Jump to content

Contract Change 2021 - Official thread


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

They're prompt with their responses to resignation letters.  You have to resign to get images removed before the new contract comes into effect (the 45 days was recently reset.

 

actually if you resign today they will be removed in 45 days, which likely is before the amended contract comes into play based on the announcement at the top of this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Doc said:

Alamy, I really have to agree with my colleagues who have spoken for keeping the "Exclusive" Collection. It is surely one of the main reasons that buyers will come to Alamy - to look for something they cant find anywhere else?  I too have almost never sold an image except through Alamy (and the three I have done are marked "non-exclusive"). 

 

If this "New contract" goes through in the way that it seems to be doing, I think most of us with "Exclusive" images will mark them non-exclusive, and will find other outlets to also sell them. This does not seem to be in the interests of either Alamy or the Contributors.

 

I urge you to have a rethink of the idea of not pushing the Exclusive collection.

 

Kumar

Totally agree. It seems odd that Alamy hasn't highlighted their exclusive content with a unique buyer's search page. As stock shooters we are always looking for ways to differentiate our images from the herd, shouldn't Alamy be using that strategy?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

I have already served notice. I received an almost identical message. I expect Alamy to live up to its email commitment of closing my account June 30. For further clarity, I wish and expect my account to be closed June 30, even if the June 30 contract is withdrawn or amended.

 

 

sad to see you go, always enjoyed your insight. 

 

at latest they must oblige your request 45 days from request date, but hope you get the June 30 . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

Totally agree. It seems odd that Alamy hasn't highlighted their exclusive content with a unique buyer's search page. As stock shooters we are always looking for ways to differentiate our images from the herd, shouldn't Alamy be using that strategy?

 

 

This is because the exclusive collection is a dog's dinner. It only exists because of the back-tracking as a result of the previous commission grab and James West back peddling. Until that point whenever the idea was raised Alamy replied that the vast majority of they contributors didn't have any need for exclusivity. And on the rare occasion when they did want it the contributor would be asked. 

 

Naturally many honest contributors took the hit and worked hard to comply with the changed rules in 2019. But equally many others will have either simply not bothered or deliberately not made the necessary changes so as to keep 50% for their sales. Alamy huffed and puffed and threatened that they would chase these recalcitrants down but I don't suppose that many felt too scared by all that. Nobody ever seems to have been penalised. When you purposely penalise people for being honest you can't be surprised that not everybody is honest. 

 

Alamy now say that the Exclusive collection has no commercial value. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, geogphotos said:

 

 

 

Alamy now say that the Exclusive collection has no commercial value. 

 

 

which actually is inconsistent with the promotion of the infringement team, which was supposed to be a great add-on for the bottom line, but only applies to Exclusive Collection. i see a disconnect there. 

 

 

if this is so valuable that you developed a whole new strategy why destroy the seed. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

which actually is inconsistent with the promotion of the infringement team, which was supposed to be a great add-on for the bottom line, but only applies to Exclusive Collection. i see a disconnect there. 

 

 

if this is so valuable that you developed a whole new strategy why destroy the seed. 

 

 

My guess is that the Infringement Team idea is a way of extracting revenue from a relatively manageable quantity of images. And they are not particularly all that bothered what that quantity is - it is enough to work with and squeeze what they can from that number.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

This is because the exclusive collection is a dog's dinner. It only exists because of the back-tracking as a result of the previous commission grab and James West ball peddling. 

 

Naturally many honest contributors took the hit and worked hard to comply to the changed rules. But equally many others will have either simply not bothered or deliberately not made the necessary changes so as to keep 50% for their sales.

 

Alamy now say that the Exclusive collection has no commercial value. 

Well perhaps being an "exclusive" contributor needs to be vetted properly, apply just like being a News contributor. I would think that an algorithm that randomly samples your images monthly and does an internet search could be created. An agreement to be an exclusive contributor could be written with give backs or worse if caught cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

Well perhaps being an "exclusive" contributor needs to be vetted properly, apply just like being a News contributor. I would think that an algorithm that randomly samples your images monthly and does an internet search could be created. An agreement to be an exclusive contributor could be written with give backs or worse if caught cheating.

 

 

But what the new contract does is remove most of the incentive to claim exclusive status. The only advantage is, to many of us,  a dubious one of not being able to chase your own copyright infringements. Meaning that many will switch to non-exclusive even for exclusive images. I doubt that Alamy much care. They will make money from the commission cut and have a manageable quantity of genuinely exclusive images to monetise through copyright infringements. If it turns out that they chase an infringement and the image is actually non-exclusive the contributor will be held responsible for any costs charged by the copyright chasing company. 

 

It would be expensive and time-consuming to actually check and that is not the Alamy way. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

Totally agree. It seems odd that Alamy hasn't highlighted their exclusive content with a unique buyer's search page. As stock shooters we are always looking for ways to differentiate our images from the herd, shouldn't Alamy be using that strategy?

All the indications are that Alamy don't see exclusive content as something they can exploit. As far as I am aware there was no 'exclusive content' marketed to customers. Was that because there isn't a demand from customers? Or was it down to the difficulty of knowing that the exclusive product they are selling is really exclusive? There was never any certainty that it was exclusive, even when contributors following the contract.

 

I think that the exclusive, 50% rate was conceded because it meant that there was a good chance that if a customer wanted a specific image they would have to purchase it from Alamy. Images that are not exclusive but are available from other agencies may well end up being purchased elsewhere. With the exclusive content now at just 6% of the total images available on Alamy, they clearly think that it's a complexity that is no longer worthwhile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

How annoying that Alamy are adding updates to this thread by posting them on the first page! I automatically go to the last page so I hadn’t seen any of them.

they did post it somewhere around page 90.  we just buried it quite quickly 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Couldn't care less what word people use. I know what they mean. 

 

What bothers me is the ever increasing share that Alamy is grabbing from it.

 

I do get actual royalties from one educational publisher - every year I get a payment based on how many copies of the product they have sold. I receive a certain percentage of the retail price as my royalty. To me that is the most usual use of the word 'royalty' and hence 'royalty free' meaning that there is one up front fee and no ongoing payments - the image is free of any commitments to pay royalties.  

 

I was getting back at Semmick for using sale in his/her post.

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Allan, all of us old timers know they are licensed. I simply say “sold” because it’s easier/quicker to type! So you’ll just have to grit your teeth, my dear! 😁

 

As I replied to Ian's post. I was getting back at Semmick for using "sale" in his/her post.

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Allan, all of us old timers know they are licensed. I simply say “sold” because it’s easier/quicker to type! So you’ll just have to grit your teeth, my dear! 😁

 

There's no doubt that "license" is the correct term. However, I don't care what you call them, as they long as they happen.

 

Anyway, standard English is rapidly coming apart at the seams. People now use "less" when it should be "fewer", "amount" when it should be "number", "direct" when it should be "directly", the list goes on. If you can't beat 'em, sometimes you have to join 'em.

 

 It's really no wonder that the new contract is a can of unintelligible worms. But I won't go there...

 

It's rough being an old-timer. 👴

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wilkopix said:

Good point.

 

Please reconsider the 50/50 split for those contributors who want to be exclusive.

 

 

Personally, I think that 50/50 should be the "industry standard" for everyone. I guess that makes me an evil socialist. There are still a few stock agencies / photo libraries (better term IMO) that offer this fair arrangement, but they are becoming increasingly rare.

 

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

they did post it somewhere around page 90.  we just buried it quite quickly 😉 

Duplicate!

Edited by Thyrsis
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

I have already served notice. I received an almost identical message. I expect Alamy to live up to its email commitment of closing my account June 30. For further clarity, I wish and expect my account to be closed June 30, even if the June 30 contract is withdrawn or amended.

 

If the June 30 contract is amended to your satisfaction, there is no need to celebrate. I think you will have only won a skirmish and not the war. Remember the 40% skirmish with the previous owners, when they were preparing the company for sale.

 

The June 30 contract is what the new buyers wanted, and I expect that it will be like a Phoenix, and rise from the June 30 ashes over and over, until Alamy gets its way.

 

Once Alamy gets its way, I think a even newer contract will be presented. It is like the Borg. However we can escape June 30.

 

I am exclusive to Alamy until June 30, but for me it is not only an Alamy decision. It is a decision to remove all of my stock images from any and all stock photo marketplaces.

 

Alamy sold a stock image today $73 at 50%. Now to get on with my new photography, not stock photography.

Bill - I shall be very sorry to see you go. Your comments on the forum have always been insightful and helpful. 

 

I hope we will be able to converse on a different forum in the future. Best wishes to you

 

Kumar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

But what the new contract does is remove most of the incentive to claim exclusive status. The only advantage is, to many of us,  a dubious one of not being able to chase your own copyright infringements. Meaning that many will switch to non-exclusive even for exclusive images. I doubt that Alamy much care. They will make money from the commission cut and have a manageable quantity of genuinely exclusive images to monetise through copyright infringements. If it turns out that they chase an infringement and the image is actually non-exclusive the contributor will be held responsible for any costs charged by the copyright chasing company. 

 

It would be expensive and time-consuming to actually check and that is not the Alamy way. 

 

Alamy are keeping the exclusive 50% payment after distributor reductions for people or agencies that sell more than  $25K a year.   I suspect they trust agencies to have more control over their photographers than they have over individual photographers.  600 agencies compared to 60,000 individual photographers.  The cost of checking is outsourced to the agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.