Important Update - Alamy Contributor Contract

[Jay D]

Not sure where the NU opt in opt out button is? 

[spacecadet]

9 minutes ago, Jay D said:

Not sure where the NU opt in opt out button is? 

It's under additional revenue options on dashboard. You can only opt out in April.

But I've had only one NU sale, ever, so I haven't bothered. Normal sales can be even worse now.

Edited July 22, 2023 by spacecadet

[Jay D]

On 22/07/2023 at 16:44, spacecadet said:

It's under additional revenue options on dashboard. You can only opt out in April.

But I've had only one NU sale, ever, so I haven't bothered. Normal sales can be even worse now.

Thank you....Yeh i agree, hadn't noticed those options 😀

[andremichel]

On 09/05/2023 at 09:11, Alamy said:

The Alamy contributor contract has been updated and we’re writing to give you notice of these changes.

The new contract is here and the key changes are listed here. The changes will come into effect on 23rd June 2023.

Most of the changes are small tweaks to general wording, but there are three key changes we’d like to highlight, with the full text to these available in the links above.

 

• In relation to Clause 2.10: As with the current Contract, if your Content is marked as Exclusive you give Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. However, if the Content has been found to be licensed through another licensing platform (and the Content is therefore not Exclusive to Alamy), Alamy will recoup any fees incurred in relation to the pursuit of any action taken, including legal admin fees. This does not include any sales you make directly to a customer via any personal photography service.
• In relation to Clauses 9.1 and 9.3: If you are opted in to Novel use, your images can be licensed to customers for Machine Learning purposes and when applicable, you will be entitled to payment for any Content licensed for these licenses. We have extended the Novel Use opt-out period to coincide with the notice period of the contract change should you wish for your images to not be included in the Novel Use scheme under this new contract.
• In relation to Clause 16.8: Where Alamy reasonably believes Content on a third-party website has been sourced from Alamy without a license, you grant Alamy the right to pursue any suspected or actual infringements of copyright of the Content without the need to notify you in advance.

 

Many Thanks,

Louise (Contributor Relations) 

 

Like the majority of contributors, I do not frequent this forum. Therefore this is the first time I have seen this. 

 

Was this important change to the contract clearly explained to all contributors via email?

 

I was not aware of it and being fined $100 today came as a complete shock. If I had known in advance, I would have taken action to prevent any possibility of it happening. 

 

These days most contributors only earn a tiny income each month. However we rely on the crumbs we get each month to cover bills. Having $100 deducted in this way almost wiped out my entire month's earnings and put me well below the payment threshold.

 

This is surely a really cruel way to treat your contributors? 

 

I now worry in case there are more $50 fines in the pipeline that have yet to pop up!

 

 

 

[sb photos]

10 hours ago, andremichel said:

 

Like the majority of contributors, I do not frequent this forum. Therefore this is the first time I have seen this. 

 

Was this important change to the contract clearly explained to all contributors via email?

 

I was not aware of it and being fined $100 today came as a complete shock. If I had known in advance, I would have taken action to prevent any possibility of it happening. 

 

These days most contributors only earn a tiny income each month. However we rely on the crumbs we get each month to cover bills. Having $100 deducted in this way almost wiped out my entire month's earnings and put me well below the payment threshold.

 

This is surely a really cruel way to treat your contributors? 

 

I now worry in case there are more $50 fines in the pipeline that have yet to pop up!

 

 

 

 

I received an email from Alamy on 10/05/23 informing me of the new contract as below:

 

Important Update - Alamy Contributor Contract

The Alamy contributor contract has been updated and we’re writing to give you notice of these changes. The new contract is here and the key changes are listed here. The changes will come into effect on 23rd June 2023. Most of the changes are small tweaks to general wording, but there are three key changes we’d like to highlight, with the full text to these available in the links above. In relation to Clause 2.10: As with the current Contract, if your Content is marked as Exclusive you give Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. However, if the Content has been found to be licensed through another licensing platform (and the Content is therefore not Exclusive to Alamy), Alamy will recoup any fees incurred in relation to the pursuit of any action taken, including legal admin fees. This does not include any sales you make directly to a customer via any personal photography service. In relation to Clauses 9.1 and 9.3: If you are opted in to Novel use, your images can be licensed to customers for Machine Learning purposes and when applicable, you will be entitled to payment for any Content licensed for these licenses. We have extended the Novel Use opt-out period to coincide with the notice period of the contract change should you wish for your images to not be included in the Novel Use scheme under this new contract. In relation to Clause 16.8: Where Alamy reasonably believes Content on a third-party website has been sourced from Alamy without a license, you grant Alamy the right to pursue any suspected or actual infringements of copyright of the Content without the need to notify you in advance.

 

[andremichel]

9 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

I received an email from Alamy on 10/05/23 informing me of the new contract as below:

 

Important Update - Alamy Contributor Contract

The Alamy contributor contract has been updated and we’re writing to give you notice of these changes. The new contract is here and the key changes are listed here. The changes will come into effect on 23rd June 2023. Most of the changes are small tweaks to general wording, but there are three key changes we’d like to highlight, with the full text to these available in the links above. In relation to Clause 2.10: As with the current Contract, if your Content is marked as Exclusive you give Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. However, if the Content has been found to be licensed through another licensing platform (and the Content is therefore not Exclusive to Alamy), Alamy will recoup any fees incurred in relation to the pursuit of any action taken, including legal admin fees. This does not include any sales you make directly to a customer via any personal photography service. In relation to Clauses 9.1 and 9.3: If you are opted in to Novel use, your images can be licensed to customers for Machine Learning purposes and when applicable, you will be entitled to payment for any Content licensed for these licenses. We have extended the Novel Use opt-out period to coincide with the notice period of the contract change should you wish for your images to not be included in the Novel Use scheme under this new contract. In relation to Clause 16.8: Where Alamy reasonably believes Content on a third-party website has been sourced from Alamy without a license, you grant Alamy the right to pursue any suspected or actual infringements of copyright of the Content without the need to notify you in advance.

 

 

I don't recall ever receiving such an email. Obviously if I had I would have done my best to avoid this situation. 

 

I am now searching through my emails from May and I can't find anything. 

 

What email address did Alamy use to send this to you? 

 

What was the Title of the email? 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by andremichel

[andremichel]

Just now, andremichel said:

 

 

 

 

duplicate

Edited July 29, 2023 by andremichel

[NYCat]

Mine came on May 9 and went to the address I use for Alamy. It is in my Account Settings and I use it to sign in.

 

Paulette

[andremichel]

> The changes will come into effect on 23rd June 2023.

 

Also one of the $50 penalties relates to an image that was reported to me by Alamy on June 9th as non exclusive (no mention of a penalty then). If it was before the contract came into effect, why do I still get a penalty? 

 

[andremichel]

1 minute ago, NYCat said:

Mine came on May 9 and went to the address I use for Alamy. It is in my Account Settings and I use it to sign in.

 

Paulette

 

I never received such an email. Am I the only one out there who did not receive it? 

 

If anyone else reading this did not receive this important notification also, I'd be grateful if you could say so, as it would make it easier for me to contact Alamy and discuss the fact that not everyone was sent this notification. 

 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, andremichel said:

 

I never received such an email. Am I the only one out there who did not receive it? 

 

If anyone else reading this did not receive this important notification also, I'd be grateful if you could say so, as it would make it easier for me to contact Alamy and discuss the fact that not everyone was sent this notification. 

 

I don't recall receiving an email about this and I've just checked my email archive and there's not one in there either. I found out about the new contract because there was a notification on my Contributor dashboard page, followed by the usual forum discussions.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

No email here either, ditto the above, notified in dashboard and forums.

However clause 23 says

"Alamy may also serve notice on you by a display on the Alamy Websites in a reasonably prominent position to which the attention of Contributors is drawn."

That would cover the dashboard. So Alamy doesn't have to send you an email, but they would have to prove the notice was on your dashboard. Mine was.

Edited July 29, 2023 by spacecadet

[sb photos]

2 hours ago, andremichel said:

 

I don't recall ever receiving such an email. Obviously if I had I would have done my best to avoid this situation. 

 

I am now searching through my emails from May and I can't find anything. 

 

What email address did Alamy use to send this to you? 

 

What was the Title of the email? 

 

 

 

The email was from contributors@alamy-updates.com and email titled ‘Important Alamy Update | Contract Change’. 

Could the email have ended up in your junk folder. My mail sometimes has funny turns when most of my regular emails end up in junk. I always scrutinise it before deleting the obvious junk. Another thought, had you changed your email address recently and not updated it in your account details?

 

Edit, re the post above. My dashboard also clearly indicated that there was an important forthcoming contract change.

Edited July 29, 2023 by sb photos

[geogphotos]

With the best will in the world it is impossible for Alamy to be certain who has and hasn't received its updates.

 

I am part of a community pub business with around 220 shareholders and we struggle just with that number - people move, emails change, all sorts of things go on.

 

I empathise with those who have missed vital emails but the point is that we need to stay involved and active in what we do. 

 

In any case, images labelled as Exclusive should be Exclusive. 

Edited July 29, 2023 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

Clause 2.10 of the contract states

Notwithstanding clause 16.7, by marking Content as Exclusive, you grant Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. Where pursuing such infringements if it is found that the Content has been licensed through another licensing platform, Alamy has the right to recoup any fees (including reasonable administration fees where escalated to legal action), that Alamy has incurred in the pursuit of any action taken.

 

On 9th of May 2023 Alamy posted some additional info on the forum here https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/16686-important-update-alamy-contributor-contract/

 

In relation to Clause 2.10: As with the current Contract, if your Content is marked as Exclusive you give Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. However, if the Content has been found to be licensed through another licensing platform (and the Content is therefore not Exclusive to Alamy), Alamy will recoup any fees incurred in relation to the pursuit of any action taken, including legal admin fees. This does not include any sales you make directly to a customer via any personal photography service.

 

These statements indicate that images marked as "Alamy Exclusive" shouldn't be available for license via another agency, either currently or in the past. To my mind this  represented a broadening of the definition of "Alamy Exclusive", but it is logical, especially if they are going to chase infringements.

 

I suggest the pop-up help within AIM needs modifying to make it clear that exclusivity applies to both current and previous license availability. Also the 50% rate is now only available for a few lucky souls on Platinum level for their "Alamy Exclusive" images.

 

 

The pop-up help should perhaps say;

 

This image is not, and has not been available on any other licensing service outside your personal site.

Public domain images of artwork cannot be marked as exclusive to Alamy. 

Platinum level Alamy contributors earn extra royalties on direct or affiliate sales of exclusive images. 

 

Or... leave the last line off as it no longer applies to the vast majority of contributors.

 

Mark

Edited July 30, 2023 by M.Chapman

[gvallee]

Well, I just asked Alamy to mark my whole portfolio as non-exclusive.

I checked which images I had sent to the other library and they were over 1,900, non consecutive, so I would have had to select them individually in AIM. Mission impossible or rather mission not accepted.

 

It's a shame because its a lose-lose situation, both for Alamy and for myself, but I cannot see any reasonable way round it. So be it, life goes on.

 

 

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

In any case, images labelled as Exclusive should be Exclusive. 

Images, yes. But Alamy's definition absurdly goes beyond that, to the content, if works of art are shown. It's very difficult to read the contract's mind- does it mean sculpture (probably), or, say, decorative tiles (which are not works of art in English law, but works of artistic craftsmanship)? See the problem?

Edited July 30, 2023 by spacecadet

[andremichel]

On 29/07/2023 at 20:09, geogphotos said:

With the best will in the world it is impossible for Alamy to be certain who has and hasn't received its updates.

 

I am part of a community pub business with around 220 shareholders and we struggle just with that number - people move, emails change, all sorts of things go on.

 

I empathise with those who have missed vital emails but the point is that we need to stay involved and active in what we do. 

 

In any case, images labelled as Exclusive should be Exclusive. 

 

When a corporate entity is making such an important change to an existing contract, that gives it the increased power to charge penalties, which it did not previously have, I would expect such a change needs to be clearly communicated to the other parties, otherwise how can the change be agreed to by said parties? Without knowledge or acceptance of the change, how can it be legal?

 

On your last point, obviously I agree that exclusive images should be marked as so, but it is also possible with many thousands of images across several libraries, submitted over decades, with a multitude of config per image to consider, that some mistakes are made occasionally.

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by andremichel

[andremichel]

21 hours ago, gvallee said:

Well, I just asked Alamy to mark my whole portfolio as non-exclusive.

I checked which images I had sent to the other library and they were over 1,900, non consecutive, so I would have had to select them individually in AIM. Mission impossible or rather mission not accepted.

 

It's a shame because its a lose-lose situation, both for Alamy and for myself, but I cannot see any reasonable way round it. So be it, life goes on.

 

 

 

I've also marked every single exclusive image I have as non-exclusive. All 5700 of them. I don't want to take the risk of any more fines. 

 

I expect the introduction of these penalties will force many contributors to do the same. The law of unintended consequences comes to mind. 

 

[Ognyan Yosifov]

11 minutes ago, andremichel said:

 

I've also marked every single exclusive image I have as non-exclusive. All 5700 of them. I don't want to take the risk of any more fines. 

 

I expect the introduction of these penalties will force many contributors to do the same. The law of unintended consequences comes to mind. 

 

I don't see where the risk is if the images are REALLY EXCLUSIVE to Alamy... The cheaters should be punished all the way, as I understand contracts and small prints...

Edited July 30, 2023 by Ognyan Yosifov

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

2 hours ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

cheaters should be punished

Are all your images correctly tagged?
Do you have NO spelling mistakes?
Do you have NO incorrect identifications?
Should you have $50/image clawed back each time you do?
There are contribs who correctly state that they have

lost sales because tagging errors drive buyers away.

Maybe all your images are perfectly tagged but IMO almost

ALL contribs have tagging errors, some due to mistakes -- not cheating.

And there are contribs with Y-N exclusivity mistakes, same reason...
1/2 of 1% of 50K images = 250 mistakes x $50 = $12500 clawed back;
Some would lose 20% of their Net$$ if they went all-non-exclusive;

We are ?all? NON-PERFECT sole proprietors doing 100+ different

things to get our work generating $$.  No contrib charges PAlamy for
mistakes -- our only choice is to leave...  EPUK, where art thou?

[Ognyan Yosifov]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Are all your images correctly tagged?
Do you have NO spelling mistakes?
Do you have NO incorrect identifications?
Should you have $50/image clawed back each time you do?
There are contribs who correctly state that they have

lost sales because tagging errors drive buyers away.

Maybe all your images are perfectly tagged but IMO almost

ALL contribs have tagging errors, some due to mistakes -- not cheating.

And there are contribs with Y-N exclusivity mistakes, same reason...
1/2 of 1% of 50K images = 250 mistakes x $50 = $12500 clawed back;
Some would lose 20% of their Net$$ if they went all-non-exclusive;

We are ?all? NON-PERFECT sole proprietors doing 100+ different

things to get our work generating $$.  No contrib charges PAlamy for
mistakes -- our only choice is to leave...  EPUK, where art thou?

Yes, I do, I do, I do...

[Steve Hyde]

Over the weekend I’ve been subject to both sides of the new contract change. On Friday my account balance showed a $50 infringement fee for an image marked as exclusive but was placed with another agency (I’m not a deliberate cheater, it was just incompetence). I’d had a warning email re this image a short time ago and immediately took the exclusive marker off or Alamy already had, I can’t remember. I thought I’d removed all the exclusive markers for the images I had on Alamy and the other agency but found I’d missed a few.  I unmarked those as well.

 

I don’t know how much work goes into finding an infringement but I felt a $50 fine for someone contributing to your business, when a warning would have sufficed, was a bit harsh and totally demoralising. Anyway, it was my fault but just to make sure I don’t cop another fine I marked the whole portfolio as non exclusive over the weekend.

 

Then, today my account showed a $72 infringement credit, the first I’ve ever received. It’s not an image I had reported so it came as a complete surprise. Its gone some way to returning  me to my normal feelings in regards to Alamy which are, on the whole, pretty positive after feeling quite the opposite on Friday.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Steve Hyde

[spacecadet]

18 minutes ago, Steve Hyde said:

a $72 infringement credit,

Now you've marked as non-ex, you won't be seeing any more of those.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 31/07/2023 at 06:03, Steve Hyde said:

On Friday my account balance showed a $50 infringement fee...I’m not a deliberate cheater, it was just incompetence

with your report I now count (6) reports of $50 exclusivity "Administrative fee" within this forum.
There are, what, (60) active contribs in this forum currently...?

so is it far-fetched to conclude this about $50 claw backs:

if 60 contribs generated ==> $300US administrative fees

then 600 contribs generated ==> $3000US administrative fees

& 3000** contribs generated ==> $15000US administrative fees??!!
**IDK how many total PAlamy contribs there are...

is PAlamy making profit collecting exclusivity administrative fees?

are those making exclusivity errors subsidizing entire infringement scheme?
does EPUK care...?