Cheated?

[MarkK]

On 24/09/2021 at 05:42, Alamy said:

 

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

 

Best

 

James

Since there were only about “20” of us according to yourself, I am not understanding why my account is not showing the correction.  Have any of the others on the forum who are part of the “20” received the correction yet? Again, for my photo, it was sold on June 17 using the correct commission model, then Alamy showed a return and resale on September 20th with the sale price the same but with the lowered commission.  like you graciously pointed out it was a misunderstanding but I don’t understand why, if there are only 20 of us that were cheated in this way, don’t have the corrected amount in our accounts.

 

this is a genuine request for those this happened to….have any of you received the loss differential? Lastly, are there any guardrails in place so this misunderstanding doesn’t happen again whether it be next week, next year, or in five years? A surpringly large amount of trust has been broken over the past couple years and while as a business you have the right but it doesn’t make it right.

[Alamy]

3 hours ago, MarkK said:

Since there were only about “20” of us according to yourself, I am not understanding why my account is not showing the correction.  Have any of the others on the forum who are part of the “20” received the correction yet? Again, for my photo, it was sold on June 17 using the correct commission model, then Alamy showed a return and resale on September 20th with the sale price the same but with the lowered commission.  like you graciously pointed out it was a misunderstanding but I don’t understand why, if there are only 20 of us that were cheated in this way, don’t have the corrected amount in our accounts.

 

this is a genuine request for those this happened to….have any of you received the loss differential? Lastly, are there any guardrails in place so this misunderstanding doesn’t happen again whether it be next week, next year, or in five years? A surpringly large amount of trust has been broken over the past couple years and while as a business you have the right but it doesn’t make it right.

 

As mentioned in one of my previous posts on this, we're gathering all the information to pick up all affected licences of this issue. With the initial 20 we found being on the same refunded / rebilled invoice, I wanted to do a thorough job on making sure we found all affected cases across other invoices. The checks involved in pulling these reports can be time consuming to collate but I can confirm this will be corrected as soon as we can do it, hopefully within the next week or so.

 

As far as guardrailing so this shouldn't happen again, needless to say it shouldn't have happened in the first place so I would not expect it to happen again given the further checks we have in place - especially as we are further away from the contract change date so the chances of needing to refund/rebill an invoice for this time frame become far less. 

 

That said, if there is a human error involved again leading to the same happening then we absolutely would correct it. 

 

James A

[John Mitchell]

Mine appears to have been corrected already. Thanks.

 

Whoops! I was wrong about that. But thanks for the feedback.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by John Mitchell

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, Alamy said:

 

As mentioned in one of my previous posts on this, we're gathering all the information to pick up all affected licences of this issue. With the initial 20 we found being on the same refunded / rebilled invoice, I wanted to do a thorough job on making sure we found all affected cases across other invoices. The checks involved in pulling these reports can be time consuming to collate but I can confirm this will be corrected as soon as we can do it, hopefully within the next week or so.

 

As far as guardrailing so this shouldn't happen again, needless to say it shouldn't have happened in the first place so I would not expect it to happen again given the further checks we have in place - especially as we are further away from the contract change date so the chances of needing to refund/rebill an invoice for this time frame become far less. 

 

That said, if there is a human error involved again leading to the same happening then we absolutely would correct it. 

 

James A

 

I imagine the delay is because it's a manual operation to check special reports of sales from before the new commission rates came in which were then refunded, then relicenced. It's also probably not easy to trap re-occurrences automatically. The database search criteria is potentially quite complex?

 

Would it have been easier (and fairer and more ethical) to use the licence start date when determining the commission rate due? Wouldn't that be easy to automate and less error prone?

 

Mark

Edited September 29, 2021 by M.Chapman

[Nodvandigtid]

James,

 

your comments noted but there is yet more trust lost because of this issue.

 

I accept that you will do your best to fix what has been uncovered.

 

Another place to start with is cases that were submitted to customer relations but knocked back (like Sally Anderson's on this thread which was clearly, clearly wrong) – one would hope that you have a CR database which in turn has data that can been drawn down in terms of type of contributor queries but I doubt that and accept that it could take too long even if for example you could unearth every “commission” query.

 

There is and has been clearly something lacking in terms of not foreseeing this issue by the business.

 

I repeat again what I have said in other posts at various times I do not believe the expertise of the business is there when it comes to software and system changes.

 

Maybe whatever systems are used are out of date and badly need updating – that is not only good but more importantly essential.

 

Your heads-up post on the IT work and reduction in zooms was a harbinger of yet more IT changes.

Can we genuinely, given what has been going on, have faith that there will be no problems other than zoom records being reduced?

 

I repeat, I know you will do your best, but Alamy needs to get itself together now not later.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Nodvandigtid
typos fixed

[meanderingemu]

Anyone got a "refund" for Affiliate link?  Amount is small, and not complaining, but I'm seriously curious how you can have an affiliate charge in first place for a licence that had no affiliate link?  In line with all the other issues we are seeing in licencing data this feels bad.  What validation is done in first place?

[John Mitchell]

44 minutes ago, kay said:

As of this evening it's definitely still happening

Image sold 18/6/21 $180.00 $90.00 $90.00

refunded and relicensed this evening for $75.00 $45.00 $30.00 🤦‍♀️

 

 

 

Same thing here. A $180 sale at 50% (net $90) was just refunded and re-licensed for $75 at 40% (net $30).

Same customer perhaps.

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Betty LaRue]

Oh, Good Grief, will it never end?

[MarkK]

On 30/09/2021 at 15:20, John Mitchell said:

 

Same thing here. A $180 sale at 50% (net $90) was just refunded and re-licensed for $75 at 40% (net $30).

Same customer perhaps.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by MarkK
Deleted

[MarkK]

James wrote in September that this was all being taken care of.

 

Not to beat a dead horse but I have been auditing my photos and saw nothing has been rectified concerning a sale that was made for high XX on June 17 with the 50 percent commission.  It was then refunded on September 20th for the same price but minus 60 percent commission.  The photo is JKM6RR if James is reading this.  Two months later I am wondering if anyone else (he mentioned there were about 20 of us) get their money for the sales made before the contract change, refunded after the contract change and bought again but with the 60 percent deducted instead of 50? I don't like to beat a dead horse but if I wasn't auditing all of my photos I wouldn't have brought it up again.  James, any word on progress with this?

[gvallee]

11 minutes ago, MarkK said:

James wrote in September that this was all being taken care of.

 

Not to beat a dead horse but I have been auditing my photos and saw nothing has been rectified concerning a sale that was made for high XX on June 17 with the 50 percent commission.  It was then refunded on September 20th for the same price but minus 60 percent commission.  The photo is JKM6RR if James is reading this.  Two months later I am wondering if anyone else (he mentioned there were about 20 of us) get their money for the sales made before the contract change, refunded after the contract change and bought again but with the 60 percent deducted instead of 50? I don't like to beat a dead horse but if I wasn't auditing all of my photos I wouldn't have brought it up again.  James, any word on progress with this?

 

Good point. I had forgotten about it. No I haven't seen any redress.

[MarkK]

Just now, gvallee said:

 

Good point. I had forgotten about it. No I haven't seen any redress.

It has been very interesting auditing all of my photos for each month this year, looking at the numbers has really opened my eyes and has also raised a couple of red flags including this one which I know was addressed by James but then we never heard back again.  Good to know I am not the only one this happened to and wasn't redressed. BTW love your posts and your photos.  Used to live in NZ and spent the summers in Melbourne.  Wonderful area of the world I miss immensely. 

[gvallee]

16 minutes ago, MarkK said:

It has been very interesting auditing all of my photos for each month this year, looking at the numbers has really opened my eyes and has also raised a couple of red flags including this one which I know was addressed by James but then we never heard back again.  Good to know I am not the only one this happened to and wasn't redressed. BTW love your posts and your photos.  Used to live in NZ and spent the summers in Melbourne.  Wonderful area of the world I miss immensely. 

 

Thank you Mark. How can one not miss Oz? If you'd like to see more photos, you can send me a friend request on FB. I post very regularly, not all images go to Alamy, far from it. I can't keep up with Alamy!

[Marianne]

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

Buyers don't pay and Alamy decides it's not worth pursuing.

 

Buyers pay for a personal use license and then put the photo up on their website and Alamy ignores the breach.

 

Buyers want a refund beyond 30 days, that's OK with Alamy.

 

RM images get licensed in perpetuity for $ fees. 

 

Buyers want to print an image cheaply to hang on their walls rather than pay the artist for a fine art print. The photographer has marked the image RM and exclusive to Alamy, losing out on commissions elsewhere to insure that those wanting fine art prints of her work buy them from her. Alamy gets around this by selling them a super high resolution RM file for presentation use, when PU is disallowed, so they can cheat the photographer. (They bought two other images the same day to make prints, so the cheating is pretty obvious, but how do I prove they have the third hanging in their home or office?  I can't - but Alamy gave them an easy way to cheat me.) 

 

Only the contributors have to stick to letter of the contract. 

 

Most recently, I had an $85 license from 2020 which had cleared and already been paid to me, refunded out of the blue 5 months later, clearly in breach of the terms of the contract which states refunds are only permissible within a 30-day window. If Alamy wants to let clients off the hook, why should I have to lose my commission when I didn't agree to this largesse on their part? Shouldn't they stick with their obligation to me, that once a buyer's invoice has gone past 30 days, there are no "backsies" and I'm entitled to keep the commission they have actually already paid?

 

Glad they are dealing with the rebilling issue at least. But I have really lost faith in being treated fairly. The folks I've dealt with at Alamy are always polite, but the holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Marianne

[gvallee]

13 minutes ago, Marianne said:

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

Buyers don't pay and Alamy decides it's not worth pursuing.

 

Buyers pay for a personal use license and then put the photo up on their website and Alamy ignores the breach.

 

Buyers want a refund beyond 30 days, that's OK with Alamy.

 

RM images get licensed in perpetuity for $ fees. 

 

Buyers want to print an image cheaply to hang on their walls rather than pay the artist for a fine art print. The photographer has marked the image RM and exclusive to Alamy, losing out on commissions elsewhere to insure that those wanting fine art prints of her work buy them from her. Alamy gets around this by selling them a super high resolution RM file for presentation use, when PU is disallowed, so they can cheat the photographer. (They bought two other images the same day to make prints, so the cheating is pretty obvious, but how do I prove they have the third hanging in their home or office?  I can't - but Alamy gave them an easy way to cheat me.) 

 

Only the contributors have to stick to letter of the contract. 

 

Most recently, I had an $85 license from 2020 which had cleared and already been paid to me, refunded out of the blue 5 months later, clearly in breach of the terms of the contract which states refunds are only permissible within a 30-day window. If Alamy wants to let clients off the hook, why should I have to lose my commission when I didn't agree to this largesse on their part? Shouldn't they stick with their obligation to me, that once a buyer's invoice has gone past 30 days, there are no "backsies" and I'm entitled to keep the commission they have actually already paid?

 

Glad they are dealing with the rebilling issue at least. But I have really lost faith in being treated fairly. The folks I've dealt with at Alamy are always polite, but the holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said. +100

[Marianne]

8 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

Well said. +100

 

Thanks!

[MarkK]

1 hour ago, Marianne said:

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

Buyers don't pay and Alamy decides it's not worth pursuing.

 

Buyers pay for a personal use license and then put the photo up on their website and Alamy ignores the breach.

 

Buyers want a refund beyond 30 days, that's OK with Alamy.

 

RM images get licensed in perpetuity for $ fees. 

 

Buyers want to print an image cheaply to hang on their walls rather than pay the artist for a fine art print. The photographer has marked the image RM and exclusive to Alamy, losing out on commissions elsewhere to insure that those wanting fine art prints of her work buy them from her. Alamy gets around this by selling them a super high resolution RM file for presentation use, when PU is disallowed, so they can cheat the photographer. (They bought two other images the same day to make prints, so the cheating is pretty obvious, but how do I prove they have the third hanging in their home or office?  I can't - but Alamy gave them an easy way to cheat me.) 

 

Only the contributors have to stick to letter of the contract. 

 

Most recently, I had an $85 license from 2020 which had cleared and already been paid to me, refunded out of the blue 5 months later, clearly in breach of the terms of the contract which states refunds are only permissible within a 30-day window. If Alamy wants to let clients off the hook, why should I have to lose my commission when I didn't agree to this largesse on their part? Shouldn't they stick with their obligation to me, that once a buyer's invoice has gone past 30 days, there are no "backsies" and I'm entitled to keep the commission they have actually already paid?

 

Glad they are dealing with the rebilling issue at least. But I have really lost faith in being treated fairly. The folks I've dealt with at Alamy are always polite, but the holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast. 

 

 

 

 

I thought it was interesting how you mentioned about the refund timing.  During my audit today i found a refund in 2021 for a photo in 2020......13 months later.  This is some crazy stuff but they are influx right now and maybe these issues will be addressed under the new 'system'.  Its a good point in time for them to reign in the refund policies but I am only a contributor so my writing out loud right now will only go so far

[Radim]

2 hours ago, Marianne said:

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

Buyers don't pay and Alamy decides it's not worth pursuing.

 

Buyers pay for a personal use license and then put the photo up on their website and Alamy ignores the breach.

 

Buyers want a refund beyond 30 days, that's OK with Alamy.

 

RM images get licensed in perpetuity for $ fees. 

 

Buyers want to print an image cheaply to hang on their walls rather than pay the artist for a fine art print. The photographer has marked the image RM and exclusive to Alamy, losing out on commissions elsewhere to insure that those wanting fine art prints of her work buy them from her. Alamy gets around this by selling them a super high resolution RM file for presentation use, when PU is disallowed, so they can cheat the photographer. (They bought two other images the same day to make prints, so the cheating is pretty obvious, but how do I prove they have the third hanging in their home or office?  I can't - but Alamy gave them an easy way to cheat me.) 

 

Only the contributors have to stick to letter of the contract. 

 

Most recently, I had an $85 license from 2020 which had cleared and already been paid to me, refunded out of the blue 5 months later, clearly in breach of the terms of the contract which states refunds are only permissible within a 30-day window. If Alamy wants to let clients off the hook, why should I have to lose my commission when I didn't agree to this largesse on their part? Shouldn't they stick with their obligation to me, that once a buyer's invoice has gone past 30 days, there are no "backsies" and I'm entitled to keep the commission they have actually already paid?

 

Glad they are dealing with the rebilling issue at least. But I have really lost faith in being treated fairly. The folks I've dealt with at Alamy are always polite, but the holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast. 

 

 

 

 

I fully agree with you, the worst is ...
loss of faith that Alymy treat us fairly.

[Phil Crean]

5 hours ago, Marianne said:

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

Buyers don't pay and Alamy decides it's not worth pursuing.

 

Buyers pay for a personal use license and then put the photo up on their website and Alamy ignores the breach.

 

Buyers want a refund beyond 30 days, that's OK with Alamy.

 

RM images get licensed in perpetuity for $ fees. 

 

Buyers want to print an image cheaply to hang on their walls rather than pay the artist for a fine art print. The photographer has marked the image RM and exclusive to Alamy, losing out on commissions elsewhere to insure that those wanting fine art prints of her work buy them from her. Alamy gets around this by selling them a super high resolution RM file for presentation use, when PU is disallowed, so they can cheat the photographer. (They bought two other images the same day to make prints, so the cheating is pretty obvious, but how do I prove they have the third hanging in their home or office?  I can't - but Alamy gave them an easy way to cheat me.) 

 

Only the contributors have to stick to letter of the contract. 

 

Most recently, I had an $85 license from 2020 which had cleared and already been paid to me, refunded out of the blue 5 months later, clearly in breach of the terms of the contract which states refunds are only permissible within a 30-day window. If Alamy wants to let clients off the hook, why should I have to lose my commission when I didn't agree to this largesse on their part? Shouldn't they stick with their obligation to me, that once a buyer's invoice has gone past 30 days, there are no "backsies" and I'm entitled to keep the commission they have actually already paid?

 

Glad they are dealing with the rebilling issue at least. But I have really lost faith in being treated fairly. The folks I've dealt with at Alamy are always polite, but the holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast. 

 

 

 

 

100% correct....

Well put.

 

Phil

[meanderingemu]

7 hours ago, Marianne said:

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

Buyers don't pay and Alamy decides it's not worth pursuing.

 

Buyers pay for a personal use license and then put the photo up on their website and Alamy ignores the breach.

 

Buyers want a refund beyond 30 days, that's OK with Alamy.

 

RM images get licensed in perpetuity for $ fees. 

 

Buyers want to print an image cheaply to hang on their walls rather than pay the artist for a fine art print. The photographer has marked the image RM and exclusive to Alamy, losing out on commissions elsewhere to insure that those wanting fine art prints of her work buy them from her. Alamy gets around this by selling them a super high resolution RM file for presentation use, when PU is disallowed, so they can cheat the photographer. (They bought two other images the same day to make prints, so the cheating is pretty obvious, but how do I prove they have the third hanging in their home or office?  I can't - but Alamy gave them an easy way to cheat me.) 

 

Only the contributors have to stick to letter of the contract. 

 

Most recently, I had an $85 license from 2020 which had cleared and already been paid to me, refunded out of the blue 5 months later, clearly in breach of the terms of the contract which states refunds are only permissible within a 30-day window. If Alamy wants to let clients off the hook, why should I have to lose my commission when I didn't agree to this largesse on their part? Shouldn't they stick with their obligation to me, that once a buyer's invoice has gone past 30 days, there are no "backsies" and I'm entitled to keep the commission they have actually already paid?

 

Glad they are dealing with the rebilling issue at least. But I have really lost faith in being treated fairly. The folks I've dealt with at Alamy are always polite, but the holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said.  

 

The other thing I would note is Alamy "justified" the increase in commissions and drop in price based on "what other stock agencies, including microstock are doing".  How many of these agencies issue refunds months later?  How many allow to download and not bill within a reasonable time?  Why does it seem Alamy only uses their practices when it has a negative impact on contributors? 

[Nodvandigtid]

9 hours ago, Marianne said:

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

 

Excellent post in all respects Marianne - hits all the nails on the head.

[Sally]

No, My refund has not been sorted yet either.

[SShep]

Nor mine.

Steve

[MarkK]

13 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

Thank you Mark. How can one not miss Oz? If you'd like to see more photos, you can send me a friend request on FB. I post very regularly, not all images go to Alamy, far from it. I can't keep up with Alamy!

Sorry to reply in the open forum here but not sure how to reach you via this site.  I looked on FB under your screen name here but couldn't find you.  I did find, however, the group for Grey Nomads which I love.  Being nomadic, or peripatetic, really opens one up to opportunities for off-the-beaten path photos.  MarkMark

[MarkK]

12 hours ago, Marianne said:

Buyers don't need to stick to the terms of the contract - only contributors do.

 

Buyers don't pay and Alamy decides it's not worth pursuing.

 

Buyers pay for a personal use license and then put the photo up on their website and Alamy ignores the breach.

 

Buyers want a refund beyond 30 days, that's OK with Alamy.

 

RM images get licensed in perpetuity for $ fees. 

 

Buyers want to print an image cheaply to hang on their walls rather than pay the artist for a fine art print. The photographer has marked the image RM and exclusive to Alamy, losing out on commissions elsewhere to insure that those wanting fine art prints of her work buy them from her. Alamy gets around this by selling them a super high resolution RM file for presentation use, when PU is disallowed, so they can cheat the photographer. (They bought two other images the same day to make prints, so the cheating is pretty obvious, but how do I prove they have the third hanging in their home or office?  I can't - but Alamy gave them an easy way to cheat me.) 

 

Only the contributors have to stick to letter of the contract. 

 

Most recently, I had an $85 license from 2020 which had cleared and already been paid to me, refunded out of the blue 5 months later, clearly in breach of the terms of the contract which states refunds are only permissible within a 30-day window. If Alamy wants to let clients off the hook, why should I have to lose my commission when I didn't agree to this largesse on their part? Shouldn't they stick with their obligation to me, that once a buyer's invoice has gone past 30 days, there are no "backsies" and I'm entitled to keep the commission they have actually already paid?

 

Glad they are dealing with the rebilling issue at least. But I have really lost faith in being treated fairly. The folks I've dealt with at Alamy are always polite, but the holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast. 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your post.  I have actually become afraid to speak my mind on here due to their new policy of blacklisting people.  They had the ability to enact a system to stop people from speaking up on here but they haven't had the time to refund the "20" people who were cheated by having a sale before the contract change, having them refunded and charged again for them but with the only change being the commission taken out.  The reason for replying to this is that in your last line you said the "holes in the system that let all this get past them are vast". 

 

I have been here since 2016 and you since 2010.  You and many of us know that many of the issues you and others have pointed out are NOT new.  It would be very difficult to think they aren't aware of the 'holes' which are 'holes' to us but potential areas of profit for them.  The refund issue, with refunds over a year after the sales, is an issue that has been going on for many years.  Again, they must be aware of all of these issues that have been identified on the forum for years thus not filling them is more purposeful than an oversight.