Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SShep said:

I'm struggling to think of a reason why a customer would buy an image in June, then refund it in September and buy it again instantly at the same price with the original terms - including the June start date.
Steve

At a guess - a purchaser in the current climate - which in fairness applies to us contributors too - may have financial reasons for requesting PA/Alamy to re-bill (example - temporary cash-flow and this is a generic example only, not applicable to any case highlighted by fellow-contributors).

Gives them breathing space - PA/Alamy agree but somehow no-one appears (or have they) to recognise the adverse impact of the commission change down the line.

PA/Alamy - if you can help a buyer, you can help a contributor too (if you really want to that is).

Edited by Nodvandigtid
"advise" to "adverse"
Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned, the start date in June never changed. I would assume that the client put the image(s) to use in June, well within the 50% period.  If they didn’t use the images in June, then why didn’t the resell reflect a new start date?

Zip up your pockets, folks.

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy this is disgraceful! It's bad enough that retrospective first time licences for usages before the new contract came into force only attract the latest commission rates. But to do the same thing if a sale, which was invoiced before the new contract came into force, is refunded and then reinvoiced is outrageous. May I suggest any contributor who agrees emails Emily Shelley at md@alamy.com

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Time was when prompt reporting of licences was supposed to be a selling point and demonstrative of Alamy's honesty and transparency. Now, apparently, it has no contractual meaning at all- it's just an excuse to put its hand in our pockets months down the line. This is gaslighting.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO Commission rate should be calculated based on Licence start date. These special "use now, declare later" deals that Alamy has agreed are nothing to do with us.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

IMHO Commission rate should be calculated based on Licence start date. These special "use now, declare later" deals that Alamy has agreed are nothing to do with us.

 

Mark

Even at that Mark; I had one picture in print (Spanish paper – one month use - thankfully flagged  in "Images found" by a fellow contributor) that appeared in the paper in February 2019.

It was eventually invoiced (after a chase) in September 2019 and had a licence start date of 01 August 2019, End date 01 August 2024 but the licence I repeat also said “One month”

 

So it was physically used seven months before invoicing.

 

The saga continued – the paper then used the image in two further articles long after a month was up. I challenged Alamy again and eventually a five year licence at a more appropriate fee came through.

 

Over the years how much contributors money has been given away by Alamy's benevolent policy?

 

But back to the crux of this subject – it is morally and totally wrong to re-bill and Alamy then take the “wrong” level of commission from contributors.

  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people understand the potential implication of what is being done here with recalculating based on new dates, status and contract.  Had these happened next year this could have had major implication for a contributor, much more then current examples. 

 

Here is the potential impact 

 

Sale on $89 in June 2022 to a contributor, raising their annual total to $300 .  The contributor now gets paid $35.60. (40% under current deal)

 

 

In July 2022, a nice sale of $150, receive $60, paid at end of August.

 

 

Mid September 2022, the June 2022 sale is cancelled, and "resold" effect Sept 18, 2022. 

 

Here is the nifty trick.  Now the Contributor only had $211 licencing for the Period of July 2021-June 2022, so as of July 2022 they are only silver.

 

 

The $150 sales would therefore contractually only be getting 20%, so contributor only get $30, and owes $30 back.

In addition, the $89 is still under silver-2022, so only gets paid $17.80.

 

And contributor is only total $239 so still Silver for at least the next sale.  

 

 

This was highlighted in new contract with the lack of definition of "Sales date", and never addressed. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nodvandigtid said:

Even at that Mark; I had one picture in print (Spanish paper – one month use - thankfully flagged  in "Images found" by a fellow contributor) that appeared in the paper in February 2019.

It was eventually invoiced (after a chase) in September 2019 and had a licence start date of 01 August 2019, End date 01 August 2024 but the licence I repeat also said “One month”

 

So it was physically used seven months before invoicing.

 

The saga continued – the paper then used the image in two further articles long after a month was up. I challenged Alamy again and eventually a five year licence at a more appropriate fee came through.

 

Over the years how much contributors money has been given away by Alamy's benevolent policy?

 

But back to the crux of this subject – it is morally and totally wrong to re-bill and Alamy then take the “wrong” level of commission from contributors.

Triple green arrow from me !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about others but I was very hesitant to continue with the new contract.  After months of not adding photos, but instead deleting many of them, I finally decided to give it a go.  That was this past weekend.  I submitted a lot of photos in-waiting and then this happened yesterday.  This really makes me very, very uncomfortable.  Many years ago I had a blog that I worked on for years and one day I received an email stating they will no longer be hosting the blog site and all of that work just disappeared.  One person on this person really helped me by finding a portion of the blog but I lost a lot of photos and entries.  This is going through my mind right now.  Do I keep contributing and the commission keeps going down, the games keep being played, with the eventual demise of the independent contributor.  As we all know, it takes a lot of time and energy.  I am sure there are others who spend a lot of time deciding which platform to put which photos.  This has all made it much more complicated.  I don't like feeling like I am being taken advantage of because they know they can.  Do we keep contributing and hope (hope is not a strategy) that the commission doesn't drop again or that photos that were sold 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago aren't all of a sudden refunded and "purchased" under the new commission? The only ones to benefit from this is Alamy. Period.  I cannot see why the buyer would ask for a refund and then buy it back at the same price.  Doesn't make sense other than there is something more nefarious behind the action.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't quite believe what I was reading here! It's so obviously an injustice to refund an old sale then immediately repost the sale on terms which then favour Alamy and disadvantage the contributor, that I couldn't believe Alamy would knowlingly do it. I've been confidently expecting that Alamy would make an appearance here to say, Our hands are up we made a boo boo and overlooked the fact that rectifying it it would leave contributors worse off. Sorry folks, we'll set things to rights with haste.

 

That is what has happened and will happen, isn't  it Alamy? Surely? I've never had you down as an unethical company, for all the harshness of your recent business decisions.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Alamy this is disgraceful! It's bad enough that retrospective first time licences for usages before the new contract came into force only attract the latest commission rates. But to do the same thing if a sale, which was invoiced before the new contract came into force, is refunded and then reinvoiced is outrageous. May I suggest any contributor who agrees emails Emily Shelley at md@alamy.com

 

Mark

 

Done. Will let you know when I hear. 

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

The afternoon is wearing on and there has been no further word from Alamy on this situation. I am genuinely disappointed and dismayed.

 

What has happened to a perhaps small number of esteemed contributors is bad enough in itself. What is worse is the potential for it to take place again, affecting possibly any contributor. It seems we are all vulnerable to sales being refunded at 50% and resold at 40%.

 

Alamy, have you really nothing further to say?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

The afternoon is wearing on and there has been no further word from Alamy on this situation. I am genuinely disappointed and dismayed.

 

What has happened to a perhaps small number of esteemed contributors is bad enough in itself. What is worse is the potential for it to take place again, affecting possibly any contributor. It seems we are all vulnerable to sales being refunded at 50% and resold at 40%.

 

Alamy, have you really nothing further to say?

 

It doesn't have to stop at 40%. In February I had a licence credited at 50%. Next year I will be kicked down to silver, and if that licence gets refunded and rebilled then it will go from 50% to 20%. We've seen that Alamy apparently has no time limit on refunds.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DJ Myford said:

 

It doesn't have to stop at 40%. In February I had a licence credited at 50%. Next year I will be kicked down to silver, and if that licence gets refunded and rebilled then it will go from 50% to 20%. We've seen that Alamy apparently has no time limit on refunds.

 

 

exactly.  plus they will find a retroactive affiliate link to reduce your earnings even more. 

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

any feed-back from CR? (before this gets locked)  

 

Only deafening silence from Ms Shelley. No reply whatsoever.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Sincere apologies for this - clearly an admin error on our part where some invoices have had to be re-issued.

 

We'll make sure that anyone who has had an image billed at one rate but then cancelled and rebilled at a different rate will not end up out of pocket. We're just confirming how many sales this has affected but with this particular set it's looking like around 20 or so. You can expect to see the difference returned into your accounts shortly. 

 

As always if you spot anything that doesn't look right, please drop us an email via contributors@alamy.com and we'll do our best to resolve.

 

Best, 

 

James A

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/09/2021 at 10:05, Alamy said:

Hi

 

Commission is calculated at date of invoice, not date of download. Taking distribution as an example, we take download date into consideration if a distributor has used an image after you have opted out of the scheme. In this case if the distributor downloaded the image before you opted out, they are still able to use the image. However the commission wouldn't be calculated until they invoiced the use.

 

We understand the frustration here but as we report images to you when they happen rather than when we have received money unfortunately images do sometimes get refunded and rebilled. Any images rebilled after the 24th July will remain at the new commission rate.

 

Thanks,

Alamy

Hmm. The other day it was this, now it's something else.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Hmm. The other day it was this, now it's something else.

 

There is a difference between the billing time coming into effect at a new commission rate and something that was previously billed at one rate, cancelled and then rebilled at another. 

 

The response given earlier this week wasn't appropriate to cover both situations - we'll correct any amounts that have meant a contributor has lost out due to an invoice needing to be re-processed (rebilled).

 

Best,

 

James A

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi everyone,

 

Sincere apologies for this - clearly an admin error on our part where some invoices have had to be re-issued.

 

We'll make sure that anyone who has had an image billed at one rate but then cancelled and rebilled at a different rate will not end up out of pocket. We're just confirming how many sales this has affected but with this particular set it's looking like around 20 or so. You can expect to see the difference returned into your accounts shortly. 

 

As always if you spot anything that doesn't look right, please drop us an email via contributors@alamy.com and we'll do our best to resolve.

 

Best, 

 

James A

Can you confirm that same policy will be effective for determination for Silver/Gold levels. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, meanderingemu said:

Can you confirm that same policy will be effective for determination for Silver/Gold levels. 

 

Yes - a contributor should never be out of pocket due to a change in commission rate that then affects a refund/rebilling situation where the rate has changed during that time. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked 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.