Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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 post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thyrsis said:

Ah yes, missed that. It was our wedding anniversary yesterday so was busy cooking up a special dinner!! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 For further clarity, I wish and expect my account to be closed June 30, even if the June 30 contract is withdrawn or amended.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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
33 minutes 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.

 

 

 

 

Yep, and I am off to give one a try. If it works for me Alamy gets binned.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bill Allsopp said:

Yep, and I am off to give one a try. If it works for me Alamy gets binned.

 

Best of luck.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 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, which us why I joined, I felt Alamy were a fair & equal company. It should be 40/60 in favour of contributors if they sell more than $25k a year, encourage the better photographers and stock experts

CC

Edited by ChrisC
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
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 post
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 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
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? 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
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 post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 post
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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
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

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
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.

 

  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
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.