Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 minutes 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!

doubt they will own up- but someone seems to be throwing out a scattering of reds

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

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.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this has been an exhausting week and it is now pretty clear that this is not a conversation nor a negotiation. We can ask as many questions as we want, but all we have gotten back in return is generic and vague doublespeak answers. My takeaway is that Alamy doesn't care.

 

We can chat about this to infinity, but at the end of the day actions speak louder than words and like others on here I will be taking my own actions, for starters with marking all my images as non-exclusive as soon as the new contract kicks in and refocusing my time from submitting new images here to other ventures, submitting to other sites and looking into selling directly.

 

I wanted to thank everyone for their suggestions and tips on where to look next, they have been very inspirational! Restricting usage on my images on here and getting two requests from Alamy to lift restrictions within a period of two days has really showed me that my images are valued by customers and I have confidence I can effectively sell them elsewhere.

 

The really great and positive outcome of this is that it pushes us to take our destiny into our own hands and look for better more efficient ways to make money with our skills and assets. I personally am very very excited about the rise of NFTs and how blockchain technology could in future benefit artists and creators to take control of their art and make repeat income on royalties as their work gets sold on by others. This is happening NOW and one day Alamy might just be another MySpace of the internet world. 

  • Upvote 9
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great that the Head of Content answered
Yet I still think that PA / Alamy is just about explaining their position, not about understanding and willingness to change anything. Their lawyers, who had a clear task (they are not our lawyers), have invested a lot of time in the new contract, they will not (for various reasons) want to change anything. I'm still skeptical that PA / Alamy doesn't have much respect for us small contributors, and that something will change by July 1st. My confidence is gradually disappearing and, unfortunately, Alamy is not taking any steps to stop this situation. So I don't see them yet

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by ReeRay
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

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 by Michael Ventura
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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" :) 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by meanderingemu
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

  • Upvote 3
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.