Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Graham said:

The amount contributors receive is actually reduced by 20%.  Sell for $100, previously you received $50.  Now you receive $40.  That is a 20% reduction.

 

Graham

or more.  

 

 

plus don't forget lower fees all the time, so even bigger drop compared to what contributors would have received 24 month ago. 

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

The amount contributors receive is actually reduced by 20%.  Sell for $100, previously you received $50.  Now you receive $40.  That is a 20% reduction.

 

Graham

Yes! You are quite right ... makes it even more depressing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Graham said:

The amount contributors receive is actually reduced by 20%.  Sell for $100, previously you received $50.  Now you receive $40.  That is a 20% reduction.

 

Graham

 

 

More like Sold for $12 a year ago, you received $6

Now Sells for $10 you receive $4

 

33% reduction.  

 

 

😉🤔

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

New Clause:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Wait, didn't we just make this election a couple of weeks ago and were allowed to opt in/out?  Now it's mandatory (or just remove "exclusive") 

 

That might be a legal waiver for them, just in case they screw up your preferences.  But, it does feel a bit convenient that they've encouraged exclusivity, then pulled the incentive, all the while creating a team which will ultimately allow them to profit further from those images by chasing infringement. But this will ultimately hurt individuals who license their content individually (which is purportedly allowed through the exclusive program). I'd hate for my client relationships to be damaged because Alamy wanted to start pestering my customers about content they've paid for.

Edited by RyanU
Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing reminds me of two of my favorite quotes..

"And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams"

and

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RyanU said:

That might be a legal waiver for them, just in case they screw up your preferences.  But, it does feel a bit convenient that they've encouraged exclusivity, then pulled the incentive, all the while creating a team which will ultimately allow them to profit further from those images by chasing infringement.

 

 

they stated originally it was only for exclusive images, but we were told we could still opt out to the "automatic" feature.  Some people prefer to due the chasing themselves- more money for them.  Now it seems they have removed that option

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

 

it means the total licensing fee- how much image is licensed  for.  Regardless how my the distributor get, or Alamy takes.  

 

Not sure where there could be any confusion. 

 

 

Edited by BidC
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

How is this clause even legal?

"any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world." That's a charter for abuse.

Is anyone able to explain what this clause means?  

Think (hope) I've got it now - does it mean that we can't sue Alamy if one of our images is used in that way?

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

 

 

they stated originally it was only for exclusive images, but we were told we could still opt out to the "automatic" feature.  Some people prefer to due the chasing themselves- more money for them.  Now it seems they have removed that option

 

 

more on this.

NEW Clause. 

 

4.6. In the event you become aware of any alleged copyright infringements in respect of the Content, you will: (i) contact Alamy first to check whether a permitted download or licence has been made; and (ii) will not contact the user of the Content unless and until Alamy advises you that it will not be pursuing the alleged infringement in accordance with clause 16.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

more on this.

NEW Clause. 

 

4.6. In the event you become aware of any alleged copyright infringements in respect of the Content, you will: (i) contact Alamy first to check whether a permitted download or licence has been made; and (ii) will not contact the user of the Content unless and until Alamy advises you that it will not be pursuing the alleged infringement in accordance with clause 16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said at the time I had a terrible suspicion that this 'exciting' new copyright initiative would turn into another DACS style money-grab from contributors.

 

I guess the answer is to declare all images as non-exclusive. But I have a bad feeling about their next move after that.....

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

thanks, looked through the Contract changes and couldn't find anything.

may be 

 

Other thing i can't find is a limit or explicitly stated commission taken by the distributor.  So the drop may be even higher.  Here comes below one cents sales.

It's in the blog article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, geogphotos said:

 

 

As I said at the time I had a terrible suspicion that this 'exciting' new copyright initiative would turn into another DACS money-grab from contributors.

 

 

sure looks like it.

 

 

A percentage, equal to the applicable commission rate for that Content, of all amounts recovered by Alamy in connection with any claims or actions pursuant to clause 16.5 (after first deducting collection fees and reasonable legal expenses incurred by Alamy) will be paid to you

 

 

 

Interesting contract point,  what date is used for the applicable commission rate?  Date of infringement, or date Alamy finally settles?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ognyan Yosifov said:

It's 

It's in the blog article.

 

 

thanks.  Someone did mention it after (i'll go add note on original as many will be starting fresh).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

All image in my portfolio are exclusive, but obviously this doesn’t make sense going forward. I haven’t waded through the comments, so I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this, but you can have Alamy mark all your images non-exclusive, at least I assume so, since I had them mark all of mine exclusive. But since there is no benefit to this, I will start marketing these images through my Smugmug site in addition to Alamy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prediction for next year: Alamy will be renamed PA Picture Library and storage fees will be reintroduced for any images submitted by individual contributors rather than agencies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

Alex Rotenberg's analysis of his return per image per year on Alamy  vs. SS is why he titled his post "I love you Alamy, but I’m breaking up with you!’ over at Photo Archive News. You should read it. 

 

Definitely worth to read, thanks.

Whats not fair (I would expect some fairness in business): Alamy forced lot of contributors to review and flag images as exclusive, reasonable approach. Now these efforts are just wiped away with a contract change because some contributors did not handle this correct. Well, lets stop all car traffic as some dont follow the rules.

 

Apparently,  Alamy owners simply wants more profit - but instead of raising the quality (removing millions of scrappy pics, add a basic content review on uploaded pics, stop selling high res for nothing as 'presentation use') they go the simple way - more and more of same pictures available elsewhere.

I dont see a future for single contributors at Alamy. Currently you are 'gold' with 250 $/year, takes a second to shift this to 2500 $/year, I bet this will happen 2023.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, kay said:

Is anyone able to explain what this clause means?  

Think (hope) I've got it now - does it mean that we can't sue Alamy if one of our images is used in that way?

It's deliberatly open to interpretation: wiggle room for them.

They have specifically said "any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."

If Alamy uses content in that way, why shouldn't they be sued?

Why have they even stated that as a possibility?

I'm assuming their lawyers have gone over this contract, but they can't decide what is, or is deemed to be. any of these things - laws exist to govern these tings. They can't just ignore laws by in venting a 'get out of jail free' card. They should be concentrating on making end-user contracts restrictive and not 'granting' them illegal rights.

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
clarity
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

Alex Rotenberg's analysis of his return per image per year on Alamy  vs. SS is why he titled his post "I love you Alamy, but I’m breaking up with you!’ over at Photo Archive News. You should read it. 

do you have a link to the analysis?

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

Please clarify, is there now ANY monetary benefit to mark images as "exclusive"??? If not, does marking them non-exclusive immediately take effect? My aim is to put multiple agencies in play ASAP. I Thanks. 

Presumably as from July there will be no monetary benefit, when the new contract comes into operation. 

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

This is bad news for Alamy, last year sales have crashed and now this! how about doing a Survey with us before announcing massive changes??? remember last time you did this and it was a car crash. 

 

I feel this could backfire on Alamy, with loss of contributors.

 

Not happy.

 

 

I think you could be right.

There is now absolutely no incentive to supply exclusive content to Alamy. Seems very shortsighted to me, they must have millions & millions of exclusive images which they could now lose to other agencies rather than market and promote this content. It's one of the reasons buyers go to Alamy (according to their marketing blurb). Seems they are going down the pile it high, sell it cheap route instead.

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

Also, people with RF-exclusive contracts elsewhere, from which they almost certainly earn more, need to be very aware of:

"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;", which means they can license files we designated as RM specifically as RF, or even give them away for free for whatever purpose they choose.

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

Ah well - there you go. Some people are of less superior intelligence it seems, and are easily confused.

I do find in life it's always best to clarify.

I'm sorry you feel angry, but no need to take it out on me.

Many people have lost jobs and have taken huge wage cuts, so this is really no surprise (to me of little brain). 

Thank you in any event ! 

 

 

sorry, didn't mean to be abrupt, just going through all the clauses changes, and more cut and pasting.  sorry. 

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.