Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[SeaKevin]

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 June 3, 2021 by SeaKevin

[John Richmond]

21 hours ago, SeaKevin said:

 

To protect the part of my photography business that continues to grow, I do want to ensure that Alamy is not scaring customers I have nurtured. I don't understand how that request is a sign of cheating, nor do I understand how that position is unreasonable.

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.

[Allan Bell]

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

 

[Nathaniel Noir]

7 hours ago, NYCat said:

 

It is still on my Dashboard.

 

Paulette

 

It's also appearing on my dashboard

[Richard Tadman]

On 17/05/2021 at 10:01, Alamy said:

The Alamy contract has been updated and we're writing to give you notice of these changes.

 

The new contract is here and the key changes are listed here. The changes will come into place on 1st July 2021.

 

You can read more about the contract changes over on the blog post written by the Managing Director, Emily Shelley.

 

This thread is the place to post any feedback or questions you may have regarding the changes. We'll be reading all responses and will respond where possible to clarify any questions as regularly as possible.

 

Any additional threads on the contract change will be removed in order to keep it simpler for people to keep up with the topic.

 

The usual forum rules apply so any posts or comments that go against those rules will be removed in the usual way. Contract changes involving the commission rates can obviously cause emotions to run high so we would ask everyone to remain professional and respectful whilst commenting. 

 

Thanks,

Alamy

 

EDIT - UPDATE 19th MAY:

 

Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone.

 

We will of course be publishing a formal response here very soon, certainly by the end of the week. 

 

With so many responses we have to do things in this way rather than post here addressing each point. Thanks for your pateince on this, we are reading every post.

 

There will be no more responses from us here until then where we will update page one of the thread and also the latest post here too.

 

Best regards

 

Alamy

 

EDIT - UPDATE 21st MAY:

 

Thank you to everyone who has emailed us or posted questions and comments in this forum thread about the changes to the contributor contract which come into effect on July 1. We have gathered the main topics and concerns that have come up and answered these below. These will also be posted on page one of this thread to make sure they are easily found.

 

If these contract changes do not have a significant impact on profits, why are you making them?

 

We are making these changes to ensure our core 40% commission rate is sustainable. They allow us to deal with some operational challenges around exclusivity and infringements, and around managing and growing distribution and affiliate partners. They simplify the rate structure and support fair growth of the contributor base, which has been exponential over the last 12 months. 

 

How can Alamy justify earning more from a sale than the photographer?

 

Our core rate for direct sales continues to be 40% for the vast majority of our contributors. We believe this is fair because we incur significant and rising costs bringing images to market – especially as competition increases. This allows Alamy to invest, as it is doing currently, in an improved website and platform, and in sales and marketing resource. It’s also one of the most generous rates available in a very competitive market.

 

Why have you removed the incentive to be exclusive for most contributors?

 

Around 17 million of the 260 million images for sale on Alamy are marked as exclusive to us. Our aim is to establish that these images really are exclusive and unlock infringements revenue, as exclusive images to Alamy will be given priority for infringement chasing. We will then review our plans to market a unique collection, and the value of this to customers. We’re aware that this changes the commission incentive for many contributors to sell exclusively with us, although there will be the benefit of potential infringements revenue. This will not stop you selling directly yourself.

 

Now you’ve removed the exclusive incentive for most contributors, won’t you be left with generic and poor-quality content?

 

Exclusivity is about which platforms the images are available on, not aesthetic uniqueness or quality. All kinds of images are sold exclusively on Alamy, and all kinds of images are sold non-exclusively on Alamy.

 

Why is the gap between the Silver commission tier at $250 gross sales and the Platinum tier at $25,000 sales so big? Isn’t the Platinum tier unachievable for most contributors?

 

We know that the majority of our contributors will be in the Gold tier and earn 40% commission for direct sales, including exclusive sales. We believe this to be a fair and sustainable rate. We have kept the 50% rate for exclusive images only for those earning above $25,000 gross, because these are the highest-selling collections. We’re aware that this changes the commission incentive for many contributors to sell exclusively with us, although there will be the benefit of potential infringements revenue as exclusive images will be given a higher priority in any work going on in this area. This will not stop you selling directly yourself.

 

If you chase infringements on my behalf for exclusive images, won’t this stop me selling directly myself?

 

No, that’s not the case. The same rules apply as before when marking images as exclusive – you can still sell your images directly and at the same time mark images as exclusive to Alamy. Our infringements chasing will not affect that and when identifying a potential infringement, we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue.

 

Why did you recently ask me if you could pursue potential infringements without informing me first, if you knew this contract change was coming?

 

The new contract does not come into force until the 1st of July. The infringements work has begun in earnest and this will help us secure infringement payments more quickly over the next 45 days prior to the new contract terms commencing.

 

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

 

4.1.5 –  This clause is intended to ensure that any prior restrictions and limitations that you place on the content are correctly disclosed and to ensure that these are accurate. It works in conjunction with the restrictions that you must supply under  4.1.10, which are automatically applied when Alamy licences Content through our website. When selling images Alamy will always respect any restrictions you place on your images and our customers are made aware of these restrictions and agree to abide by them in their terms of use. It is not in any way intended to grant Alamy the right to license content outside of those restrictions.

 

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.

 

What is the percentage split that is given to distribution partners, why are you not clear about this?

 

We work with around 80 different distributors and the rate varies per partner. We always negotiate for the best deal available with each opportunity. We cannot share details of these individual contracts. We are working to add more partners to ensure we can reach as many potential customers around the world as possible.

 

Isn’t the timing of these changes disrespectful given the global Covid pandemic?

 

We’re aware that some people are having a tough time at the moment, that’s true of our staff around the world too. This is likely to be the case for some time to come and business decisions still need to be taken. In terms of image sales for Alamy contributors, these were impacted during the first few months of the pandemic in 2020 - but since then we have seen a resurgence at Alamy and sales so far this year are significantly ahead overall. Every individual contributor’s account within those overall sales will be different.

 

By making these changes, aren’t you ending Alamy’s reputation for fairness completely, and becoming a corporation like any other?

 

Every business makes decisions that balance the needs of its suppliers, customers, staff, community, and shareholders – in the context of the global market. In Alamy’s case, decisions are taken with the goal of long-term growth and sustainability. Profits are reinvested into the business to support this, and we believe our rates to be fair and sustainable.

 

Best regards,

 

Alamy

 

EDIT: Update 24th May 

 

Just a quick update for you here to confirm that we are reading all responses and it's clear to us that there is confusion around the wording of some of the specific clauses in the new contract. 

 

We're sorry for the confusion these have caused. More details to follow soon, but we are looking at the possibility of rewording some clauses to make them clearer as well as providing further info here as to how the clauses could be used.

 

Best regards

 

Alamy

 

EDIT: Update 2nd June

 

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

 

I stand to be corrected but I don't ever recall a thread reaching 90+ pages of posts on Alamy forums.
The indisputable conclusion from all of this, is that contributors are fed up to the back teeth of trying to earn an honest living and expending many hours of travelling, waiting patiently for the right moment, investing in expensive equipment, devoting many hours to optimising images in post-processing and equally long hours in keywording their images only to be treated with contempt by the very agencies that purport to represent them.
We all recognise that times change and acceptable images are 10 a penny in the current climate, but many of the most loyal and devoted contributors have valuable and rare images within their portfolios.
It is an acknowledged economic fact that the market cannot be wrong which explains why so many are voting with their feet. Good for them. The sun has probably finally set on creative and skilful stock photographers but if Alamy don't value us, by which I mean treat us with disdain then so be it.
If this was my business I would be thoroughly ashamed by the volume of backlash and genuine resentment expressed by such a high volume of my hereto valuable suppliers.
There again; we are all free to conduct our business/hobbies as we wish, but I shall not forget the disdain with which Alamy /PA has introduced this new contract and made it abundantly clear the disdain with which they regard their arguably sole source of income.

[Robert M Estall]

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 

[Panthera tigris]

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? 

 

[MariaJ]

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.

[Panthera tigris]

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.

[formerly snappyoncalifornia]

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 June 4, 2021 by formerly snappyoncalifornia

[Foreign Export]

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

[imageplotter]

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. 

[Foreign Export]

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

 

 

 

 

[imageplotter]

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.

[geogphotos]

Sadly we are at the stage where the only real point of stock  photography is to get images licensed so that secondary rights can be claimed and copyright infringements chased.. 

[wilkopix]

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.

 

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, wilkopix said:

why remove the 50% split for those that remain exclusive?

Because by calling 60-40 the "core rate" they can pretend that the promise of 50-50 was never made.

[Thyrsis]

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 1^st July”.  🤔

[sb photos]

14 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

 

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

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

[Thyrsis]

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 June 4, 2021 by Thyrsis

[sb photos]

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.

[Mr Standfast]

I would query emails like that with a known account, such as member services  and not the reply account.

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, wilkopix said:

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.

 

 

For me, enforcing the 60/40 split crosses a psychological threshold. It's tough to feel respect for any agency that decides to take more than half of your earnings. It starts to feel a bit like highway robbery I'm sorry to say. To then virtually remove all possibility of ever getting back to a fair 50/50 split by setting the bar impossibly high has the effect of killing any incentive that might be left. I can't even mention the 80/20 split, etc. It's a sad (and counter-productive) situation indeed. I used to think that Alamy wasn't just another schoolyard bully, but I guess I was wrong.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Vincent Lowe]

5 hours ago, Thyrsis said:

 

Email today from contributor services says “The contract change is still coming into force on the 1^st 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 June 4, 2021 by Vincent Lowe

[meanderingemu]

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.