Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 21/09/2021 at 06:05, 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

 

So you confirm that the date of sale is  

 

Date of download to determine if image was saleable

Date of reporting for commission

 

so as i stated, two definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alamy said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with commission rate, this has to do with Alamy's moving definition of sale, which is not contractual as mentioned. 

 

Again the example

 

 

Sale originally date June 15, 2022, which takes the contributor over $250 in total licencing fee, gets relabelled later by Alamy and becomes a July 7, 2022 sale, bringing the contributors total licences for July 1, 2021- June 30 2022 below the $250 threshold, What happens to the Level for the 2022-23 year? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 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

Only 20? I was knocked back by you about one I asked about in August so I hope this is also part of the refunded commission.

 

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

Only 20? I was knocked back by you about one I asked about in August so I hope this is also part of the refunded commission.

 

 

It could well be the same invoice/customer issue. We're gathering together the details to correct it.

 

Best

 

James

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

This has nothing to do with commission rate, this has to do with Alamy's moving definition of sale, which is not contractual as mentioned. 

 

Again the example

 

 

Sale originally date June 15, 2022, which takes the contributor over $250 in total licencing fee, gets relabelled later by Alamy and becomes a July 7, 2022 sale, bringing the contributors total licences for July 1, 2021- June 30 2022 below the $250 threshold, What happens to the Level for the 2022-23 year? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not quite following you, sorry - I'm trying to answer both your posts here in one as simply as possible.

 

If a refund and rebilling situation causes you to be:

 

- Out of pocket

or

- Dropped to a lower rate due to it dipping you under $25k or $250 in the revenue year

 

....then we will correct it. You'll get the commission rate due to you at the time of billing and you'll be placed in the appropriate commission tier as if the sale was made within the revenue year. 

 

Frustrations about the standard drop in commission aside (which I fully understand), we are in no way going to unfairly leave you out of pocket in any sense due to admin errors with billing/refunding either on our part or the customers.

 

Best

 

James

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sally said:

Only 20? I was knocked back by you about one I asked about in August so I hope this is also part of the refunded commission.

 

 

i am always surprised how a significant portion of these affect forum contributors.  Based on report in this thread it would seem about 40% of these cases were regulars.  Considering the volume of Alamy i doubt that we represent even 1% of the base, so this is always curious

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alamy said:

 

I'm not quite following you, sorry - I'm trying to answer both your posts here in one as simply as possible.

 

If a refund and rebilling situation causes you to be:

 

- Out of pocket

or

- Dropped to a lower rate due to it dipping you under $25k or $250 in the revenue year

 

....then we will correct it. You'll get the commission rate due to you at the time of billing and you'll be placed in the appropriate commission tier as if the sale was made within the revenue year. 

 

Frustrations about the standard drop in commission aside (which I fully understand), we are in no way going to unfairly leave you out of pocket in any sense due to admin errors with billing/refunding either on our part or the customers.

 

Best

 

James

 

 

With numbers, and easy numbers

 

July 2021-June 2022

 

Sale 1 $200 on Jan 1, 2022

Sale 2 $100 on June 15th 2022

 

 

So as of July 1, 2022 the person would qualify as Gold, with $300 of sales in the Period

 

On July 7, 2022, the June 15 Sale, is refunded, and relabelled July 7, 2022  So now the contributors total sales for July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 is only $200

 

 

What happens to their Level for the 2022-23 Year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

i am always surprised how a significant portion of these affect forum contributors.  Based on report in this thread it would seem about 40% of these cases were regulars.  Considering the volume of Alamy i doubt that we represent even 1% of the base, so this is always curious

 

As previously stated:

 

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

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, meanderingemu said:

 

 

With numbers, and easy numbers

 

July 2021-June 2022

 

Sale 1 $200 on Jan 1, 2022

Sale 2 $100 on June 15th 2022

 

 

So as of July 1, 2022 the person would qualify as Gold, with $300 of sales in the Period

 

On July 7, 2022, the June 15 Sale, is refunded, and relabelled July 7, 2022  So now the contributors total sales for July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 is only $200

 

 

What happens to their Level for the 2022-23 Year?

 

It gets corrected to the original sale date because the refund/rebill is according to the orginal sale. I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself but my previous answer detailed exactly that :)

 

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

 

As previously stated:

 

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

 

 

yes, and I counted 8 reports in this thread from forum contributors so hence the 40%.  I agree it is not materially significant, just seemed odd.   But maybe i misunderstand what the English term "this particular set" refers to, remember many of us English is a second language

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alamy said:

 

It gets corrected to the original sale date because the refund/rebill is according to the orginal sale. I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself but my previous answer detailed exactly that :)

 

Also, if you're gold/platinum at 1st of July that doesn't get reviewed again until the following year.

 

If you drop to silver you go straight to gold once you hit $250 regardless of when in the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

It gets corrected to the original sale date because the refund/rebill is according to the orginal sale. I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself but my previous answer detailed exactly that :)

 

So the persons Level will Not be affected?  I hate to repeat myself, but the lack of definition of "Sale date" in the Contract always leaves to interpretation. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

Also, if you're gold/platinum at 1st of July that doesn't get reviewed again until the following year.

 

If you drop to silver you go straight to gold once you hit $250 regardless of when in the year.

 

So the $250 is cumulative, and would use the $200 from the prior period?  I will have to reread the contract.  Again thanks for taking the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Frustrations about the standard drop in commission aside (which I fully understand), we are in no way going to unfairly leave you out of pocket in any sense due to admin errors with billing/refunding either on our part or the customers.

 

Best

 

James

Thanks James, but does this also include 'admin errors' in not billing for usages by a large account that uses alamy images on their instagram feed but never seems to get billed for them unless it is raised by us?  A known problem.  A problem that has been known about for a couple of years.  It has taken me several emails over 12 months to finally get paid for 14 usages going back to March 2020 - meaning that I got 40% rather than 50%?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/09/2021 at 18:48, gvallee said:

 

Only deafening silence from Ms Shelley. No reply whatsoever.

 

Still no reply as of tonight. Not in the spam folder either.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, James, for responding to our concerns. Although I can’t help but feel there are way more contributors affected by this mistake than what you reported.

Considering only a minuscule of contributors participate in this forum, considering how many of us here have reported the mistake, it’s rather difficult to believe your reported number, so few, affected unless forumites were targeted.

I realize you have employees coming up with that small number to report to you, and I suggest somebody is covering their backside by minimizing the number of us affected.

I didn’t fall off the turnip truck.

But thank you for your participation.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Thank you, James, for responding to our concerns. Although I can’t help but feel there are way more contributors affected by this mistake than what you reported.

Considering only a minuscule of contributors participate in this forum, considering how many of us here have reported the mistake, it’s rather difficult to believe your reported number, so few, affected unless forumites were targeted.

I realize you have employees coming up with that small number to report to you, and I suggest somebody is covering their backside by minimizing the number of us affected.

I didn’t fall off the turnip truck.

But thank you for your participation.

 

I completely agree.  Mathematically it just doesn't make sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What PaLamy has managed to create even from its most loyal, active contributors is distrust and suspicion. 

 

I am aware that will be immediately knocked back that there are 90,000 contributors who don't complain. And hit with some percentage or other.

 

If you don't want to take notice of your forum contributors then why have a forum?

 

You can't have it both ways. Portray as photographer friendly and then rip off you photographers to increase company profits. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

What PaLamy has managed to create even from its most loyal, active contributors is distrust and suspicion. 

 

I am aware that will be immediately knocked back that there are 90,000 contributors who don't complain. And hit with some percentage or other.

 

If you don't want to take notice of your forum contributors then why have a forum?

 

You can't have it both ways. Portray as photographer friendly and then rip off you photographers to increase company profits. 

 

 

considering these 90,000 contributors (so 99.6%) seem to be much less affected by issues, for example only 50-60% of the cases of these refunds, it probably leads to less complaining.  but who am i to know, i get red arrows for pointing out Alamy left areas of contract vague so they can use it against contributors, probably one of these 90000 happy campers... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So either James or Alamy didn't understand Betty's original post when he posted his first reply or there's been a policy U-Turn? Anyway, whatever, it's good that common decency has now prevailed. I suspect the problem is the Alamy software that calculates our commission was programmed to apply the new rates to any invoices generated from the 24th July onwards. The special case of refunds being re-invoiced wasn't taken into account and so has to be handled manually. This takes effort and so was initially resisted or was just overlooked.

 

Personally I think the software should have been programmed to apply the new commission rates only to licences with a start date of 24th July 2021 or later. Especially as it seems likely that with the bulk discount deals Alamy is now offering, Alamy actually invoice for the money up front.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited by M.Chapman
Added "or Alamy" following James' comment below
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

So either James didn't understand Betty's original post when he posted his first reply or there's been a policy U-Turn? Anyway, whatever, it's good that common decency has now prevailed. I suspect the problem is the Alamy software that calculates our commission was programmed to apply the new rates to any invoices generated from the 24th July onwards. The special case of refunds being re-invoiced wasn't taken into account and so has to be handled manually. This takes effort and so was initially resisted or was just overlooked.

 

Personally I think the software should have been programmed to apply the new commission rates only to licences with a start date of 24th July 2021 or later. Especially as it seems likely that with the bulk discount deals Alamy is now offering, Alamy actually invoice for the money up front.

 

Mark

 

 

Very wise, Mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

So either James didn't understand Betty's original post when he posted his first reply or there's been a policy U-Turn? Anyway, whatever, it's good that common decency has now prevailed. I suspect the problem is the Alamy software that calculates our commission was programmed to apply the new rates to any invoices generated from the 24th July onwards. The special case of refunds being re-invoiced wasn't taken into account and so has to be handled manually. This takes effort and so was initially resisted or was just overlooked.

 

Personally I think the software should have been programmed to apply the new commission rates only to licences with a start date of 24th July 2021 or later. Especially as it seems likely that with the bulk discount deals Alamy is now offering, Alamy actually invoice for the money up front.

 

Mark

 

 

Just not properly thought through, and initial complaints fell on deaf ears. It’s good to see that forum pressure has resulted in a rethink.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

So either James didn't understand Betty's original post when he posted his first reply or there's been a policy U-Turn? 


I didn’t post the original response.


No policy U-Turn, just a genuine misunderstanding of the issue at hand which is now clear.

 

We’re working to correct it as soon as possible.

 

James A

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kay said:

Thanks James, but does this also include 'admin errors' in not billing for usages by a large account that uses alamy images on their instagram feed but never seems to get billed for them unless it is raised by us?  A known problem.  A problem that has been known about for a couple of years.  It has taken me several emails over 12 months to finally get paid for 14 usages going back to March 2020 - meaning that I got 40% rather than 50%?


That is a different situation and we have to go by time of billing rather than time of use. 
 

The case you refer to is complex in nature and I’m sorry you have had a prolonged time in trying to get a resolution. I’ll look into it personally to see if we can improve things for you with the outcome.

 

James

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kay said:

Thanks James, but does this also include 'admin errors' in not billing for usages by a large account that uses alamy images on their instagram feed but never seems to get billed for them unless it is raised by us?  A known problem.  A problem that has been known about for a couple of years.  It has taken me several emails over 12 months to finally get paid for 14 usages going back to March 2020 - meaning that I got 40% rather than 50%?

 

Would the Instagram feed be Times 2? (my highlighting in quoted text)

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.