamy  currently should have been capable of finding themselves anyway is there any future plan to improve on the current situation and provide the contributor with an increased payment when an infringment is followed up on and payment is recovered?

 

[MizBrown]

4 hours ago, Sally R said:

Yes, I cannot see how the photographer could be held responsible, unless the original image itself was deemed offensive to start with. But then it all gets complicated. If you photograph something happening at a protest that offends someone, surely you can't be held responsible in that you are telling a story by capturing an event. I think in such a case it must surely come down to intent. So if there is no intention of harm or offence by the photographer, the onus should then be on the end user.

 

Yes, we are the smaller, less powerful party here as individual photographers, so we do need to ask these questions.

 

US political ads have in the past taken stock photos and attributed to the person in the stock photo beliefs and statements that the person doesn't share.  Often there's no mention that such and such housewife in Iowa is a stock photo of someone who doesn't live remotely close to Iowa until someone does a Google image search.   I'm in a country where people have Photoshopped tanks where here were no tanks, faked deaths (the dead girl answered her cell phone in outtakes from the video, apparently), and so forth.  Even the BBC has had a reporters forge documents to stir up suspicions to get an interview with Princess Diana.   My captions in the photo I took in 2018 are a neutral as I can make them, and I photographed both sides without taking one or the other.  Change those captions and I could be deported unless I can prove that my captions didn't say that. 

 

So this is part of why I bowed out.  Photographers are more replaceable than clients. 

[Martin P Wilson]

6 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

US political ads have in the past taken stock photos and attributed to the person in the stock photo beliefs and statements that the person doesn't share.  Often there's no mention that such and such housewife in Iowa is a stock photo of someone who doesn't live remotely close to Iowa until someone does a Google image search.   I'm in a country where people have Photoshopped tanks where here were no tanks, faked deaths (the dead girl answered her cell phone in outtakes from the video, apparently), and so forth.  Even the BBC has had a reporters forge documents to stir up suspicions to get an interview with Princess Diana.   My captions in the photo I took in 2018 are a neutral as I can make them, and I photographed both sides without taking one or the other.  Change those captions and I could be deported unless I can prove that my captions didn't say that. 

 

So this is part of why I bowed out.  Photographers are more replaceable than clients. 

 

I agree, manipulation apart many of my photographs are the result of accreditations with retsrictions (editorial use only) that I am contractually obliged to honour. I cannot risk Alamy licencing them for other p[urposes.

 

My resignation is written; I am just biding my time before I send it. I do not expect any fundamental changes that will stop me sending it sometime in June.

 

Stay in touch.

[Michael Ventura]

This is all a bit like staying on the Titanic when you know how it ends.  Stock as we knew it is pretty much dead.  There are not much in the way of good or better options.  I will stay on this ship but probably not shoot much in the way of new stock for the purpose of stock.  Much of my new stock images derive from my assignment shoots, so it is mostly passive income.  Just not going to put in any additional effort into it. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Michael Ventura

[Cristim]

I am trying to be positive even I was a little angry about the contract change mostly because in Feb. 2019 on the last change in the commission structure I worked on making almost all images exclusive to Alamy.

The god thing with Alamy was a constant pushing to go outside and shoot in different places or even take a trip to another country; some kind of motivation to go outdoor more.

Shooting what I like and making a little money from that was really great.  I work as a photographer but shooting for stock is more like a hobby and I think it is a really hard work to make a living only from that this day.

In the end every business work for profit as it should and we also want to make profit for ourselves. Cannot blame anyone for that. 

Alamy is not responsible for my income, it's only me! 

Is time to spread and move "the eggs"  

 

 

 

[meanderingemu]

Rereading clauses, and reading between the line of the updated answer, based on following definitions:

 

 

"Licence Fees"
means any sum actually received by Alamy from any Customer in respect of the license of your Content whether a single payment or a royalty paid over time.

 

""Customer"
means any third party individual, partnership, corporation or other entity who may be intermediaries or end-users and to whom a licence is or is proposed to be granted by Alamy.
 

 

I think it is fair to assume that for Distribution Sales, the Licence Fee will NOT include the distributor's cut, and i will even more speculate that we might not even find out how much the actual licences was, only the net amount (ie. what Alamy received), since Alamy as clearly stated that the % of already variable, and that the current contract approach was not reflecting the actual expense from Alamy

 

 

 

going to opt out. 

[MizBrown]

Just now, Olivier Parent said:

I don't know exactly how sales of my images would be handled if they had taken place but had not been reported before I leave.

Since I'm not really in the mood to leave Alamy any money that is due to me, I guess I will delete all my images by June 30th but keep my account open until all sales are cleared and the money transferred. Then I'll say goodbye.

Unless of course there is a better way to make sure I get everything that is due to me.

 

If you delete photos, they're still on the site for 90 days. 

[BobD]

1 minute ago, Olivier Parent said:

I don't know exactly how sales of my images would be handled if they had taken place but had not been reported before I leave.

Since I'm not really in the mood to leave Alamy any money that is due to me, I guess I will delete all my images by June 30th but keep my account open until all sales are cleared and the money transferred. Then I'll say goodbye.

Unless of course there is a better way to make sure I get everything that is due to me.

 

That's the best way, remove images from sale, wait the 6 months, then request your account be closed.

 

When I closed my account back when the first  commission cut was made from 60% down to 50%, I just closed my account straight away. I subsequently found image uses that I did not get paid for.

[meanderingemu]

7 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

I don't know exactly how sales of my images would be handled if they had taken place but had not been reported before I leave.

Since I'm not really in the mood to leave Alamy any money that is due to me, I guess I will delete all my images by June 30th but keep my account open until all sales are cleared and the money transferred. Then I'll say goodbye.

Unless of course there is a better way to make sure I get everything that is due to me.

 

 

The Termination clause should cover you.  In fact by terminating for not accepting the new changes, you probably have an argument that any sales reported post July 1st should be under the terms of your exiting contract, but you may want to check with legal adviser 

Edited May 22, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Martin P Wilson]

1 minute ago, Sally R said:

 

I think you may be better off just letting them know you are leaving and not taking up the next contract. From what I understand, they will delete your photos for you and you will be paid out the balance of any licenses as those payments get cleared. I could be wrong, but I think that's what happens.

 

I think, from my reading,  you will be paid out once all outstanding balances have cleared, but you get the money, eventually. Obviously important to me as well.

[Martin P Wilson]

1 minute ago, Sally R said:

 

Yes I think that is what happens, but not 100% sure. Would be good if Alamy could clarify this for us since many will be leaving.

 

No doubt many of us will find out soon enough.

[meanderingemu]

seeing the portfolios of people leaving, I can't help to think that these are the people Alamy should have made certain they would stay.  really am confused at the vision of what PA has in mind for their investment.  

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Bill Kuta]

I was just reading the "Images found on another website" thread--the other website is a likely distributor. This raises the question of how Alamy ensures that a contributor's images are removed from all distributor sites when the contributor terminates. (That particular site has large unwatermarked thumbnails.)

[Alan Gallery]

10 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

I was just reading the "Images found on another website" thread--the other website is a likely distributor. This raises the question of how Alamy ensures that a contributor's images are removed from all distributor sites when the contributor terminates. (That particular site has large unwatermarked thumbnails.)

If it is not clear that this other site is a sub-distributer check with Alamy.  This is where the Hotel California effect kicks in where Alamy will continue to licence images after one has left if it is a renewal or extension to an existing image after one has checked out.  

Edited May 22, 2021 by Alan Gallery

[spacecadet]

 

32 minutes ago, Paul J said:

Alamy.........are just too busy hitting the red downvote button instead. 

No.

Haven't you read the thread? It's not Alamy doing it.

[ChrisC]

4 hours ago, Gordon Scammell said:

Why has this comment been given one of those pathetic red arrow things?  Own up you coward.  Nothing wrong with the comment.  It's absolutely spot on - so have a green to compensate!

Maybe some are colour blind? most of the red arrows seem odd!

[Martin P Wilson]

8 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I know, this is why, before hitting the "delete" button, I make sure i clear all descriptions and keywords and hit "save".

This way, the images won't show up in a search result page.

I will also ask Alamy to remove all my posts from the forum when I leave.

 

But do stay in touch, we neerd to maintain a community

 

[Allan Bell]

I'm sure I saw somewhere, can't find it now, that if you decide to leave before the new contract comes into effect that your images are deleted on 30th June and do not remain on sale after that date.

 

Allan

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Allan Bell

[Martin P Wilson]

As I have written on a forum elsewhere the new Alamy contract has caused me to think very hard about my photography. I had taken a sabbatical when the last changes happened (2019) because I was disillusioned, I recognised that Alamy had let me get lackadaisical, it didn't seem to reward the effort needed to raise my game. I appreciate in time it may have done, but then we get hit with contract changes.

 

Alamy have done me a favour by making me look long and hard at the state of the market and my other options.  I have found libraries, paying 50%, but selective and curated, that I can aspire to; they don't feel out of reach if I put my mind to my photography. Elsewhere, I am now seeking to understand how those other agencies are perceived and how they treat their contributors. I am working on being more business-like and focussed on the quality of my photography. Especially as photography does not need to be fitted in around a demanding day job.

 

I recommend that other people use these challenge as a spur, there are still ways and means of staying in stock photography.

 

TTFN, in the spirit of that challenge I am off to do some work on my blog.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Martin P Wilson
Added comment