Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Alamy said:


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

Thank you James 

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

 

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

It isn't, no, and in an open forum I think it's probably best not to say

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alamy said:


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

 

James,

 

thank you for the open discussion.  And i know Alamy feels that events like the Photoshow are where we are supposed to go and have these, but for many of us this is not really an option.    so thanks for using the discussion board for this.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine appears to have been corrected already. Thanks.

 

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

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Nodvandigtid
typos fixed
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2021 at 16:29, 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

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 🤦‍♀️

 

 

  • Sad 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by John Mitchell
  • Sad 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MarkK
Deleted
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

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

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

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3
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.