Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jayembee69 said:

I've now opted out of these sales - way too exploitative !

Except you can't opt out of Distribution until April next year... ūüėČ

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

Except you can't opt out of Distribution until April next year... ūüėČ

Yeah you can, they extended it. I'm completely out now

 

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

Yeah you can, they extended it. I'm completely out now

 

They did?  OK, my bad.  Going to opt out now...

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

Except you can't opt out of Distribution until April next year... ūüėČ

 

 

stated above, the blog says we now have a new 3 months window.  

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

Except you can't opt out of Distribution until April next year... ūüėČ

 

Amazing how all these changes come in May isn't it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CarlMillerPhotos said:

This is very sad and is causing me to re-evaluate my relationship with Alamy. WE produce the content. You have no right to 80% of ANYONE'S labor. This is unconscionable. 

 

Hear Hear!

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

Alamy are hammering the nails into their own coffin.

 

So many photographers have stopped doing stock as the cost and sheer effort required was simply not worth the paltry commission payouts any longer and Alamy are now lowering them still further.

 

Time to find a new way to sell my images.  In fact I already have and it's way more lucrative than selling stock.

Edited by jgr
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

 

Every agency which has done the dirty on contributors has lost a proportion of their suppliers. They presumably factor that into their accounting.

Sometimes, it's about profitability rather than overall profit, for example. A concept I can't get my head round.

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

this has been done with other agencies who did the nasty, to little, if any, effect.

Yup. They've already got millions of pics already... A month of a few contributors not uploading an alternative to something in their library isn't going to hurt them... Buyers will go for the next option. May hurt them on the Live News side however... The downside is you can't exactly delete your pics without waiting half a year for it to take effect, in which time Alamy can continue to sell the photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reimar said:

OK, I get it.  If the distributor fee is still 40% before that, we lose.

That's a bit of a sneaky table.  The real "what we earn" should be listed.

 

 

But they can't tell you, as the Distributors' commission is no longer part of our Agreement.  Distributors could take 90% and this would still be fine with the terms we agreed with 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been uploading less in the last year due to covid restrictions etc and as a live news contributor, the increasingly lower fees that we are getting for live news content has been making me consider my options going forward. This new contract now makes it clear now that playing by the rules and being exclusive at Alamy is not good business model anymore. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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.

 

 

This clause is under "Contributor Certifications," so my reading of it (I'm not a lawyer) is that we are certifying this statement concerning all our images. I can't think of any image that could not be used such that someone somewhere in the world could deem it offensive, so no way I can so certify.

 

I read through the Contributor Certification section until I was overcome by legalese, but the gist seems to be to throw responsibilities and liabilities our way. More risk, less money. The clause above (4.1.6) was the most alarming to me.

 

As it stands now, I'm pretty sure I'll be leaving before this comes into effect. To me, the potential liabilities are more concerning than anything about commissions.

 

Been here since 2004. Have had at least $250 in sales every year. Over $25,000 in total--close enough, Alamy?

Edited by Bill Kuta
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

That's me out of Distribution.

 

At least we can still do that, I have also opted out of all distribution.

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

I have been uploading less in the last year due to covid restrictions etc and as a live news contributor, the increasingly lower fees that we are getting for live news content has been making me consider my options going forward. This new contract now makes it clear now that playing by the rules and being exclusive at Alamy is not good business model anymore. 

Unless they bring back the 50/50 split for exclusive content then the only sensible business decision for us is to get Alamy to change everything to non exclusive and supply as many agencies as possible. This is our business too.

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

Yup. They've already got millions of pics already... A month of a few contributors not uploading an alternative to something in their library isn't going to hurt them... Buyers will go for the next option. May hurt them on the Live News side however... The downside is you can't exactly delete your pics without waiting half a year for it to take effect, in which time Alamy can continue to sell the photos.

Bummer, I completely take your point, maybe I'm naively hopeful, but I'm a believer in small actions adding up. They cleverly retained the high-earners on the 50%, if they don't see a change they won't complain as it won't affect them, but it sure would be good to have them on our side.

 

There is a wild idea - blockchain for stock photography, where we completely cut out the middleman!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harry Harrison said:

Petapixel are reporting it here. There are links to a James West Youtube video posted today but they are 'Private' to me.

Isn't that an article from 2018?

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

Unless they bring back the 50/50 split for exclusive content then the only sensible business decision for us is to get Alamy to change everything to non exclusive and supply as many agencies as possible. This is our business too.

Yeah, there is no benefit to being exclusive anymore. £$£$ talks.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lynchpics said:

Yeah, there is no benefit to being exclusive anymore. £$£$ talks.

 

I feel like that 25k point to retain 50% is less of a goal for lower earners (pretty much unattainable) but a choice to appease high-rollers who are earning Alamy a majority of their income. The last thing Alamy wants is for them to be dissuaded from a continuing relationship.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be grateful if Alamy would clarify what is classed as a personal website.

 

New Clause 2.10 says,

 

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.

 

Is Photoshelter classed as 'another licensing platform'?

 

The definition of Exclusive is 

 

...any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.

 

If I use Photoshelter as my website, how do I stand?

 

PS I am appalled by this new contract, but you knew that would be the case.

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.