Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

 

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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

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

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 by Allan Bell
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Martin P Wilson
Added comment
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.)

 

In my experience with another agency, you have to keep tabs yourself on images being removal by distributors. If they haven't been removed in the allotted time (often six months), then you would have to contact Alamy and get them to contact the distributor and ask them to take your images down. I've had to do this (but not here).

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

There was a mention of Clause 5.1 in the new contract on page 40 of this thread, but it didn't seem to get taken any further. There is certainly nothing in Alamy's reply about this.

 

Existing 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract.

 

New 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and (iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.  

 

The way I read it the Existing 5.1 comes into play if the contributor has failed to do something that they should have done. The New 5.1 extends this further to include a number of things that are completely out of the control of the contributor. 

 

I wonder if the changes have been prompted by this:

 

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/10/magazine-says-its-stolen-cover-photo-was-a-stock-photo-of-the-photo/

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clause 4.1.5 needs to be rewritten.  The current form grants Alamy free rights to license contributor images and override any restrictions. Alamy can offer any explanations and clarifications but they won't matter. What's in print matters, and as long as this clause stays in the contract, the contract is simply unsustainable. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not expect changes to the contract in such a short time.

 

The only thing that remains of "value" in the Alamy environment is this forum, people from different cultures, most of them united by the same passion: photography.

Here an empathy has emerged, contributions have been made far beyond photography.

 

If the company loses these photographers, the empathy of this forum, it will no longer be special, it will only be one more among the many, without the human warmth.

 

“When one door closes, another one opens"

 

andre

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AM Chang said:

I did not expect changes to the contract in such a short time.

 

The only thing that remains of "value" in the Alamy environment is this forum, people from different cultures, most of them united by the same passion: photography.

Here an empathy has emerged, contributions have been made far beyond photography.

 

If the company loses these photographers, the empathy of this forum, it will no longer be special, it will only be one more among the many, without the human warmth.

 

“When one door closes, another one opens"

 

andre

 

Indeed, I am working to make that so.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Martin P Wilson said:

Stay part of the stock photography professional community Graham.

Yes, Martin, I would like to, this forum is a great community and it would be a pity to loose touch.  However, I do not anticipate looking for more stock outlets, as in my view the race to the bottom is gathering pace with a vast oversupply of most subjects.  At some stage I may look at ways of getting my archive pics, that date back to to 1966 some of which have had good rights sales on Alamy, back online.

Graham.

Edited by Graham Morley
Correcting an omission
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Graham Morley said:

Yes, Martin, I would like to, this forum is a great community and it would be a pity to loose touch.  However, I do not anticipate looking for more stock outlets, as in my view the race to the bottom is gathering pace with a vast oversupply of most subjects.  At some stage I may look at ways of getting my archive pics, that date back to to 1966, online.

Graham.

This is my Alamy data up to 2019:

 

Alamy Sales($)   Alamy Imgs Avg Imgs $/img
         
  2011 27.1    
19.5 2012 34.1 30.6 0.64
19.5 2013 44.8 39.45 0.49
19.0 2014 53.8 49.3 0.39
19.0 2015 66.4 60.1 0.32
25.0 2016 98.2 82.3 0.30
29.0 2017 124.7 111.45 0.26
29.5 2018 157.0 140.85 0.21
31.8 2019 200.0 178.5

0.18

 

The figure for number of images at the end of  2019 is an estimate as the figure isn't in the annual report. It won't be far out though.

 

For 2020, I'd expect something like:

 

30.0 2020 240.0 220

0.14

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Keith Douglas said:

There was a mention of Clause 5.1 in the new contract on page 40 of this thread, but it didn't seem to get taken any further. There is certainly nothing in Alamy's reply about this.

 

Existing 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract.

 

New 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and (iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.  

 

The way I read it the Existing 5.1 comes into play if the contributor has failed to do something that they should have done. The New 5.1 extends this further to include a number of things that are completely out of the control of the contributor. 

 

I wonder if the changes have been prompted by this:

 

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/10/magazine-says-its-stolen-cover-photo-was-a-stock-photo-of-the-photo/

 

 

Good catch.

New 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to:  ... ... ... (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties;

 

James said above that the customers are told that they should not use files in certain ways; but why should they care when the contract holds them as 'indemnified'?

Just when I thought it was safe to breathe again, it looks like we have to take the blame for what other people do ("any" use of the content).

Back into worried mode.

 

Again, "You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy ... harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: ... (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content;"

which implies that if Alamy make an honest mistake in pursuing a suspected infringement which someone has already paid, we cam be requested to defend them?

 

It's not much good James coming in and saying "that's not what we meant" - if it's in the contract and we agree to it, we stand the risk of wasting a lot of time and money establishing that the contract is unreasonable. And that in for what is - for many of us - a foreign legislature, so unlikely to be in the scope of our local lawyer.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's baffling. The percentage of images marked as "exclusive" is so small that one would think that Alamy would either reward the contributor with a higher percentage, or sell those images at a higher rate. Having been 100% exclusive from the start, I've only seen prices drop, I have no way to judge whether exclusive images sell at a premium.  I've never been aware of Alamy marketing a part of it's collection as exclusive or premium. Perhaps rather than putting money into chasing infringements it should go to such a marketing campaign. If I actually saw prices going up, it might justify the cut to commissions. Cutting commissions and undermining exclusivity....it's baffling.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, nobody has found a British lawyer who would be willing to look at the contract pro bono, for some family photos, or for a fee that people might donate to.

 

Perhaps everyone making reasonable money on stock have already talked to their solicitors?

 

Me, I just re-read my warning leaflet from Migracion.   

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

It's baffling. The percentage of images marked as "exclusive" is so small that one would think that Alamy would either reward the contributor with a higher percentage, or sell those images at a higher rate. Having been 100% exclusive from the start, I've only seen prices drop, I have no way to judge whether exclusive images sell at a premium.  I've never been aware of Alamy marketing a part of it's collection as exclusive or premium. Perhaps rather than putting money into chasing infringements it should go to such a marketing campaign. If I actually saw prices going up, it might justify the cut to commissions. Cutting commissions and undermining exclusivity....it's baffling.

 

 

Also what is baffling is the continuing pretence that they care about contributors.

 

Looking at it their prime business is piling up images from all over, wherever they can be found, from whatever source, and no questions asked.

 

Yet paradoxically they want to pretend that Alamy is something else - concerned with ethics, the photographers' friend and all that guff. 

 

I think it started out that way with its rather patrician founders but that route was abandoned at least 10 years ago. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

It's baffling. The percentage of images marked as "exclusive" is so small that one would think that Alamy would either reward the contributor with a higher percentage, or sell those images at a higher rate. Having been 100% exclusive from the start, I've only seen prices drop, I have no way to judge whether exclusive images sell at a premium.  I've never been aware of Alamy marketing a part of it's collection as exclusive or premium. Perhaps rather than putting money into chasing infringements it should go to such a marketing campaign. If I actually saw prices going up, it might justify the cut to commissions. Cutting commissions and undermining exclusivity....it's baffling.

 

If you start from the premise that exclusivity is not actually something that Alamy plan to pursue, then it makes a lot more sense. Yes, Alamy will pursue infringers of exclusive content in preference to non-exclusive content because it is easier to do so. I don't think their motivation is to promote those with exclusive content. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

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. 

 

That's how "stock" started for me -- earning "passive income" mainly from images taken to illustrate my travel and culture articles. I subsequently developed a good relationship with a small photo library specializing in Latin America and also started licensing images on my own during the 90's. My involvement in stock photography has now morphed into something completely different. This recent contract and commission kerfuffle has reinforced my nagging feelings that it's time to reassess what I've been doing. I find that one of the downsides of shooting general stock images -- as interesting a learning experience as it is -- is that my energies get scattered all over the place. I now realize that I need to rekindle some focus. It's a liberating feeling in some respects. You're lucky that you have your magazine assignments. I'll continue to submit to Alamy, but most likely with not quite as much zeal. Unfortunately, your comparison to the Titanic seems an apt one. 🛳️

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Morley said:

Yes, Martin, I would like to, this forum is a great community and it would be a pity to loose touch.  However, I do not anticipate looking for more stock outlets, as in my view the race to the bottom is gathering pace with a vast oversupply of most subjects.  At some stage I may look at ways of getting my archive pics, that date back to to 1966 some of which have had good rights sales on Alamy, back online.

Graham.

 

In my searches I have taken some slight comfort in that there appear to be some old school librraies out, some wwell established. They select their photograsphers, curate their collection and pay 50% - but that is a discussion for elsewhere. I must assume from what I see that there are some customers who choose to use full service 'artisan' suppliers rather than the mass market 'pile it high, sell it cheap' pound store operations.

 

Clearly not accessible to everbody with their holiday snaps, but for the many, entirely competent, photographers there may be an opportunity, especially if they want more than a modest hobby, or passive archive income.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I`ve been following this topic with a great deal of interest.  I`m fairly new to stock photography and joined just after the commission rates dropped from 60% to 50%.  Nevertheless, I thought Alamy was special and felt excited to upload to my portfolio.  I`ve always been very careful in ticking the "editorial only" box with images that contained people or subjects with any brand names or logos, even though I also ticked the box indicating I did not have a release.  Just to be on the safe side, I decided to check all my images for the ticks in all the right boxes.  I`m sure glad I did, as a number of images all the restrictions were gone!!!... no boxes ticked!!! and I know they were when I listed them.  Alamy can you please explain this? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That's how "stock" started for me -- earning "passive income" mainly from images taken to illustrate my travel and culture articles. I subsequently developed a good relationship with a small photo library specializing in Latin America and also started licensing images on my own during the 90's. My involvement in stock photography has now morphed into something completely different. This recent contract and commission kerfuffle has reinforced my nagging feelings that it's time to reassess what I've been doing. I find that one of the downsides of shooting general stock images -- as interesting a learning experience as it is -- is that my energies get scattered all over the place. I now realize that I need to rekindle some focus. It's a liberating feeling in some respects. You're lucky that you have your magazine assignments. I'll continue to submit to Alamy, but most likely with not quite as much zeal. Unfortunately, your comparison to the Titanic seems an apt one. 🛳️

Hi John

I will also stay with Alamy, it's editorial and documentary focus suits the way I prefer to photograph. While it's great to have the occasional sale here and there, I find it more satisfactory to be "out there" doing what I was meant to do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sharon said:

I`ve been following this topic with a great deal of interest.  I`m fairly new to stock photography and joined just after the commission rates dropped from 60% to 50%.  Nevertheless, I thought Alamy was special and felt excited to upload to my portfolio.  I`ve always been very careful in ticking the "editorial only" box with images that contained people or subjects with any brand names or logos, even though I also ticked the box indicating I did not have a release.  Just to be on the safe side, I decided to check all my images for the ticks in all the right boxes.  I`m sure glad I did, as a number of images all the restrictions were gone!!!... no boxes ticked!!! and I know they were when I listed them.  Alamy can you please explain this? 

 

I'm making sure that the editorial only box is ticked when I don't have releases.  Seems that either I was careless, or some thing happened.  Thanks.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Keith Douglas said:

This is my Alamy data up to 2019:

 

Alamy Sales($)   Alamy Imgs Avg Imgs $/img
         
  2011 27.1    
19.5 2012 34.1 30.6 0.64
19.5 2013 44.8 39.45 0.49
19.0 2014 53.8 49.3 0.39
19.0 2015 66.4 60.1 0.32
25.0 2016 98.2 82.3 0.30
29.0 2017 124.7 111.45 0.26
29.5 2018 157.0 140.85 0.21
31.8 2019 200.0 178.5

0.18

 

The figure for number of images at the end of  2019 is an estimate as the figure isn't in the annual report. It won't be far out though.

 

For 2020, I'd expect something like:

 

30.0 2020 240.0 220

0.14

 

 

Alamy's annual reports can all be found here

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03807789/filing-history

 

[Edit-Deleted incorrect numbers I quoted]

 

A more than a three-fold decrease in sales revenue per image online over period 2012 to 2019. (NB. Alamy are far from alone in seeing this drop). This will have been caused by a combination of falling average revenue per image sold (market pressure) and because Alamy's portfolio of images has grown faster than unit sales (older images left online, more similars and lower quality images added, more competition). I don't think Alamy discloses data to allow the separate contribution of each to be calculated, but they will know the causes. Luckily the cost of data storage has fallen and processors have got faster which allows relatively efficient hosting of larger and less efficient portfolios. But an image cull might well be in order, to reduce storage costs, give faster search results, remove duplicates, remove poor quality images.


Mark

 

 

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, it an attempt to draw a line under this miserable episode with Alamy and our grievances against them, we  should consider the fact that our photographic work has historically demonstrated the public demand for the quality and variety of the images that we have offered to potential buyers through Alamy. Otherwise Alamy wouldn't have existed or profited. 

It's Almay's 'train set' and therefore they can do what they want in terms of their business, but however dismayed we may be by their tactics, it in no way detracts from the professionalism and quality of the images that we as individuals continue (or continued) to submit and hence there remains a potential market that values our contributions and for the time being and foreseeable future  will continue to do so.

Pricing and remuneration continue as always to be a point of contention for all stock images, but that is determined by a global market and not by Alamy alone. I for one am not persuaded that Almay's stance in any way detracts from the marketability of my own images (or yours) and so will seek alternative outlets and sales opportunities that may well return better margins and opportunities.


Alamy has been a great outlet for stock photography, but life moves on and the trick is not to lament the passing of a former business partner but to engage our commercial brains and seek further opportunities to market our talents elsewhere.

 

The world moves on in commerce - just think of those who have departed the scene - Toys R Us; Woolworths; Thomas Cook; Kodak; BHS; Staples; Blockbuster;  Maplin; TieRack;  Phones 4U;  Poundworld; Compaq and so on.
Their suppliers, picked themselves up and dusted themselves, down and offered their products/services to others.

It is time for us to do likewise and while lamenting the passing of what has been a very happy working relationship - Alamy has made a strategic business decision as is their entitlement and we too have the freedom and talent to do likewise.

Good luck to all contributors in whatever path they choose to pursue - but don't ever doubt your talents and marketability. 
 

  • Upvote 7
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.