Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[geogphotos]

Maybe a few hundred more red arrows will really get them to change the contract. 

 

Don't hold back

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

Yes.

Brentford beat Swansea 2-0.

 

 

 

Curious, as on outsider, would you rather cheer for a team  contender in Championship, or a team in the relegation zone of the Premiership nowadays? 

Edited May 29, 2021 by meanderingemu

[AlbertSnapper]

4 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Curious, as on outsider, would you rather cheer for a team  contender in Championship, or a team in the relegation zone of the Premiership nowadays? 

I don't actually like, or follow, football. Or sport in general.

But if I have to, I would rather cheer for the underdog.

 

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

I don't actually like, or follow, football. Or sport in general.

But if I have to, I would rather cheer for the underdog.

 

 

thanks.  i guess i would have more fun following second or third tier leagues nowadays- i know in North American baseball in enjoy the minor leagues much more....  but i understand cheering for underdogs. 

[MizBrown]

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

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

 

Do what you got to do. End of.

 

People can make up their minds to wait for contract revisions, but if those aren't forthcoming before July 1, everyone who didn't resign will be under the new contract terms.  

 

Contract revisions show up before July 1, or they don't.  The clock either restarts when they present the revised contract, or it doesn't.  

 

[gardenbush]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Maybe a few hundred more red arrows will really get them to change the contract. 

 

Don't hold back

hmmm stay away from the red wine mate...

[NYCat]

12 hours 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.

 

I am finding this post very helpful. Thank you.

 

Paulette

[Russell Watkins]

10 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Hey guys, keep going with the red arrows and I feel sure you will get Alamy to change the contract.

 

 

 

You know that you're not forced to keep revisiting this forum thread, right?

[John Morrison]

11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

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

 

Don't care for 'bullying', you say?

[Ed Rooney]

10 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Curious, as on outsider, would you rather cheer for a team  contender in Championship, or a team in the relegation zone of the Premiership nowadays? 

 

It would depend on where I was sitting in the stadium.

[geogphotos]

The commission for most of us is being cut by 10 % points ( 20% drop in income)

 

Others are having they commission cut to a paltry 20%.

 

We will continue to bare all the costs of producing images, editing them, preparing them for sale.

 

Alamy will, however it is worded, pass more responsibility for indemnifying themselves to us, thereby putting us at some level of increased financial risk.

 

Alamy will be increasing their share by 10% points ( 20% increase in income) for doing no more work and taking less responsibility.

 

In addition they will muscle in to a new area and prevent those with exclusive images from chasing their OWN copyright infringements.

 

Russell asks if I realise that posting is not compulsory. I do realise that as long as I stay within the rules I am free to post or not post as I wish. Come and go as I wish. Go 'off' one day, come back another. Nobody's business but mine.

 

I am free to post whatever opinion I have and if that is unpopular then that is fine with me. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

( NB John Morrison - didn't you get banned for breaking the rules about bullying?)

Edited May 30, 2021 by geogphotos

[Russell Watkins]

5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

<snip>

 

Russell asks if I realise that posting is not compulsory. I do realise that as long as I stay within the rules I am free to post or not post as I wish.

 

I am free to post whatever opinion I have and if that is unpopular then that is fine with me. 

 

<snip>

 

It's not that I'm objecting to your posts, it's that you seem inordinately wound up by the thread.

 

When I see a thread that pisses me off, I just stop visiting (and re-visiting) it. Life's too short.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Russell Watkins

[geogphotos]

9 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

It's not that I'm objecting to your posts, it's that you seem inordinately wound up by the thread.

 

When I see a thread that pisses me off, I just stop visiting (and re-visiting) it. Life's too short.

 

 

I'm not particularly 'wound up' just puzzled/perplexed that people feel that they don't have enough information and that them writing about what Alamy 'should do ' or 'could do' is a lot less purposeful than discussing what Alamy actually are doing to us.

 

Alamy know precisely what they are doing and at whose expense.  This contract hasn't come from thin air. It is a grab. 

Edited May 30, 2021 by geogphotos

[Russell Watkins]

8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I'm not particularly 'wound up' just puzzled/perplexed that people feel that they don't have enough information and that them writing about what Alamy 'should do ' or 'could do' is a lot less purposeful than what Alamy actually are doing to us.

 

Alamy know precisely what they are doing and at whose expense.  This contract hasn't come from thin air. It is a grab. 

 

OK, but many of us aren't as experienced as you and don't see all of the ramifications. Some of us are finding the discussion useful in crystallising our ideas even 80 pages in. Especially surrounding the legal shenanigans.

 

In fact, the commission cut doesn't feature in any decision I'm going to make. The legal stuff does.

 

I am sure I'm not alone.

 

EDIT - and I'm not sure that Alamy "know precisely what they are doing". As I've said before, I suspect there's as much cock-up as conspiracy in the contract wording.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Russell Watkins

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

OK, but many of us aren't as experienced as you and don't see all of the ramifications. Some of us are finding the discussion useful in crystallising our ideas even 80 pages in. Especially surrounding the legal shenanigans.

 

In fact, the commission cut doesn't feature in any decision I'm going to make. The legal stuff does.

 

I am sure I'm not alone.

 

 

Not bothered about a 20% pay cut?

 

I certainly am damn well bothered!

 

We have been told that the clause about idemnity is going to be clarified. It may be that Alamy are searching the forum for guidance on how to word it but I somehow doubt it. 

 

My guess would be that it is all part of an expectation management plan in the lead up to July 1st.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by geogphotos

[Russell Watkins]

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Not bothered about a 20% pay cut?

 

I certainly am damn well bothered!

 

We have been told that the clause about idemnity is going to be clarified. It may be that Alamy are searching the forum for guidance on how to word it but I somehow doubt it. 

 

My guess would be that it is all part of an expectation management plan in the lead up to July 1st.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am bothered about the pay cut. Furious, in fact.

 

But if I'm going to jump ship, that isn't the contract change that will make me leap.

 

My future well-being is far more threatened by being on the hook for Alamy's court costs than it is by a 20% cut in commission.

[BobD]

19 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

OK, but many of us aren't as experienced as you and don't see all of the ramifications. Some of us are finding the discussion useful in crystallising our ideas even 80 pages in. Especially surrounding the legal shenanigans.

 

In fact, the commission cut doesn't feature in any decision I'm going to make. The legal stuff does.

 

I am sure I'm not alone.

 

EDIT - and I'm not sure that Alamy "know precisely what they are doing". As I've said before, I suspect there's as much cock-up as conspiracy in the contract wording.

 

I already decided to take the cut last time they revised the commission structure, so the reduction this time doesn't affect me. 

But like you I am waiting for the revision, and unless there is a complete revision on clause 5 in particular I will be resigning by the 30th as I am not prepared to accept the new contract.

[geogphotos]

21 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I am bothered about the pay cut. Furious, in fact.

 

But if I'm going to jump ship, that isn't the contract change that will make me leap.

 

My future well-being is far more threatened by being on the hook for Alamy's court costs than it is by a 20% cut in commission.

 

Yes I understand that. And for those who have lower revenues I can see that it looms up as a much less of an overall concern than the indemnity issue.

 

One of the main things that makes me so bothered is the deceit coming from Alamy. 

 

We were told in 2019 that knowing which images were exclusive was helpful to Alamy and was likely to lead to higher fees and better sales. We were offered a strange sort of reward ( retaining the previous 50% for exclusive images). That took months of boring pain-staking work for me and I lost around $1000 ( can't remember now) from having exclusive images marked as No-Ex through the transition. It took me around six months to close down accounts at other agencies, to get spreadsheets of all the information. Now we are casually told that the Exclusive collection is of no commercial value and is being switched to 40%. You what???

 

Then in the Xmas video we were assured that there were no plans for a commission cut. 

 

Whatever they do with rewriting contract clauses makes little difference as far as I am concerned. They have treated us as mugs ( cue John Morrison) and the trust has gone.

 

So when they tell us about their 'intentions' excuse me for not swallowing it this time.

Edited May 30, 2021 by geogphotos

[BobD]

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes I understand that. And for those who have lower revenues I can see that it looms up as a much less of an overall concern than the indemnity issue.

 

One of the main things that makes me so bothered is the deceit coming from Alamy. 

 

We were told in 2019 that knowing which images were exclusive was helpful to Alamy and was likely to lead to higher fees and better sales. We were offered a strange sort of reward ( retaining the previous 50% for exclusive images). That took months of boring pain-staking work for me and I lost around $1000 ( can't remember now) from having exclusive images marked as No-Ex through the transition. It took me around six months to close down accounts at other agencies, to get spreadsheets of all the information. Now we are casually told that the Exclusive collection is of no commercial value and is being switched to 40%. You what???

 

Then in the Xmas video we were assured that there were no plans for a commission cut. 

 

Whatever they do with rewriting contract clauses makes little difference as far as I am concerned. They have treated us as mugs ( cue John Morrison) and the trust has gone.

 

Yes Ian, we all feel that way, but what are you going to do.

[geogphotos]

27 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

Yes Ian, we all feel that way, but what are you going to do.

 

I am going to pause and see what happens. I feel trapped actually. I have worked on Alamy probably every day for around 18 years. 

 

I would love to make a gesture but am trying to stay calm enough just to wait and see. Throwing 70k images down the toilet pan is tempting but would just hurt myself not Alamy.

 

So, no more uploads from me, see what happens over the next 6 months. Probably switch all images to Non-Ex but not immediately - will see how the Infringement Team operates and what fees they get. I am deleting my old slide 'scans' - around 2500 images of other people's pictures. I am removing the most obvious risky images and changing a lot more to Editorial Only.

 

I have resumed uploading elsewhere instead of offering Ex images to Alamy.

Edited May 30, 2021 by geogphotos

[BobD]

I don't blame you for seriously considering your position, I obviously don't have as much to lose as yourself.

For me it is not about the cut, it's the continuous shift in the legal ramifications that is the line in the sand for me.

Edited May 30, 2021 by BobD

[geogphotos]

13 minutes ago, BobD said:

I don't blame you for seriously considering your position, I obviously don't have as much to lose as yourself.

For me it is not about the cut, it's the continuous shift in the legal ramifications that is the line in the sand for me.

 

 

During that six months I intend to gradual remove older slide scans ( the first ones that I aded to Alamy back in 2002-05) and move them to a website I am going to build at ( nothing there as yet but I've bought the domain name) www.oldslidephotos.com

 

I still waiting for Photoshelter to get their act together over that.

 

Now it could be that after 6 months Alamy sales increase and everything is tickety-boo. If so I might start contributing again. This is business. I am trying to frame a reaction to the contract which is both constructive and cautious. 

Edited May 30, 2021 by geogphotos

[Russell Watkins]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I am trying to frame a reaction to the contract which is both constructive and cautious. 

 

As are many of us. And, for me at least, this thread is useful, helpful information. There is plenty of signal amongst the noise. 

 

[imageplotter]

35 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I am going to pause and see what happens. I feel trapped actually. I have worked on Alamy probably every day for around 18 years. 

 

I would love to make a gesture but am trying to stay calm enough just to wait and see. Throwing 70k images down the toilet pan is tempting but would just hurt myself not Alamy.

 

So, no more uploads from me, see what happens over the next 6 months. Probably switch all images to Non-Ex but not immediately - will see how the Infringement Team operates and what fees they get. I am deleting my old slide 'scans' - around 2500 images of other people's pictures. I am removing the most obvious risky images and changing a lot more to Editorial Only.

 

I have resumed uploading elsewhere instead of offering Ex images to Alamy.

 

Ditto. I have a much smaller port, but feel equally trapped. A lot of work went into it. And with a lot of mine being 'people' images (up to last year, at least...due to covid it's all wildlife for almost all of 2020/21😁), and many London event news images, including lots of photo calls, festivals, protests etc, quite a chunk of mine is likely to be in the 'risky' category you describe. Ditto a lot of my travel imagery depends on people content. They're all marked as editorial only, but I feel exposed and vulnerable with insurers not wanting to cover the risks pushed onto photographers now in the new/amended contract clauses. So I'll wait and see, probably go non-exclusive, and at the first sign of serious legal trouble being reported by anyone (or experienced by myself) I'll have to pull all of the images. Sad times, Alamy. Or perhaps I should say, sad times, Press Association.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by imageplotter

[Jools Elliott]

I think the overall and overriding issue here is that @Alamy have said time and again no commission cuts and yet they then go and cut the commission.

 

Sorry @Alamy but you are just in this for yourselves and you are deceitful 😠