Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Shelly R said:

I am still a bit confused about what happens to me now as a "Blue model" contributor? Does my original contract remain in effect, or will I be going from 50% commission on my exclusively Alamy images to 20% if sales continue to be slow? (With no difference in commission between Exclusive and Non-Exclusive images any longer--and regardless of Silver/Gold/Platinum level?

As far I understand it, whichever contract you are on, it will change to the new one, whatever the exact clauses. You will be a Gold contributor to start with, and depending on whether you hit $250 GROSS sales during 2021/2022 you will either remain on Gold at 40% commission or go down to 20% on the Silver commission rate. If at any time during 2021/2022 your gross sales hit $250, you’ll automatically go up to the Gold 40% commission rate.

 

Easy to understand n’est pas? 😗

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

As far I understand it, whichever contract you are on, it will change to the new one, whatever the exact clauses. You will be a Gold contributor to start with, and depending on whether you hit $250 GROSS sales during 2021/2022 you will either. Remain on Gold at 40% commission or go down to 20% on the Silver commission  rate.

 

just one clarification as written it is $250 of what Alamy receives from Customer for licencing of images, so this would potentially exclude:

  • Distributor's commission
  • DACS payment
  • and maybe part/totality infringement awards depending how this new stream is developed (is an infringor a "Customer")   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The third issue with this contract is that the agencies and such do get to set minimum terms, and the individual contributors don't.  I feel that $3.80 for a good but not unique photo of Old Rag Mountain in the Shenandoah National Park is sort of okay (and understand that landscapes are very common), but $1.34 for a released photograph for a five year contract is a bit insulting.   Thought we would get higher payment when the photos had full releases.  Oh, well.

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

 

just one clarification as written it is $250 of what Alamy receives from Customer for licencing of images, so this would potentially exclude:

  • Distributor's commission
  • DACS payment
  • and maybe part/totality infringement awards depending how this new stream is developed (is an infringor a "Customer")   

 

Yes I was just looking at the contract wording (and tagging @Sally) because it doesn't specify whether that $250 in 'your total License Fees' for that year is gross sales, what the clients were charged, or if it's my cut. (Also, so the exclusivity benefit is no more?)

 

At the end of each Revenue Year if your total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds:

  1. are less than $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will automatically switch to Alamy Silver as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table; or
  2. are greater than or equal to $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will remain on Alamy Gold for that year, as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelly R said:

Yes I was just looking at the contract wording (and tagging @Sally) because it doesn't specify whether that $250 in 'your total License Fees' for that year is gross sales, what the clients were charged, or if it's my cut. (Also, so the exclusivity benefit is no more?)

 

At the end of each Revenue Year if your total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds:

  1. are less than $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will automatically switch to Alamy Silver as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table; or
  2. are greater than or equal to $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will remain on Alamy Gold for that year, as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table.

Have to agree. At the beginning I couldn't work out whether it was $250 gross or net, then noted everyone thought it was gross, but I wasn't clear why.

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

As far I understand it, whichever contract you are on, it will change to the new one, whatever the exact clauses. You will be a Gold contributor to start with, and depending on whether you hit $250 GROSS sales during 2021/2022 you will either remain on Gold at 40% commission or go down to 20% on the Silver commission rate. If at any time during 2021/2022 your gross sales hit $250, you’ll automatically go up to the Gold 40% commission rate.

 

Easy to understand n’est pas? 😗

I just tagged you in another comment -- I keep seeing contributors referring to our "gross sales" but the contract isn't clear on what's included in "your total License Fees," whether that's our commissions/cut or the gross of what client's paid before fees are deducted:

 

At the end of each Revenue Year if your total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds:

  1. are less than $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will automatically switch to Alamy Silver as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table; or
  2. are greater than or equal to $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will remain on Alamy Gold for that year, as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Shelly R said:

Yes I was just looking at the contract wording (and tagging @Sally) because it doesn't specify whether that $250 in 'your total License Fees' for that year is gross sales, what the clients were charged, or if it's my cut. (Also, so the exclusivity benefit is no more?)

 

At the end of each Revenue Year if your total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds:

  1. are less than $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will automatically switch to Alamy Silver as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table; or
  2. are greater than or equal to $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will remain on Alamy Gold for that year, as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table.

 

 

if you look at definition of 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.

 

So Alamy's Commission is clearly included in the Calculations (it was received by Alamy from a Customer), but there are other big question marks about the ones i highlighted, and there has been no clarifications since this was brought up 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

i think you need a mix.   Because someone with your numbers should clearly qualify, even if you didn't get the licence ordinal number.   I'll should be fine based on recent since i do seem to be getting at least one mid $$ licence per month.

 

 but i do think that someone who that demonstrates they produce material that customer want should be considered valuable by Alamy, even if they got hit by some promotional discount that Alamy offered. 

 

 

btw congrats on your nice results. 

 

Merci, monsieur. At one time, all a newcomer to Alamy would need to meet a relatively small $250 annual threshold was a handful of dependable sellers. However, the situation has obviously changed for a number of reasons, not all of them under new contributors' control (e.g. falling prices). Still, anyone who makes a single mid-$$ sale or even a couple of low $$ ones every month should easily be able to turn Silver into Gold. Reaching Platinum "Pie in the Sky" is another story. Forgetaboutit. 😜

 

I like your reward idea of course, but somehow I don't think the accountants would agree. 🤑

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Just working through an edit received back from elsewhere. A fantastic, hugely experienced editor with such a great eye and who picks out the winners. They are always so friendly and supportive, always find something positive to say, and don't bother saying anything about what they don't want ( unlike a former editor in Spain who did the exact opposite 😄). No stress about releases as they are all going as editorial, if somebody wants to use them commercially that is down to them. Anything dubious I think the editor just knows to avoid by working to guidance and using experience. No worries. 

 

 

Is our former friend in Barcelona now "a former editor"?--or just former to you (and me)?  And is there any way you can point us in the direction of that knowledgeable person you know--an extinct species, I thought--who provides supportive guidance?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ollie said:

Is our former friend in Barcelona now "a former editor"?--or just former to you (and me)?  And is there any way you can point us in the direction of that knowledgeable person you know--an extinct species, I thought--who provides supportive guidance?

 

Yes, former because I removed all my pics to go Alamy exclusive and closed my account there - not entirely due to Alamy but also sales having fallen away.

 

There are plenty of specialist and other options out there. Looking through the BAPLA list and equivalent ones in your territory would be where to start to find ones for your subject area. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Wholeheartedly agree. We need more feedback from Alamy about the use of the "editorial box" in light of the new contract -- e.g. should we be checking the box for every image that has someone with a recognizable face in it? I haven't been doing this.

Would we lose many sales if we tick editorial for the entire port, working through them in batches of 500?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have equipment and third party liability insurance to cover Stock Photography. There is other cover available (but I don't currently have it) for Professional Indemnity. I asked my insurer whether my existing policy, or the addition of the Professional Indemnity Policy would cover clause 5.1. The answer was no, as it looks like a 'hold harmless' agreement.

 

I really do think that if Alamy want cover for what is in the new 5.1, they should be taking out insurance or shouldering the risk themselves. It would then be in their interests to make sure that all parties complied with their obligations.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I can see Alamy's POV as well. However, as you suggest, given today's low prices, I think that number of sales per year rather than income would be a fairer metric to use when setting thresholds. I had two low $ "tiddlers" (both images have licensed for high fees in the past) show up today. Mind you, I've also had a $200 license this month plus a couple of high $$ ones as well.

Making commission dependent on a factor which is determined by Alamy alone, with no input from the contributor, does look like a bit of a racket. And you know what they say........looks, waddles, quacks, duck.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith Douglas said:

I have equipment and third party liability insurance to cover Stock Photography. There is other cover available (but I don't currently have it) for Professional Indemnity. I asked my insurer whether my existing policy, or the addition of the Professional Indemnity Policy would cover clause 5.1. The answer was no, as it looks like a 'hold harmless' agreement.

 

I really do think that if Alamy want cover for what is in the new 5.1, they should be taking out insurance or shouldering the risk themselves. It would then be in their interests to make sure that all parties complied with their obligations.

 

Mr Standfast reported a similar response from two insurances companies in the After Alamy - Where Now? thread. I've held off enqiring about indemnity insurance until we have a definitive response from Alamy on whatever changes they are considering. At the moment though, it doesn't look good for an ongoing career as an Alamy contributor unless there is a significant change of heart in high places.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

Mr Standfast reported a similar response from two insurances companies in the After Alamy - Where Now? thread. I've held off enqiring about indemnity insurance until we have a definitive response from Alamy on whatever changes they are considering. At the moment though, it doesn't look good for an ongoing career as an Alamy contributor unless there is a significant change of heart in high places.

 

Hi,

 

A third insurance company is still pending or maybe laughing?

 

I also put the idea of Alamy/PA helping us to source cover in an email to the MD on 21st May. My reply said Customer Relations were CC'd on my question so they could comment.

 

In the words of many people being asked difficult questions, "No Comment", so far.

 

James

Edited by Mr Standfast
typing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, DDoug said:

Presumably, an agency looks out for the interests of its contributors when dealing with buyers of image licenses. In practice, it appears that agencies look out for themselves exclusively and only treat contributors just enough better than other agencies to keep them from leaving in droves, if only by a whisker. After all, 30 percent is still better than 20 percent.

 

I wonder if it might not be like buying coffee or bananas. When the commodity is labeled “Fair Trade” lots of people buy it in preference to other brands because they want to see the banana and coffee farmers treated fairly. Perhaps a Fair Trade stock agency that guarantees to pay contributors no less than 50 percent of fees for rights managed licenses would have a good market opportunity.

When I joined Alamy that was exactly how I perceived that Alamy was, ie minimum 50% commission, & unless my memory is going, thats exactly how they “sold it” to Photographers.

Obviously the stock industry and camera usage has changed massively in the last 10 years, I’m not saying I’m any good, but it was more about having a professional attitude and ability, but if you thought you could create some decent stock photos and abided by Alamy’s image criteria and upload your images the way they wanted them, you could make some sales.

 

I guess with the massive change and drop in prices, plus PA taking over its now changed its role, which is a shame, but even Alamy have been special lot of time seemingly promoting the idea of “its easy” and “just take a photo & upload it”, in the same why Microstock companies have aimed at the market, but I also guess with all the acquisitions they have made & the amount of images they now have PA/Alamy have decided they can afford to cull the numbers.

 

As has been said before I’d rather they were more transparent about this fact, but it’s the guys who are very good stock photographers who I feel sorry for and who naturally & rightfully are concerned about their future, which PA/Alamy should have thought about or talked to? Or maybe they have?
 

Good luck everyone 

Chris

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

I resigned, but I rather see their point -- lots of people are playing at being photographers and making minimal sales.  

A short time ago Alamy was actively seeking out anyone from the crowd that wanted to join. I'm sure tons of folks from social media hopped on board. Now the new owners are trying to thin the herd. What could possibly go wrong?? I'm still in the resign camp.

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

A short time ago Alamy was actively seeking out anyone from the crowd that wanted to join. I'm sure tons of folks from social media hopped on board. Now the new owners are trying to thin the herd. What could possibly go wrong?? I'm still in the resign camp.

 

I've resigned.   This reminds me of people who feel like their lives will be complete if they sell one novel.  But publishers don't want one novel writers.  They want writers who can build an audience and deliver more books as that audience grows.  If you just sold one novel, it's a good sign that you failed to find a commercially viable audience.   Here, if you're in Group Silver, you've failed to produce sufficient photos can be used by stock buyers in their projects.   If this is fine with you, then you're going to pay 20% more for bragging rights.   The alternative is to produce sufficient photos that stock buyer want for their projects, and that means figuring out what isn't working.  PA/Alamy is giving people a year to do this. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Making commission dependent on a factor which is determined by Alamy alone, with no input from the contributor, does look like a bit of a racket. And you know what they say........looks, waddles, quacks, duck.

 

Yes, for many contributors, getting out of "Silver" will be like struggling to get out of quicksand.

 

Not too subtle a hint, I must say...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh...people......just make your minds up and get on with it. 

 

Do what you got to do. End of.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Sheesh...people......just make your minds up and get on with it. 

 

Do what you got to do. End of.


 

This is fair game until we get a clarification from Alamy, Ian. (No reds from me, btw).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As we have interpreted every aspect of the contract, explored every avenue Alamy should take  for 84 pages I think its reasonable for a chap to have a moan without being downvoted. It's got passed the point where what we say will dilute our position. 

 

Stay safe.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nodvandigtid said:

It would be hard for people to make their mind up at this stage pending some form of clarification that Alamy promised and are still presumably working on.

 

Back on page 64 you wrote; " .....I'm off." 

 

Twenty pages later you are still here - not made your own mind up yet?

 

Let's all settle down and wait and see what develops, hopefully sooner rather than later - and then once we know what lies ahead, each of us can make our own mind up about what we are doing.   

 

 

I made my mind up as you say.

 

Why don't the rest of you make your decision?

 

What are you actually waiting for? 

 

Is a fairy god-mother coming to wave a magic wand for you?

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 10
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.