Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Martin P Wilson]

1 minute ago, Keith Douglas said:

All figures from Companies House. They give figures in £. The figures I quoted are in $ (because the other data I was comparing it to was my own gross sales in $). £1 = $1.30. So £15.2m in 2012 = $19.5m

 

But the trend is clear. $ per image falling by 15% a year. So, all other things being equal, you'd have to increase your portfolio by 15% per year just to stand still. Which is roughly what my own sales figures show. 

 

And explains why my static portfolio fell like a stone while I took a multi-year sabbaticasl

[hotbrightsky]

6 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

This is all a bit like staying on the Titanic

 

But the ship's crew are using your drowning body as their life raft.

[Graham Morley]

1 hour ago, Martin P Wilson said:

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.

Martin, this is very interesting, and something to think about.  Many thanks for mentioning.

[M.Chapman]

5 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

All figures from Companies House. They give figures in £. The figures I quoted are in $ (because the other data I was comparing it to was my own gross sales in $). £1 = $1.30. So £15.2m in 2012 = $19.5m

 

But the trend is clear. $ per image falling by 15% a year. So, all other things being equal, you'd have to increase your portfolio by 15% per year just to stand still. Which is roughly what my own sales figures show. 

Oops, thanks for spotting the reason for the difference. My mistake.

I'll correct my earlier post to avoid creating confusion.

 

Mark

 

[hotbrightsky]

1 hour ago, Keith Douglas said:

Alamy will pursue infringers of exclusive content in preference to non-exclusive content because it is easier to do so

 

I think it's simply a veiled (and possibly idle) threat. Alamy are telling contributors that if we mark images as exclusive, when they're not, the all-seeing **Infringements Team** will find us out.

[MizBrown]

30 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

It's easy to accidentally erase those check marks when processing large batches of images.

 

Maybe.   I just finished checking "editorial only" where appropriate, but didn't take screenshots today.   If they go missing again, I will take screenshots.

[Michael Ventura]

1 hour ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

But the ship's crew are using your drowning body as their life raft.

 

Over the last 35 years I have been with 7 or 8 agencies ("ships"), all of them do not exist anymore....well all went down but the one I have been with the longest, Alamy.   Alamy is sinking and I will survive.  While I have enjoyed the extra income, I have come to not rely on it.  There was a time when I dreamed that I could retire on my stock photo income but it became quite clear, years ago, that wasn't happening.  What is happening at Alamy has been pretty predictable for a while but the optimist in me was hoping it wouldn't happen for a while more.  Micros have killed the traditional stock industry....too much crowd sourcing and too many people willing to give away their photos....you just can't compete with free or near free.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Michael Ventura

[Felix]

Like so many others, I'm terribly disappointed by the proposed contract changes.  Although I'm not sure if I really have much in the way of new insights to offer, I thought I would share my two cents anyway because I suspect there are many Alamy photographers in the same situation as I am, and I figure the more who speak out, the better. 

 

I started out with Alamy in 2007, when I believe the revenue split was 60-40 (or was it 70-30?) in favour of the photographer.  Except for a very short stint with Corbis SnapVillage, I've always been exclusive with Alamy because I liked the feeling of community here - it was a supportive place where I could learn from others and nurture the development of my photography and, just as importantly, I always felt that the company valued the contributions of individual photographers like myself and dare I say it actually felt like a partnership.   In this cozy environment, I worked very hard and many hours to hone my skills in stock photography to scratch out a portfolio of just under 5,000 images (90% of which were added after 2013 or so).  And, I think I've done ok for myself and Alamy over the years.  I logged onto my dashboard earlier this week hopeful to see if this would be the week that I would license my 1,000th image with Alamy only to be smacked across the face with these proposed contract changes.  (Sidebar: as of writing, i'm still only at 998 licenses).  What a rude wake-up call.

 

I understand that life changes and this is Alamy's business to run as it sees fit.  It's just sad, that's all.  It's clear to me now that Alamy just isn't what the Alamy brand used to stand for, and now I have decisions to make.  Obviously, the new revenue split is a slap in the face and the uncertain legal considerations have me worrying whether any of this is still worth it - although the income is important and I have a lot of "sunk costs" in this endeavour, my risk appetite for some kind of lawsuit I can't pay for just isn't there, not with a young family to support.  Although I'm under no illusions that my small portfolio is important enough that Alamy will care if I choose to terminate my contract by June 30, even if I stay, my motivation has definitely been diminished.  Like I said, sad.

 

Whatever happens, I just want to thank all of you on this forum from whom I've learned so much.  Although I haven't actually posted here in some seven odd years, I was always in the background reading and learning.  Thank you, take care, and all the best in your photographic journey. 

 

Felix

[Hodderauthor]

Like Felix, I’ve not been an active poster on the forum, but I have been a frequent visitor. I’ve learned a lot from the posts on the forum, and for that I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the time and trouble to comment. 
 

Some of my frustration over this announcement focuses around the amount of time I’ve devoted to building up my portfolio on Alamy over the years. And I’ve just reached that point where I'm getting sales (and payments) most months. And while the cut in commission is unwelcome, to continue the Titanic theme many have used, it’s the iceberg that’s been looming on the horizon for some time.

 

But I just don’t like those rewritten clauses (4.1.5 and 4.1.6). That new contract does not make me feel safe as a contributor. It’s as though there are lifeboats for everyone to see, but when its crunch time , only then will I find out whether there’s one with enough space on it for me. So, the question is, Alamy is setting sail with a new contract … do I feel safe enough to go sailing with them?

 

 I note James’ feedback on them where he says:

 

Quote

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.

Sorry, James, but “Intended” isn’t good enough. I’m not interested in “intentions”. I’m interested in what it actually means. In the End of Year Contributor Message, Emily Shelley clearly states, “We have no plans to alter our commission rates …”

 

According to the MD, there were no intentions to cut commission rates, but look what is actually happening a few months later. So forgive me, Alamy, if I have no confidence whatsoever in what you “intend” a clause to mean. 
 

I would like to thank you, though. This experience has taught me it’s important to never rest on my laurels, which, in some ways, I have been doing. This is an opportunity to review my business. To change. To adapt.

 

There were a few survivors from the Titanic disaster. Ultimately, though, the White Star Line wasn’t one of them. 

 

 

[Bill Brooks]

Here are some ideas to ponder

 

Cost of a Toronto media lawyer (not a family lawyer) with extensive knowledge of the Media business, and international legal contacts. $750 per hour. Cost of rendering a written opinion with strategy, $10,000. Cost of multiple meeting with all parties, $30,000 plus expenses, AND UP.

 

One of my child models, who still refers to me as Uncle, is now a media lawyer in mid career. It is not worth bothering him with this contract for a pro bono hour, as I already know the answer.

 

Everyone is referring to this contract offer as applying to everyone. Maybe not.

 

Alamy can make any deal, at any price, with anyone they want. I think a large famous curated image collection like National Geographic could demand and get 70%, and also get top position in the sort order. Museums, national archives, The National Trust for example, have expertly curated image collections. However, in my opinion, they have been unsuccessful in reaping a financial benefit over the internet, and meeting their main mandate of being a museum without walls for the entire world. Alamy could solve both problems.

 

Alamy now has the business connections, expertise, and IT to bring these large collections onto the Alamy sales platform. However, if they do, I doubt that it will be under the new contract being presented to us.

 

Dealing with thousands of wild eyed suppliers is costly. Alamy is now a extension of the large corporate organizations that own Alamy. Large corporations prefer to deal with other large corporations.
 

[Bill Kuta]

I'm enjoying the posts by forum members who have rarely posted--I see it wasn't due to a lack of articulateness. And I've enjoyed the forum in general, especially in its current form and membership. (Does anyone recall when the forum began? I don't.) I've picked up a lot of stock and general photographic knowledge, "met" a lot of interesting people, read a lot of jokes good and bad, and picked up a bit of Britspeak. 

 

When I started with Alamy in early 2004 (after two or three other sites), I had the notion that stock would give me a noticeable amount of extra income. By 2007-2010, it was beginning to happen. Then the bottom pretty much dropped out for me in 2011. I had a long lapse in submissions at that time, pursuing another stock site and a POD site.  Then the mushrooming of Alamy's library and the decline of fees was taking effect. So my highest earning years by far were 2007-2010 (with a much smaller porfolio), but my highest numbers of sales were 2017-2019. But I have had more than the $250 threshold in sales in every year, usually several times more.

 

So why will I be leaving if the contract situation remains the same?

 

- While most of the contract terms, as has been pointed out, have been there a long time, and may be common in the stock industry, the new contract overall seems to be going to the max to increase Alamy's control and to shift burdens to the contributors.  

 

- A few analyses in this thread, like Bill Brooks above, lead me to conclude that contributors like me are a mostly-unwanted sideline for Alamy, without a positive future.

 

-The potential liability issues are paramount. I can do without my current level of Alamy income. But I can't do without all my other assets.

[Ollie]

There are highly questionable terms in your proposed revisions. 

 

2.10. By marking Content as Exclusive, you grant Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. Where pursuing such infringements if it is found that the Content has been licensed through another licensing platform, Alamy has the right to recoup any fees incurred in the pursuit of any action taken.

 

The fact that an image is now designated as Exclusive to Alamy says nothing about the sales history of the image before it was designated as Exclusive to Alamy.  Many images may have been licensed by other agencies or by myself before I decided to make my images exclusive with Alamy. These licenses  may still be valid and ongoing.  How could I be asked to reimburse Alamy for any costs incurred if you pursue a suspected infringement you have discovered without consulting me first about the image’s sales history? 

 

5.1. You will indemnify, … (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content;

 

You assert the right to pursue a suspected infringement without first asking us (2.10).  You then require that we indemnify you for your mistakes?  Please!

 

Any Alamy statements in this forum that you do not “intend” to take certain actions are of no value; it is the contract that governs.  In December we were told you did not intend to alter the commission structure.  Alamy statements in this forum are editorial, not legal, in nature.  Unfortunately they have no credibility.

 

4.1.5. 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;

 

Is prohibiting “any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content” intended to abolish the restriction between Rights Managed and Royalty Free sales?  If you intend to continue to honor the distinction between RM and RF sales you need to revise the wording of this contract provision.  As written, you have complete discretion to do whatever you want.

 

4.1.4. you hold the rights to grant reproduction rights in the Content for use: … (ii) on physical articles and items including without limitation on prints and posters;

 

Images made for editorial use are not intended to be made available for on-demand sales of jigsaw puzzles, coasters, mousepads, coffee mugs, refrigerator magnets, or other consumer products.  Does this provision mean that Alamy will eliminate the “Don’t sell for consumer goods” or the “Sell for Editorial Only” options that currently exist on page two of each image info page?  Even if you retain these checkboxes on the metadata page, para 4.1.5 grants you the right to ignore such restrictions.  Again, it is the language of the contract that governs.

 

[MizBrown]

49 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

Cost of a Toronto media lawyer (not a family lawyer) with extensive knowledge of the Media business, and international legal contacts. $750 per hour. Cost of rendering a written opinion with strategy, $10,000. Cost of multiple meeting with all parties, $30,000 plus expenses, AND UP.

 

Okay.  So basically, almost zero of the individual contributors, and none outside the legal jurisdiction that Alamy is in, are in a position to negotiate with Alamy.  

 

 

 

 

[John Mitchell]

I just read Bill's last post. Yikes! No wonder lawyers love concocting contracts like the latest one. They are potentially real cash cows.

[Shergar]

After what has been a very busy week on this board it would be easy to forget that Alamy has set the May POTM as  "Togetherness" Isn't that lovely!! 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Shergar

[Thyrsis]

5 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

I'm enjoying the posts by forum members who have rarely posted--I see it wasn't due to a lack of articulateness. And I've enjoyed the forum in general, especially in its current form and membership. (Does anyone recall when the forum began? I don't.) 

This forum started in April 2013 I think. It took over from the very successful AlamyPro forum on Yahoo which was run independently from Alamy. That’s where the ‘images found’ thread originally started and the ‘BHZ’ game. Quite a lot of folk here were on that forum. There was another forum before that too but I can't remember the name! 

[BobD]

15 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/

 

 

 

This is the clause that really worries me.

It may be that it has always been there, but I like many others have not looked at the contract in enough depth before.  

 

From what I understand of the given example of what can go wrong, it was fortunate the the magazine was what it was, had it been a more commercial magazine things could have got nasty.

Alamy accepted this image for sale, the magazine cropped it so that the image was out of context and yet under the above clause the contributor would be liable. 

This example is fairly clear cut and understandable but what is to stop anyone making a frivolous claim if for instance a property they own is featured on a magazine cover. The law maybe on the contributors side if the image was tagged correctly, but who wants to risk thousands defending a legal case.

 

I fall in the wonderful gold tier under the new conditions, which is no real change for me, but I was thinking of those that will be the new Silver contributors. If for instance your sales come in a few cents under $250, commission @ 20% = $50, convert to pounds @1.35 dollars to the pound works out at 71 pence per week. Silver? more like rusty old iron.  You would need to have your head examined to accept the new contract ( or be desperate beyond belief). 

 

The more this contract gets examined here the more I am leaning towards closing my account.

Edited May 23, 2021 by BobD

[Keith Douglas]

9 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

This is the clause that really worries me.

It may be that it has always been there, but I like many others have not looked at the contract in enough depth before.  

 

From what I understand of the given example of what can go wrong, it was fortunate the the magazine was what it was, had it been a more commercial magazine things could have got nasty.

Alamy accepted this image for sale, the magazine cropped it so that the image was out of context and yet under the above clause the contributor would be liable. 

This example is fairly clear cut and understandable but what is to stop anyone making a frivolous claim if for instance a property they own is featured on a magazine cover. The law maybe on the contributors side if the image was tagged correctly, but who wants to risk thousands defending a legal case.

 

I fall in the wonderful gold tier under the new conditions, which is no real change for me, but I was thinking of those that will be the new Silver contributors. If for instance your sales come in a few cents under $250, commission @ 20% = $50, convert to pounds @1.35 dollars to the pound works out at 71 pence per week. Silver? more like rusty old iron.  You would need to have your head examined to accept the new contract ( or be desperate beyond belief). 

 

The more this contract gets examined here the more I am leaning towards closing my account.

 

The clause has always been there but its scope has been expanded. As I see it, it now includes areas over which I have no control.

 

 

 

 

[Martin P Wilson]

19 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

The clause has always been there but its scope has been expanded. As I see it, it now includes areas over which I have no control.

 

 

 

 

 

I have always had an issue with Alamy expecting photographers to make judgements as to what releases etc are required for any and all usages anywhere in the world;matters that are properly the responsibility of the image user/pub;lisher. Now they have upped the consequiences, they can take the easy way out and expect the photograp=her to pick up the bill, It seems to me Alamy have always tended to side with the customer, note how they just let copyright infringers licence the image at the discounted rate.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Martin P Wilson

[Martin P Wilson]

Oops

Edited May 23, 2021 by Martin P Wilson

[spacecadet]

3 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

Thanks for nothing alamy ~ I hope you go bust

Not a great fate to wish on your fellow contributors!

[hotbrightsky]

9 hours ago, MizBrown said:

Okay.  So basically, almost zero of the individual contributors, and none outside the legal jurisdiction that Alamy is in, are in a position to negotiate with Alamy. 

 

Which is why unions exist. NUJ in the UK in particular.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Not a great fate to wish on your fellow contributors!

 

or on Alamy's employees. 

[hotbrightsky]

10 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

Does anyone recall when the forum began?

 

No, but I remember when Alamy started removing/hiding links to it! 

[Cryptoprocta]

5 hours ago, Thyrsis said:

This forum started in April 2013 I think. It took over from the very successful AlamyPro forum on Yahoo which was run independently from Alamy. That’s where the ‘images found’ thread originally started and the ‘BHZ’ game. Quite a lot of folk here were on that forum. There was another forum before that too but I can't remember the name! 

I think there was an official Alamy forum before 2013, but not in this 'home', I think it was on the main Alamy server, then they were split, so that the forum is now separate from the main Alamy site. The old one may be gone completely (?)

Edited May 23, 2021 by Cryptoprocta