Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Taina]

1 hour ago, Foreign Export said:

 

contracts by their very nature contain legal terms and language - they can be simplified somewhat but there is a limit as to how far this can be taken. Without any "legal" terms the contract in itself would be worthless

 

Im sure that Alamy could provide a copy in other languages - and indeed doing so is quite common practice these days

 

 

 

 

Naturally legal documents require a certain format to make them valid. I'm sure all of us have dealt with a few of these during our lifetime. 

But - if the document is made super complicated, needlessly complicated, you'll have to wonder what the intentions behind that action are. 

 

[Foreign Export]

9 minutes ago, Taina said:

Naturally legal documents require a certain format to make them valid. I'm sure all of us have dealt with a few of these during our lifetime. 

But - if the document is made super complicated, needlessly complicated, you'll have to wonder what the intentions behind that action are. 

 

Yes I agree with that point - but not your earlier one that suggested Alamy should base contracts on contributors working with images - yes the contract should be fair and yes it should be equitable 

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Which is odd, as to the layperson, the aim seems to be to make it as ambiguous as possible so that lawyers can spend hours, weeks or months debating the intricacies and inferences ad nauseum, at the expense of the rest of us.

trust me it was extremely frustrating in an exercise that was meant to make it easier to understand for the people they were supposed to protect.  

[Homy]

9 hours ago, DawnOne said:

Seriously? Well, too late now, but they have just committed the ultimate insult and sold one of my photos for $4.70 (at 50%) which is the lowest price yet in 5 years. I wrote to Alamy- Hello! I have a question. How did you manage to sell one of my photos (of the band Rush) for the princely sum of $4.70, of which you take half? This only solidifies my decision to quit Alamy as being the correct one. This will be the last photo you sell for me, and it is something to remember you by. But seriously, I don't believe it's listed anywhere on my page (see attachments) that the price is that low, and to add insult to injury, they have it for 5 years and archival rights in perpetuity??? WTF??? What a deal- for them. 

Linda Dawn Hammond

 

Then you're lucky. I have sold several music images and got 30% of the price because I sell mostly through distributors. Now with the new contract I will get only 20%. Funny thing is that I have mostly sold to Swedish media (where I live) and could get much more if I could sell directly to them but I have to go through Alamy since the Swedish agencies I have applied for have rejected me. They don't want hobby photographers but keep buying my images here.

[meanderingemu]

7 minutes ago, Homy said:

 

Then you're lucky. I have sold several music images and got 30% of the price because I sell mostly through distributors. Now with the new contract I will get only 20%. Funny thing is that I have mostly sold to Swedish media (where I live) and could get much more if I could sell directly to them but I have to go through Alamy since the Swedish agencies I have applied for have rejected me. They don't want hobby photographers but keep buying my images here.

 

 

Actually with the new contract you will now have no idea what % you get on distributor sales, as Alamy will apply the 80% commission AFTER REMOVING the Distributor cut. 

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, Homy said:

Now with the new contract I will get only 20%. 

 

 

Some have interpreted this as Alamy wanting to cull hobbyists. I think the opposite. I think they want to pressure people who have built larger collections and in the end force them down into the lowest band increment by increment.

 

What they want is very large numbers of hobbyist contributors who don't really care about the financial side of things because they don't do stock for money. The sort of people who will moan a bit on forums about their commission cut but who don't actually rely on the income as a significant part of their livelihood. People who find it a sociable thing to be a part of, discussing photography with others, something to tell friends about, and that gives a reason for going out and about with the gear.

 

I do agree that once this scaled commission structure is in place it won't stay still. The 20% threshold will creep up in a series of steps squeezing many of those currently on 40% to accept the new terms or quit. 

 

Imagine if Alamy could get the majority of its contributors accepting 20% and the images still continuing to pour in? Job done.

 

First they came for the $250 earners, and I did not speak out—because I was not a $250 earner.

.....

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by geogphotos

[Homy]

38 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Actually with the new contract you will now have no idea what % you get on distributor sales, as Alamy will apply the 80% commission AFTER REMOVING the Distributor cut. 

 

Damn, you're right. Another nail in the coffin! In the new contract it says Alamy 80% - You 20% so I thought Alamy would split the 80% between them and the distributor but it says "For Content sales via our Distributors after deduction of Distributor fee or commission". Before Alamy took 30%, the distributor 40% and I 30%. Assuming the distributor still takes 40% it means Alamy will take 48% of the original price and I get only 12%!! 18% deduction from 30% to 12% is a 60% income loss!!!

Edited June 1, 2021 by Homy

[EYESITE]

Just to register my displeasure and agree with pretty much everything that has been previously written by so many loyal Alamy contributors, I wont be adding any new images until after the new contract has come into place and if nothing has been changed to allay our fears with regards this new contract then my enthusiasm to continue will sadly end.

 

Please Alamy / PA do take note of everyone's concerns and try and find some compromise and clarify this liability debate !

 

All the best to all those who have taken the time to explain things and highlight the contract concerns, thank you.

 

Neil

 

Greed will be the end of us on this planet  😞

Edited June 2, 2021 by EYESITE
spelling mistake

[Cryptoprocta]

36 minutes ago, Homy said:

 

Damn, you're right. Another nail in the coffin! In the new contract it says Alamy 80% - You 20% so I thought Alamy would split the 80% between them and the distributor but it says "For Content sales via our Distributors after deduction of Distributor fee or commission". Before Alamy took 30%, the distributor 40% and I 30%. Assuming the distributor still takes 40% it means Alamy will take 48% of the original price and I get only 12%!! 18% deduction from 30% to 12% is a 60% income decrease!!!

"We now work with 80 distributors, and have gained around 30 distributor contracts via our merger with PA Images which are usually on a 50/50 basis. It's in Alamy's interest to work to get the best deal but in some cases the distributor will take the majority share if we feel it's the only way we can truly access that market, choice is limited and volumes are high. We have no desire not to be transparent on this but simply can't detail every single arrangement. We are keeping the opt-out available for distribution during the notice period for these changes."

[Homy]

33 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

"We now work with 80 distributors, and have gained around 30 distributor contracts via our merger with PA Images which are usually on a 50/50 basis. It's in Alamy's interest to work to get the best deal but in some cases the distributor will take the majority share if we feel it's the only way we can truly access that market, choice is limited and volumes are high. We have no desire not to be transparent on this but simply can't detail every single arrangement. We are keeping the opt-out available for distribution during the notice period for these changes."

 

Thanks but what do you mean by that? In my case it's on 70/30 basis and will be 88/12. At best 76/24 if I manage to earn $250.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Homy

[MizBrown]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Some have interpreted this as Alamy wanting to cull hobbyists. I think the opposite. I think they want to pressure people who have built larger collections and in the end force them down into the lowest band increment by increment.

 

I think there are a large number of people who have very tiny portfolios on Alamy who don't care one way or the other.  I suspect that Alamy does most of its business with its 600 agencies rather than with its 60,000 individual photographers.   I wouldn't be surprised if more of those 60,000 had portfolios of 600 or less than had portfolios of 4,000 or more (Alamy average from total photos and total photographers without agencies, so if the agencies account for more than half of the available photos, the average individual portfolio would be closer to 2,000 photos.

 

A lot of people imagine that the stream of photos will be endless because artists will do art anyway. 

 

Wikimedia gives its free contributors more legal advice than Alamy gives.

 

[geogphotos]

8 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

 

A lot of people imagine that the stream of photos will be endless because artists will do art anyway. 

 

Wikimedia gives its free contributors more legal advice than Alamy gives.

 

 

But they don't have to upload it to Alamy. That for me is the only way I can demonstrate my discontent. 

 

Perhaps I will change my mind after 6 months but that will depend on sales increasing. I've had enough of trying to catch a falling knife.

Edited June 1, 2021 by geogphotos

[Cryptoprocta]

52 minutes ago, Homy said:

 

Thanks but what do you mean by that? In my case it's on 70/30 basis and will be 88/12. At best 76/24 if I manage to earn $250.

I didn't say that, the MD of PA said that. It means that the commission going to each distributor will be different, so you can't know what percentage you'll get until you see the sales.

[Mr Standfast]

On 25/05/2021 at 16:36, Mr Standfast said:

As I wrote in Josephs where now thread..

 

As mentioned, I was contacting Indemnity providers try to get cover.

 

So far two companies have replied. Ripe and Directline. Both have discussed 5.1 with their underwriters who have declined to cover the clause.

 

I am awaiting a third reply.

 

I have the third reply.

 

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

 

Now, here are my disclaimers:-

My comments are for information only.

This post is not a recommendation, do your own rescearch and draw your own conclusions, I am not telling you what to do.

I will receive no reward or compensation for this information.

 

Good Luck!

 

[meanderingemu]

10 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

I will receive no reward or compensation for this information.

 

Good Luck!

 

 

should i remove the "Thanks" i gave your post?

[Mr Standfast]

4 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

should i remove the "Thanks" i gave your post?

Nahh! Cheers. 👍

[AndrewP]

13 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

Thanks for finding out this information. Did they give an indication what the premiums would be for the cover?

I still find it frustrating that we've got to the point of looking for specialist insurance cover based on a clause in a contract.

[geogphotos]

26 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

I have the third reply.

 

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

 

 

 

 

 

So now we need a thread about the Hiscox contract.🙃

 

 

[Mr Standfast]

Just now, geogphotos said:

 

 

So now we need a thread about the Hiscox contract.🙃

 

 

Back on form!

[geogphotos]

27 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Back on form!

 

Kind of you. I have been feeling super pis8ed off to be honest and too snappy.

 

Apologies to everybody. 

 

Not so good seeing a 20% and more cut in my income after so much work. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by geogphotos

[Nodvandigtid]

1 hour ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

I have the third reply.

 

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

 

Now, here are my disclaimers:-

My comments are for information only.

This post is not a recommendation, do your own rescearch and draw your own conclusions, I am not telling you what to do.

I will receive no reward or compensation for this information.

 

Good Luck!

 

 

Out of the three you contacted - Hiscox would probably be the recognised PI (Professional Indemnity) insurance provider.

 

I have no idea what "their cover is good for clause 5.1" actually means and I won't ask you to copy the Hiscox reply but I would be very surprised, when they contacted you, if they didn't put a caveat in that the cover they provide is "subject otherwise to the terms exceptions and conditions" (I will use the acronym SOTEC) of the policy. Here are the "risks" contributors are exposed to under this clause (5.1) of the new PA/Alamy contract. 

 

"...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."

 

 

I believe a PI policy will probably cover (i) and (iv) SOTEC, I believe (iii) may or may not be covered SOTEC but that probably depends on the contributor having done something that is in the remit of the policy; I don't believe it will cover (ii) unless the contributor has done something - (and remember clause 5.1 (ii) doesn't say because of something the contributor did) - that again is within the remit of the policy SOTEC.

 

This is not professional advice/legal advice just simply observations and it is up to each and everyone of us to weigh-up the risks that the new contract poses.

 

I wouldn't also like PA/Alamy to skim your post and think we they can get cover - I believe 5.1 (ii) is very onerous, outside PI cover as it is written, and as many have pointed out distributors and legislation within territories could be an issue. 

 

The ball is firmly in PA/Alamy's court to sort the wording out (if it really wants to retain contributors)  

 

 

 

  

Edited June 1, 2021 by Nodvandigtid
typo/SOTEC add

[M.Chapman]

12 minutes ago, Nodvandigtid said:

The ball is firmly in PA/Alamy's court to sort the wording out (if it really wants to retain contributors)  

+1

 

Mark

[Steve Tucker]

2 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

I have the third reply.

 

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

 

 

 

I have used Hiscox in the past for liability and also for accidental damage/theft and found them good to deal with. Gear was covered even if stolen from a parked vehicle as long as it was out of sight. I can't say how watertight there liability insurance is in particular with regards Alamy contract but the prices seemed reasonable to me.

[AlbertSnapper]

Would any possible future claim be against the individual ?   or the company that has supplied the photograph ?

 

If it was against the company, would that be a safer way to proceed ?  

 

Some people here may be trading thru their own limited company ?

 

🤔

 

I'm tired and struggling to think straight by the way.

Edited June 1, 2021 by AlbertSnapper

[Homy]

6 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I didn't say that, the MD of PA said that. It means that the commission going to each distributor will be different, so you can't know what percentage you'll get until you see the sales.

 

Yes, I know you quoted Alamy but wasn't sure what you were aiming at. Yes, true about the different distributors but my numbers are based on the Swedish distributors whom I mainly sell to.