Jump to content

Contract Change 2021 - Official thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree completely: 50% is the line for me. I will not stay for anything less than that.

 

I get that Alamy’s employees and executives want raises. But I deserve to be paid fairly, too. And it seems to me that the real problem is that Alamy doesn’t have a plan beyond cutting royalty percentages and chasing copyright violations. There’s no future with that kind of strategy. Just ask any of the music labels that went under during the time of Napster.

Edited by SeaKevin
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

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. 👴

 

 

 

 

 

I'm with you on that one.

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, it's hard to argue with any of that, well spoken. And no where near a tirade! I'm going to wait for a calm daytime moment(s) to have a look at the latest version of the contract. I've been in the stock photography business  both as a photographer and a specialist stock agency for about 50 years and we all used to get along just fine with one page contracts, The old back of an envelope approach. Tony Stone and I rubbed along just fine until Getty took over and hired some appalling people and started this whole  30+ page contract fiasco.

I fear maybe at last the sky has fallen. Move over Henny Penny 

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

I have already served notice.


That was the one post that surprised me this morning. Of all the people on the forum you are one of those I always take note of when you speak, excellent (really) larger collection of quality images and always a considered and informative opinion when you post.

If I may ask? Out of stock completely or just your Alamy port? 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Richmond said:

I quite agree. 

 

My own situation is slightly different in that I sell images through Alamy exclusively and have done since I started contributing in 2014.  However, in order to generate those images I've cultivated a small network of local garden owners and nurseries who provide me with access.  In return I often provide them with some images for personal and promotional purposes.  These images can also be uploaded to Alamy.  It is therefore perfectly possible for images to be exclusive to Alamy (within their definition of exclusive) but to have been published elsewhere.  I cannot afford to damage my relationships with the garden and nursery owners and chasing 'infringements' without my knowledge or consent has the potential to do exactly that.  Despite having indicated that I require to be notified before a possible infringement is chased up, the new contract means that I'm now having to go through all my images to mark as non exclusive any that could possibly be used by anyone in my little network.  I cannot afford to have that control taken from me.

 

I'm sure that there are others in the same position.

 

 

I agree.  I don't see why the image creator can't be consulted first before potential infringements are chased.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MariaJ said:

 

 

I agree.  I don't see why the image creator can't be consulted first before potential infringements are chased.


According to the Alamy update on page 1 thats what Alamy have now confirmed, they will ask us first before chasing infringements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been waiting patiently for an official response from Alamy to our concerns, was it not promised? My dashboard still has the July 1st alert. Unless there is some clarification to our objections by Wednesday morning, my entire portfolio will become non-exclusive. I refuse to be roped in. 

Edited by formerly snappyoncalifornia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Panthera tigris said:


According to the Alamy update on page 1 thats what Alamy have now confirmed, they will ask us first before chasing infringements.

 i cant see that commitment on page 1, if you are referring to this statement from Alamy:

 

"we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue." - that means they will ask the user of the image and NOT the contributor

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Foreign Export said:

 i cant see that commitment on page 1, if you are referring to this statement from Alamy:

 

"we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue." - that means they will ask the user of the image and NOT the contributor

 

Yes, and that is a problem for people with direct image clients. I do not want an agency hassling people who have paid for images or image licenses directly with me. It would be a huge no-no. Together with the liability issues discussed here at length (for which we are awaiting Alamy's response), those two points would mean the risk of losing revenue elsewhere or being involved in legal disputes would outweigh the forever shrinking income from Alamy. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, imageplotter said:

 

Yes, and that is a problem for people with direct image clients. I do not want an agency hassling people who have paid for images or image licenses directly with me. It would be a huge no-no. Together with the liability issues discussed here at length (for which we are awaiting Alamy's response), those two points would mean the risk of losing revenue elsewhere or being involved in legal disputes would outweigh the forever shrinking income from Alamy. 

 

well I agree with you and I just can't understand Alamy's logic on wishing to go direct to the user.

Surely the amount of money they will make from chasing infringements will be relatively small in comparison to Alamy turnover, a quick check with the contributor wouldnt be a huge administrative burden and would most likely be less time consuming that chasing users who have used the licence image legitimately.

 

I can only assume that Alamy are entirely outsourcing this infringement chasing and don't want the third party contacting contributors directly so it means the third party writes to Alamy who then contacts the contributor and then has to communicate back- Alamy are clearly trying to secure infringement income but without expending any costs

 

 

 

 

  • Love 1
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my conclusion, too, that they'd probably outsource it to a 3rd party provider. It could well be a bulk operation. I must admit that I'd have little faith in any of that developing into an actual advantage/revenue opportunity for the contributor, there'll be little left of the fees down the line. It's also worrying because control over that process would then be removed from alamy and with that control of timelines, quality of the process, etc. I would not want to risk p*ssing any clients of mine off. It's hard enough to earn a living in photography these days.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

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.

Alamy say that they only have a small proportion of their collection as exclusive, so why remove the 50% split for those that remain exclusive? Financially it can't make much difference to the bottom line but it does give contributors some incentive to stay and/or not to spread their images to other libraries to try and make up the loss.

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/06/2021 at 17:25, Alamy said:

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

 

Email today from contributor services says “The contract change is still coming into force on the 1st July”.  🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

 

Email today from contributor services says “The contract change is still coming into force on the 1st July”.  🤔

I’ve had no such email from contributor services, has anyone else?

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sb photos said:

I’ve had no such email from contributor services, has anyone else?

It was in response to one I sent them...I’ve queried it but not yet had a reply.

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

2 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

It was in response to one I sent them...I’ve queried it but not yet had a reply.


It makes you wonder who is running Alamy. Depending upon your reply this could yet further reinforce commonly held views that you cannot trust Alamy.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thyrsis said:

 

Email today from contributor services says “The contract change is still coming into force on the 1st July”.  🤔

 

And yet their update of the 2nd June (see page one of this thread) clearly states.....

 

"To frame expectations we just wanted to update you that we're aiming to get the ammendments (sic) 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."

 

Go figure, as they say....

Edited by Vincent Lowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said:

 

And yet their update of the 2nd June (see page one of this thread) clearly states.....

 

"To frame expectations we just wanted to update you that we're aiming to get the ammendments (sic) 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."

 

Go figure, as they say....

 

 

maybe by existing the mean the first rewrite, they seem to have been big on word specific stuff that goes against contributors. 

Link to comment
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.