Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Chuck Nacke]

This thread has become like the "Blind men looking at, feeling, an elephant."  I do think that it would be in Alamy and PA's best interests to provide an update to the issue at hand.  There are also, in my opinion, many who are contributing comments to this thread who do not understand the

photo agency / library business.

 

OK, I was more than a bit Blunt and I apologize to those offended.  What I should have written was some, small number, of those contributing comments to this thread do not understand the Photo Agency / Library business.

 

Chuck

Edited June 2, 2021 by Chuck Nacke
clarification

[Jools Elliott]

4 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

This thread has become like the "Blind men looking at, feeling, an elephant."  I do think that it would be in Alamy and PA's best interests to provide an update to the issue at hand.  There are also, in my opinion, many who are contributing comments to this thread who do not understand the

photo agency / library business.

 

Chuck

 

I think what we DO understand about the agency business is that time and time again we are getting screwed over.

 

 

How many times did @Alamy say the commission wouldn't be dropped etc? And yet here we are again! And no response from them either which speaks volumes. They go on and on about how fair they are to photographers but their words are now meaningless and full of cr@p.

 

They are no better than any other agency out there.

[meanderingemu]

18 hours 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.

 

 

But you do not know this (except if you have a copy of Alamy's agreement with this specific distributor).

 Alamy has been using a standard 40% charge to us for distributor's portion of commission, Regardless of what their agreement with the distributor was. We have no idea what each individual agreement was in first place.  I wonder if there is a line in their results that shows if this was a fair average, a money maker or a loss leader?

 

 

As of July 1, Alamy is changing the rules, and from now on the distributor's specific commission will be charged back to us, and I have been speculating, since this is what Alamy has forced us to do with their silence, will possibly not be transparent- we will only be revealed what Alamy got, ie Net of Distributor's cut, as this is the way the contract now reads.

[Cliff Hide]

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

[wilkopix]

6 hours ago, Jools Elliott said:

I think what we DO understand about the agency business is that time and time again we are getting screwed over.

 

 

How many times did @Alamy say the commission wouldn't be dropped etc? And yet here we are again! And no response from them either which speaks volumes. They go on and on about how fair they are to photographers but their words are now meaningless and full of cr@p.

 

They are no better than any other agency out there.

100% agree.

 

Still waiting to hear if they are going to change anything in the new contract to make it fairer to it's contributors.

 

Their decision to cut the commission yet again seems very short sighted. As a supplier it will only lead to poorer and cheaper content produced quickly with the need to distribute it through several agencies to make it financially viable.

If you read through Alamy's 'wants' list a lot of that can't be photographed on the hoof. It all comes at a quite a cost to the photographer. The 40-20% commission makes it impossible to recoup enough to warrant the effort and certainly not exclusively.

It's such a shame that Alamy have decided to take away any incentive to be exclusive to them. I worry that they will just become a dumping ground for images that aren't good enough for other agencies.

 

I really hope Alamy are listening as a lot of long term contributors with quite large collections are going to have to go elsewhere and place their images with other agencies. I'm sure many of us don't want to but by Alamy cutting our income by at least 20% it is rather forcing our hand.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

Thanks Cliff; Sounds promising....

 

Kumar

[Shergar]

21 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

Thanks Cliff, some light at the end of that tunnel . 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Shergar

[Martin P Wilson]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

Thanks Cliff; Sounds promising....

 

Kumar

The indemnification clauses may be better but it will make no difference to my decision after the journey of the last few years and especially the last few weeks. I am pleased for those that have made a substantial time and finance commitment to Alamy and will be able continue some income. The steady degradation of the offer to the contributor over the last few years means my confidence and trust in Alamy is no longer what it once was; especially now it is owned and managed by many of its major customers, the conflict of interest is the end.

 

Fort me it is time to move on, I think, I have some ideas and plans are forming. It was good while it lasted but I do not need and am not inclined to chase the miniscule returns. After almost 20 years it would have been easy to just give it another year, or two. It is time to go, in reality I should have taken the decision when I started my sabbatical several years ago. After all I could see the imminent end of the generic stock industry as a viable income five years ago. It's a shame but I do not see it ever recovering, its time has passed.

 

All the best everyone. I may dip in and out occasionally over the rest of June but my efforts will be going elsewhere. I am not  happy to lose contact with online friends but it is time to move on.  Hopefully some of us who are leaving will stay in touch. My termination notice will be submitted in the next few days.

 

All the best

 

Martin

Edited June 2, 2021 by Martin P Wilson
typo

[sb photos]

25 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

I await the redrafting of the contract, sensibility rules (hopefully).

[meanderingemu]

30 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

thanks.   

 

note to people who speculate this would delay implementation,  sadly there is a way around it by going ahead with the proposed contract  and issuing amendments to it effective in 45 days, retro to July 1st .

 

in fact you don't have to really make retroactive,  assuming the change is more "generous " because Alamy would not really worry about someone suing them to uphold a more punitive clause. 

 

 

in fact my experience for things that are technically less worse for clients not upholding the notice period is not an uncommon practice.  For example my direct brokerage just changed commission schedule by eliminating it on ETF with 0 notice period, I'm not going to sue them to charge me more. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Nodvandigtid]

40 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

 

Seriously? -  Really? - surely not

Let's wait and see what they come up with in their re-draft - that will reveal all.

  

 

[Richard Coombs]

6 hours ago, Jools Elliott said:

I think what we DO understand about the agency business is that time and time again we are getting screwed over.

 

 

How many times did @Alamy say the commission wouldn't be dropped etc? And yet here we are again! And no response from them either which speaks volumes. They go on and on about how fair they are to photographers but their words are now meaningless and full of cr@p.

 

They are no better than any other agency out there.

Jools, I agree with your observations, and your opinion. Your post speaks for a lot of us I'm sure.

 

I've been with Alamy since 2006, overall, its been a reasonably good ride. Sure there have been some contract changes and reductions in licensing and commission rates, but then I have seen the same with other agencies that I deal with. I had only been with Alamy for about 12 to 18 months when I became very aware that they are, a law unto themselves!

However, they have consistently sold my pictures and paid me on time, every time. They have answered my questions and corrected some of my cock ups. Because of this, they have always had my trust and respect.

 

I agree, the fact that they have not engaged in this discussion speaks volumes. I regret to say that following this latest contract change, my trust and respect has diminished somewhat.

[Foreign Export]

The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm so...

 

 

 

staggering- surely we aren't meant to believe this 

[Mr Standfast]

Thanks Cliff.

 

As surmised 60 odd pages ago, the contract was signed off without understanding it. 

 

 

[KevinS]

Got confirmation that my termination is in progress. So glad to be leaving. What a company!

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

 

I hope they are having a redraft of Clause 4.1.6.  where the contributor warrants that:

4.1.6 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.

 

This one appears to have been forgotten in the concern about 5.1. Reading it literally it is asking the contributor to warrant something that nobody could possibly warrant. I have had the attitude that they cannot possibly mean it,  that somebody has made a mistake (there is a typo - indecent occurs twice) and that it will be corrected. While it may not be intended, in its current form It would be extremely alarming if left in.

[Russell Watkins]

47 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm so...

 

 

 

staggering- surely we aren't meant to believe this 

 

I know. The contract literally* said that we'd be on the hook for legal costs arising from the mistakes of others.

 

* That's "literally" in the literal sense, not the figurative sense.

[Cryptoprocta]

9 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I hope they are having a redraft of Clause 4.1.6.  where the contributor warrants that:

4.1.6 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.

 

This one appears to have been forgotten in the concern about 5.1. Reading it literally it is asking the contributor to warrant something that nobody could possibly warrant. I have had the attitude that they cannot possibly mean it,  that somebody has made a mistake (there is a typo - indecent occurs twice) and that it will be corrected. While it may not be intended, in its current form It would be extremely alarming if left in.

From Ms Shelley:

"Regarding 4.1.6, this change is to alter the wording that said 'UK, USA and elsewhere' to 'anywhere in the world'. Although this doesn't alter the legal meaning, it has caused confusion and concern and we are reviewing it internally to see if it needs redrafting to address this. Customers do pick up the liability for ensuring the images are fit for purpose in their country. "

[MDM]

On 21/05/2021 at 16:53, Alamy said:

Can you explain the changes to 4.1.5 and 4.1.6. Isn’t the contract now very one-sided?

4.1.6 – By submitting content to Alamy you agree that you will not use the system to upload content that could be considered as threatening, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar and/or indecent. Clause 4.1.6 details that, as a result of the submission of the content, any use of the content by Alamy, its customers or distributors will therefore not be considered threatening, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar and/or indecent. In simple terms, you have to decide that it isn’t offensive, but also a wider audience, including Alamy and its customers and distributors, will also need to consider that it isn’t offensive.

 

Alamy tells the licensors of its Content that they should not use the Content in such a way that it could be considered defamatory, racist, etc. to take into account where local customs might be different.

 

In terms of the contract reference to ‘anywhere in the world’, this used to say ‘the UK, USA and elsewhere’. The change has the same meaning but is designed to be clearer.

 

 

Just as a reminder the above was what Alamy said in their May21st post answering questions from contributors - my bold. It would be simply impossible to make such an assertion.  As a realistic example, a picture of two gay men kissing could be considered very offensive in some parts of the world (even in the UK - think Northern Ireland).

Edited June 2, 2021 by MDM

[MDM]

8 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

From Ms Shelley:

"Regarding 4.1.6, this change is to alter the wording that said 'UK, USA and elsewhere' to 'anywhere in the world'. Although this doesn't alter the legal meaning, it has caused confusion and concern and we are reviewing it internally to see if it needs redrafting to address this. Customers do pick up the liability for ensuring the images are fit for purpose in their country. "

 

Thanks for that. I probably saw it before but I have ducked out of this thread for a while now as it was getting a little repetitive. The way 4.1.6 is phrased it is the contributor who is liable. That is truly ridiculous.

Edited June 2, 2021 by MDM

[Mr Standfast]

The contract the dashboard points to has now reverted to the original 5.1. Yet no hints yet as to what else is staying or changing.

 

No updates on the pinned comment at the top of the thread, yet.

 

Ho hum.

[MizBrown]

2 hours ago, wilkopix said:

f you read through Alamy's 'wants' list a lot of that can't be photographed on the hoof. It all comes at a quite a cost to the photographer. The 40-20% commission makes it impossible to recoup enough to warrant the effort and certainly not exclusively.

 

Some of what's on the wants list are things that only biological researchers would be able to get (rare Vietnamese ungulate, certain deep sea fish).   In some cases, Alamy's photo staff is trying to fill out what Alamy has to offer and there is nobody currently looking for a blob fish or a 18th Century sextant (or whatever).  Others are from people wanting cheap what would cost them quite a lot to have a photographer find and photograph.  Ask the British Museum if they have it and how much they'd charge for a photographer to come and photograph it.   Or see what National Geographic is charging for reprint rights. 

 

 

[Homy]

4 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

But you do not know this (except if you have a copy of Alamy's agreement with this specific distributor).

 Alamy has been using a standard 40% charge to us for distributor's portion of commission, Regardless of what their agreement with the distributor was. We have no idea what each individual agreement was in first place.  I wonder if there is a line in their results that shows if this was a fair average, a money maker or a loss leader?

 

 

As of July 1, Alamy is changing the rules, and from now on the distributor's specific commission will be charged back to us, and I have been speculating, since this is what Alamy has forced us to do with their silence, will possibly not be transparent- we will only be revealed what Alamy got, ie Net of Distributor's cut, as this is the way the contract now reads.

 

Okay, thanks. We'll see, or not as you say.

[Alamy]

Hi Everyone,

 

To frame expectations we just wanted to update you that we're aiming to get the ammendments confirmed for early next week. 

 

The 45 day notice period will start again from that point. The existing Alamy contract will remain in force until the end of that new notice period.

 

We'll be in touch with further information then and will update this thread accordingly.

 

Best regards,

 

Alamy

[Bill Kuta]

Thanks for the update and the new 45-day period.

 

Would you consider allowing those who have sent in termination emails based on the original new contract to rescind those terminations? Or allowing those who have sent in terminations effective June 30 to make them effective at the end of the new 45-day period?