Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

We're not dealing with Alamy, we're dealing with PA Media.

Alamy sold us out. Our new 'owners' can, and will, do what they want.

We can, and will, deal with that however we want.

But we can't turn back the sale, no matter how much we try to 'bargain' our way out of this stage of 'grief'.

 

 

The 7 stages of grief
  • Shock and denial. This is a state of disbelief and numbed feelings.
  • Pain and guilt. ... 
  • Anger and bargaining. ... 
  • Depression. ... 
  • The upward turn. ... 
  • Reconstruction and working through. ... 
  • Acceptance and hope.
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the way I see it is that PA Media has a different crystal ball from Alamy. I believe they actually want to go the way of G, and this is a first step. If they took the giant step all at once, they’d lose way more photographers than is happening right now. I agree with Bill that they are simply easing us into the final step. This is just the first leg of it. You might say the second leg…since Alamy began it before the sale, but that very well could have been a condition of the sale required by PA.

Selling a company doesn’t happen overnight. Usually there are months of analysis, talks, yada, yada.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One Tony and Chelsea Northrup video I watched recently said that stock photography used to be done by stock agencies with paid photographers.   The whole outsourcing business means that the "entrepreneurs" are not covered by minimum wage and in some countries, like the US, won't get health benefits, and The Man, to borrow that term from sharecropping in the rural South, doesn't have to monitor the work since the market place will make decisions for him.   PA/Alamy don't want the legal liabilities of having allowed people to upload photos taken in restricted spaces, or in breach of copyright (book and album covers with no context).  Buyers don't want to have to contact individual record companies and book publishers directly (and in some cases, the publishers aren't around anymore). 

 

I suspect that a number of people here have their own opinions of the Northrups, but here's a link to the video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQQDysiedRA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Basically, the way I see it is that PA Media has a different crystal ball from Alamy. I believe they actually want to go the way of G, and this is a first step. If they took the giant step all at once, they’d lose way more photographers than is happening right now. I agree with Bill that they are simply easing us into the final step. This is just the first leg of it. You might say the second leg…since Alamy began it before the sale, but that very well could have been a condition of the sale required by PA.

Selling a company doesn’t happen overnight. Usually there are months of analysis, talks, yada, yada.

 

 

Two things that happened in 2019, the year before the sale, were the attempt to lower the photographer's share was supposed to drop to 40% and Live News was restricted to fewer photographers.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

unintended consequences from massive increase in infringement chasing regardless of how light the touch, busywork will be created for buyers who will think why should i use that photographer or alamy when there are many others who dont create this busywork for us, legal fee by alamy is business deduction for photographer and must include detailed breakdown of how fee was determined especially if future review of photographers taxes by HMRC IRS or others in 3 or 5 years or more

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MizBrown said:

One Tony and Chelsea Northrup video I watched recently said that stock photography used to be done by stock agencies with paid photographers.

 

 

I'm not denying what the Northrups say, but it differs a bit from my understanding and experience. I didn't jump into stock until the 1990s. I knew some entrepreneurial photographers who shot more conceptual work and made a decent living with stock, but I knew far more people who used stock to sell outtakes. Whether you were on assignment for a magazine or commissioned by an ad agency, most photographers I know owned any images that did not end up getting used. There was nothing wrong with those images. Stock allowed the photographer to pad their assignment income and it allowed other companies to have big budget images without the cost. Eventually, there were so many stock images available that assignments and commissions started to dry up. Which gets us to where we are where nearly all stock photographers are now entrepreneurs.

 

Given that stock photography has always been about saving companies money, I guess it's inevitable that we ended up here. While I'm sympathetic to Alamy's employees and investors wanting more money, we're now in a world where I'm paying the entire cost of producing images, not to mention trying to generate an income that gives me food, shelter and healthcare. Reduced royalty rates and plummeting licensing fees don't get me where I need to be.

 

Edited by SeaKevin
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

but other agencies, even MS agencies that i checked,  are protecting themselves against this by saying they are not taking liability if the contributor has misrepresented the facts, or not done their homework about the rules and laws. 

 

Alamy is passing on liability even if the contributor was not in the wrong and the fault was on Alamy or the customer. 

 

Slavery in the day made some people an incredible amount of money.  Not having to pay the producers means all the money goes to the vendors. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

This thread better wrap up soon. I'm running out of tortilla chips. 😁

 

I'm running out of reading glasses.

 

Allan

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AndrewP said:

For me it was 2007 and 2008. I Made more money in those 2 years than in the following 6 combined, and I've not had a $25k year for 9 years.

 

I joined in 2003 but didn't actually start submitting until 2007. Those were great years. Seems like a different world now...

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SeaKevin said:

Which gets us to where we are where nearly all stock photographers are now entrepreneurs.

 

"Entrepreneur" is a buzz word.   My sister got a fake job from the last US administration counseling welfare moms in a program to turn them into "entrepreneurs."   With a real job, you get at least minimum wage.  With sharecropping, you get a percentage of what the crop brings and don't pay rent on the land.  My grandfather actually preferred rent because if he did better than the rent of the farmland, he kept the money.  The women who were in the "Entrepreneur" training program weren't going to be getting venture capital for computer innovations.  They were going to be doing things like running a cleaning service, catering, and since they were self-employed, they'd be paying both sides of  the contribution to Social Security.

 

When I was writing, I got basically a third share of the wholesale prices.  The publisher and the printer accounted for the other two thirds.  PA/Alamy doesn't even have the costs the publisher had: editing the book, contracting for cover art.  They do have the expenses paying the sales staff, bookkeeping, and the cost of running their database facility in India, and quality control.  There's no equivalent of the printer here.  QC is not as difficult a task as reading and rejecting slush.  In some parts of the world, they've entered into sharecropper arrangements with distributors, who only get paid if they sell Alamy's product.  Publishing printers got paid even if all the books were returned (book publishing gives full credit for returned books).   I got an advance against royalties which I didn't have to pay back if the book didn't earn out.

 

It's share cropping.  If stock companies bought full rights for pennies and then resold them for what the market could bear, then they'd have to go to the expense of evaluating photos and making their purchases wisely or have us accept money up front but refund the money paid for every photo that didn't sell after some time.  The book stores and Amazon have the publishers over a barrel with the returns. 

 

We're just like the sharecroppers giving The Man the crop to market and accepting a share of what the crop brought.   Admittedly taking photos is not as hard work as growing tobacco or cotton.  Nor is writing a novel on spec. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The 7 stages of grief
  • Shock and denial. This is a state of disbelief and numbed feelings.
  • Pain and guilt. ... 
  • Anger and bargaining. ... 
  • Depression. ... 
  • The upward turn. ... 
  • Reconstruction and working through. ... 
  • Acceptance and hope.

We are not being kept waiting by acident. 🤔

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaKevin said:

 

I'm not denying what the Northrups say, but it differs a bit from my understanding and experience. I didn't jump into stock until the 1990s. I knew some entrepreneurial photographers who shot more conceptual work and made a decent living with stock, but I knew far more people who used stock to sell outtakes. Whether you were on assignment for a magazine or commissioned by an ad agency, most photographers I know owned any images that did not end up getting used. There was nothing wrong with those images. Stock allowed the photographer to pad their assignment income and it allowed other companies to have big budget images without the cost. Eventually, there were so many stock images available that assignments and commissions started to dry up. Which gets us to where we are where nearly all stock photographers are now entrepreneurs.

 

Given that stock photography has always been about saving companies money, I guess it's inevitable that we ended up here. While I'm sympathetic to Alamy's employees and investors wanting more money, we're now in a world where I'm paying the entire cost of producing images, not to mention trying to generate an income that gives me food, shelter and healthcare. Reduced royalty rates and plummeting licensing fees don't get me where I need to be.

 

 

The entry requirements to stock (including Alamy) are now so low, that there are too many amateurs, or even people like me (sometimes do commissions, but it's not a day job). And many are willing to submit for lower prices. Or perhaps are new to the game and aren't aware of the prices that used to be earned. And many people are so happy with the buzz of seeing their photo in print, that they don't care how much money they receive.

 

And as you say, clients don't want to pay commissions anymore because stock libraries are so big. Why pay mega bucks for an amazing image when you can pay low money for an ok image...

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

There is a difference between making a decision to do nothing about the change, or not making any decision because you are only allowing yourself to be swept along.

 

If you make that decision, to do nothing about the change after examining your needs, you are not being swept along. You own the decision. It is your decision, not Alamy's decision. Important because you will want to move forward on your decision to do nothing about the change. Make it work and review it only once a year in light of new evidence, not after every license.

 

Applause for this.

 

Some people will be like the monkey who can't let go the nut even though his grip on it traps him in a narrow mouthed jar set out by a hunter.  Can't drop the nut because it will be so tasty in the future.  

 

A year's results is what Alamy will be using to put people in their 20%, 40%, or 50% payout ranges.  One very low license or one very high license isn't the whole story.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/06/2021 at 20:53, Bill Brooks said:

One size does not fit all, so decide your individual future based on your specific needs.

 

Many of you will have a strategy like Doc. Some of you will not make a decision, do nothing about the change, and allow yourself to be swept along.

 

There is a difference between making a decision to do nothing about the change, or not making any decision because you are only allowing yourself to be swept along.

 

If you make that decision, to do nothing about the change after examining your needs, you are not being swept along. You own the decision. It is your decision, not Alamy's decision. Important because you will want to move forward on your decision to do nothing about the change. Make it work and review it only once a year in light of new evidence, not after every license.

I've chosen to drop out. Many years ago, going on half a century, I put lap-dissolved slides into a TV promotion for my employer, a radio broadcasting company. I thought the free-lance associate who arranged for the model got the signed release, and he thought I did. In any case, the model was clothed up to her neck and no one was defamed or damaged in any way, but that didn't prevent the nuisance suit.

 

Even though I've been careful when it comes to photos that have people or property in them — marking them as lacking releases and avoiding shooting things I shouldn't, such as murals — the wording of section 5 of the new contract makes it simply not worth the risk.

 

I thought of deleting all images that include unreleased people and property, just keeping bugs and flowers and such. However (lacking any legal knowledge) it seems to me that to accept the new contract for safe images would mean that, having accepted the new contract, any repercussions from earlier sales would carry the same risk as if I continued to keep them in my collection. If I terminate my contract with Alamy by the end of this month, as I have done, then any future possible problems would have to be addressed under the old contract.

 

Thanks to all for the helpful information and advice these past few years,

Don Douglas

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DDoug said:

 

I thought of deleting all images that include unreleased people and property, just keeping bugs and flowers and such. However (lacking any legal knowledge) it seems to me that to accept the new contract for safe images would mean that, having accepted the new contract, any repercussions from earlier sales would carry the same risk as if I continued to keep them in my collection. If I terminate my contract with Alamy by the end of this month, as I have done, then any future possible problems would have to be addressed under the old contract.

That's definitely something I'd like to see clarified. If the extra financial liabilities are still there in the ammended contract, will these extra liabilities apply to any future claims which might arise from publication of images which I delete before the new contract comes into force?

 

Mark

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

Where?

 

I clicked on the "new contract" link in the dashboard. The text seems to be tightened up. It reads:

 

Indemnities

"You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract."

 

I'll avoid stating my opinion of this, as it would be an insult to weasels.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic

Thanks for your patience whilst we make amendments to some of the new contract clauses. These amendments are confirmed below.

 

The 45 day notice period restarts from today, and this date will be reflected on your contributor dashboard.

 

 

Clause Change Listed 17 May 2021 Replacement
4.1.5. Amendment 4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content; 4.1.5. subject always to clause 4.1.10, except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;
4.1.6 Amendment 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. 4.1.6. the Content uploaded to the System will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar or violate publicity rights;
5.1. Amendment 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and (iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract. 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

The full contract can be found here: https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx

 

Best regards,

 

Alamy

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy unlocked this topic
32 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Thanks for your patience whilst we make amendments to some of the new contract clauses. These amendments are confirmed below.

 

The 45 day notice period restarts from today, and this date will be reflected on your contributor dashboard very soon.

 

 

Clause Change Listed 17 May 2021 Replacement
4.1.5. Amendment 4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content; 4.1.5. subject always to clause 4.1.10, except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;
4.1.6 Amendment 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. 4.1.6. the Content uploaded to the System will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar or violate publicity rights;
5.1. Amendment 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; (iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and (iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract. 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

The full contract can be found here: https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx

 

Best regards,

 

Alamy

 

Apart from some minor amendments to the wording, I'm struggling to see any legal or meaningful difference between the previous clauses and the re-worded version. To me the thrust and significance of the clauses are identical in effect and other than removing some "noise" don't constitute any meaningful change.
 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please someone correct me if I've got this wrong but just for reference to me the changes appear to be as follows:

 

4.1.5 - added
subject always to clause 4.1.10,

4.1.6 - changed
any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor
replaced by:
the Content uploaded to the System

 

5.1.
(i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; 

replaced by:

(i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; 


(ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; 

replaced by:
(ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System.

removed:
(iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and 
(iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.