Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes 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

How does one delete all the photos and also obtain the meta data? Supposedly they make the latter available but it seems it might only be the last 500 uploaded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DawnOne said:

How does one delete all the photos and also obtain the meta data? Supposedly they make the latter available but it seems it might only be the last 500 uploaded. 

Go to Image Manager

If you would like a copy of all file names and related image metadata,
then you can request a spreadsheet by clicking the button below.’

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MDM said:

 

One would probably need a degree in law, specialising in global media law, to fully understand the contract and its implications. 

 

True. I wonder why the contract is written in such heavy legalese? Alamy should bear in mind that their contributors work with images, not within law, and many don't even speak English as their native language.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taina said:

 

True. I wonder why the contract is written in such heavy legalese? Alamy should bear in mind that their contributors work with images, not within law, and many don't even speak English as their native language.  

 

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

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the purpose of regulations to be as complicated as possible?

Who makes the rules? Lawyers. And who will benefit from these confusing regulations?
It's clear to you now.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Radim said:

Isn't the purpose of regulations to be as complicated as possible?

Who makes the rules? Lawyers. And who will benefit from these confusing regulations?
It's clear to you now.

it goes beyond that.  Court and jurisprudence has also developed around this legal framework.  I have worked on contracts with lawyers and legislators  and many would have loved to change the presentation, but in the end the goal is for it to withstand challenge.   

In fact 30 years ago attempts I was involved to simplify Pension Plan text to plain language were rejected not be lawyers but by the review from the legislators (non lawyers), because they were used to interpret texts in the legalised form and couldn't change their mind frame even though their goal was to protect plan members who were the one asking for simpler language.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DawnOne said:

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?

Is that really the lowest you've had in five years? Lucky you!!!

The answer is that the price depends totally on the price the buyer can negotiate, which probably connects to the number of images they commit to buying in a timeframe.

So any unique photo we might have can sell for the same price as a photo of the most common subjects. Indeed, IIRC there was a very large value sale a few years back literally of someone's lawn outside their door.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

it goes beyond that.  Court and jurisprudence has also developed around this legal framework.  I have worked on contracts with lawyers and legislators  and many would have loved to change the presentation, but in the end the goal is for it to withstand challenge.       

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Homy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by EYESITE
spelling mistake
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Homy
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by geogphotos
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 4
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.