Exclusivity overzeal

[gvallee]

I feel like a rant.

 

Last month, I was contacted by Alamy regarding one of my images marked 'Alamy exclusive'. According to one of the copyright infringement companies they use, it was also found on Shutterstock. Photo of the offending 'duplicate' provided.

 

Without further ado, without waiting for a reply from me, the exclusive flag was removed, I got told off, and was told to refresh my memory on the rules.

 

Although the landscape in question was taken from the same lookout over the coast, the images were quite clearly different. I guess AI was used to find similars. I do not supply any other picture library than Alamy, and certainly not micros.

After investigating, Alamy admitted it was a mistake, apologised and re-instated the exclusivity flag. All good.

 

Checking my sales today, what do I find in my customer account?  $50 deducted for 'exclusivity fee' for that image. I am seething. If not corrected before the end of the month, I will be owing money to Alamy! 

 

End of rant.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by gvallee

[Mr Standfast]

I hope they fix it.  If not its pitchforks and torches...we march on the castle!!!

[Michael Ventura]

20 minutes ago, gvallee said:

I feel like a rant.

 

Last month, I was contacted by Alamy regarding one of my images marked 'Alamy exclusive'. According to one of the copyright infringement companies they use, it was also found on Shutterstock. Photo of the offending 'duplicate' provided.

 

Without further ado, without waiting for a reply from me, the exclusive flag was removed, I got told off, and was told to refresh my memory on the rules.

 

Although the landscape in question was taken from the same lookout over the coast, the images were quite clearly different. I guess AI was used to find similars. I do not supply any other picture library than Alamy, and certainly not micros.

After investigating, Alamy admitted it was a mistake, apologised and re-instated the exclusivity flag. All good.

 

Checking my sales today, what do I find in my customer account?  $50 deducted for 'exclusivity fee' for that image. I am seething. If not corrected before the end of the month, I will be owing money to Alamy! 

 

End of rant.

 

 

🤬 Sorry Gen!  That is really not right!

[Robert M Estall]

I remember many years ago a conversation I had with a picture buyer at BEA (British European Airways) when he fantasised about a map of Europe indicating precisely where photographer should stand/locate for the best photos. He, of course, was complaining about the similarity of so many photos he was seeing. We photographers gravitated towards the ideal angle, basically the only difference was better or worse lighting. Sounds like you have been picked off by much the same thinking, whether Ai or human. Of course your $50 should be refunded and double quick!

[Rebecca Ore]

There's the classic problem of people trying to duplicate a photo they've seen.  This was described somewhere as people trying to find Ansel Adams' exact tripod feet holes.

[gvallee]

9 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

There's the classic problem of people trying to duplicate a photo they've seen.  This was described somewhere as people trying to find Ansel Adams' exact tripod feet holes.

 

😆

Admittedly, this is the best possible angle for this view, a little coastal town along a curved bay seen from the top of nearby hills. This is a multiple seller for me. I have other shots of this location but they have never licensed.

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by gvallee

[Alamy]

Hi @gvallee

 

Apologies that this fee got recorded on your sales report, when it had been mistakenly identified in terms of exclusivity, but we've got your email and we'll be looking to rectify the issue as soon as possible.

 

We are finding many contributors who have been incorrectly marking images as 'exclusive' when they aren't, and unfortunately each time we open a case for an infringement it comes at a cost to us, so we are having to pass on some of that cost to our contributors and introduced an admin fee.

 

The "Exclusivity admin fee" is charged where an image has been incorrectly marked as ‘exclusive’ to Alamy, Alamy has searched for and found an infringement, and we've had to close the case because it’s available on another stock site.

 

As there is a considerable investment in looking for infringements, we are now passing on part of the cost already spent. We'd therefore recommend all contributors to check the images they have on sale to ensure that only images exclusive to Alamy are marked as ‘exclusive’.

 

An image can’t be marked as exclusive if:

o   It’s available on another stock agency site

o   It’s either an exact reproduction (in all or part) of a work of art

o   It’s not protected by copyright

o   It’s in the public domain

o   Copyright ownership is unknown

 

We would always encourage contributors to write in if there is something amiss on their accounts, and we'd always try to rectify any issues whilst also checking the processes in place to make improvements.

 

Thanks

 

Sophie

[gvallee]

31 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi @gvallee

 

Apologies that this fee got recorded on your sales report, when it had been mistakenly identified in terms of exclusivity, but we've got your email and we'll be looking to rectify the issue as soon as possible.

 

We are finding many contributors who have been incorrectly marking images as 'exclusive' when they aren't, and unfortunately each time we open a case for an infringement it comes at a cost to us, so we are having to pass on some of that cost to our contributors and introduced an admin fee.

 

The "Exclusivity admin fee" is charged where an image has been incorrectly marked as ‘exclusive’ to Alamy, Alamy has searched for and found an infringement, and we've had to close the case because it’s available on another stock site.

 

As there is a considerable investment in looking for infringements, we are now passing on part of the cost already spent. We'd therefore recommend all contributors to check the images they have on sale to ensure that only images exclusive to Alamy are marked as ‘exclusive’.

 

An image can’t be marked as exclusive if:

o   It’s available on another stock agency site

o   It’s either an exact reproduction (in all or part) of a work of art

o   It’s not protected by copyright

o   It’s in the public domain

o   Copyright ownership is unknown

 

We would always encourage contributors to write in if there is something amiss on their accounts, and we'd always try to rectify any issues whilst also checking the processes in place to make improvements.

 

Thanks

 

Sophie

 

Thank you Sophie for your feedback.

 

 

[geogphotos]

I've forgotten. 

 

Is there a way of automatically having all images uploaded set to be 'non-exclusive' ( or 'exclusive')?

 

Thanks

 

Ian

 

 

[spacecadet]

This is an oppressive and borderline abusive practice. It puts me in mind of the US habit of introducing mysterious "fees and charges" and I would not be surprised if it was unenforceable as an unfair contract term.

As to item (2) -  I may have some in this category but it's entirely at Alamy's whim to decide whether or not the image offends, we have no choice about Alamy pursuing infringements if we're exclusive and it's retrospective, so images once acceptable from years ago may suddenly offend the new rule.

This is shameful. I was beginning to suspect that Alamy no longer cared much about its contributors, and a $50 "gotcha" tends to confirm it.

The diktat that inclusion of any part of a work of art makes it non-exclusive is preposterous.

Edited July 28, 2023 by spacecadet

[gvallee]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

I've forgotten. 

 

Is there a way of automatically having all images uploaded set to be 'non-exclusive' ( or 'exclusive')?

 

Thanks

 

Ian

 

 

 

Only in batches of 500 in AIM. So in your case, you'll have to ask Alamy to do it for you.

 

[geogphotos]

44 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

Only in batches of 500 in AIM. So in your case, you'll have to ask Alamy to do it for you.

 

 

 

Thanks. It is just the most recent ones and I am doing it in batches in AIM - though I don't always remember. I just wondered if there was a default option for all new uploads. But sounds like there isn't. 

[Alamy]

8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks. It is just the most recent ones and I am doing it in batches in AIM - though I don't always remember. I just wondered if there was a default option for all new uploads. But sounds like there isn't. 

Hi Ian,

 

You can update this in your image manager under the 'clog' button in the top right hand corner:  

 

It will show you your 'default settings for future submissions' and you can untick 'Exclusive to Alamy'. 

 

Thanks,

Chantelle 

[Allan Bell]

13 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks. It is just the most recent ones and I am doing it in batches in AIM - though I don't always remember. I just wondered if there was a default option for all new uploads. But sounds like there isn't. 

 

Go into AIM.  There is a cogwheel by your name top right. click on it and click on exclusive to alamy in the dropdown box.

 

Alamy beat me to it.

 

Allan

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Allan Bell

[geogphotos]

Thanks Chantelle and Allan 👍

[NYCat]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

It puts me in mind of the US habit of introducing mysterious "fees and charges"

 

Drives us crazy too. Are we really the only ones? We're so special.

 

Paulette

[Jansos]

14 hours ago, gvallee said:

I feel like a rant.

 

Last month, I was contacted by Alamy regarding one of my images marked 'Alamy exclusive'. According to one of the copyright infringement companies they use, it was also found on Shutterstock. Photo of the offending 'duplicate' provided.

 

Without further ado, without waiting for a reply from me, the exclusive flag was removed, I got told off, and was told to refresh my memory on the rules.

 

Although the landscape in question was taken from the same lookout over the coast, the images were quite clearly different. I guess AI was used to find similars. I do not supply any other picture library than Alamy, and certainly not micros.

After investigating, Alamy admitted it was a mistake, apologised and re-instated the exclusivity flag. All good.

 

Checking my sales today, what do I find in my customer account?  $50 deducted for 'exclusivity fee' for that image. I am seething. If not corrected before the end of the month, I will be owing money to Alamy! 

 

End of rant.

 

 

Really annoying and frustrating at the same time but probably just the 'system' working its slow way through. Shouldn't happen though. Hope you get your refund.

[gvallee]

9 minutes ago, Jansos said:

Really annoying and frustrating at the same time but probably just the 'system' working its slow way through. Shouldn't happen though. Hope you get your refund.

 

Thank you Jansos. I'm desperate to get a refund before the end of the month or I'll be $50 poorer this month because of course the debit cleared straight away...

[PatsyCollins]

Do we gain anything by being exclusive? If not, it might be easier to not declare anything as exclusive, even if it is, to avoid this issue.

[Michael Ventura]

9 minutes ago, PatsyCollins said:

Do we gain anything by being exclusive? If not, it might be easier to not declare anything as exclusive, even if it is, to avoid this issue.

 

One benefit that I can see is that Alamy will chase infringements if the image is exclusive and some of the payouts can be well into $$$.  I have had a few. I am exclusive with the vast majority of my images.  Also, having images elsewhere, including micros, has you possibly competing with yourself.  So if you are exclusive to Alamy, I would tick that box.

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, PatsyCollins said:

Do we gain anything by being exclusive? If not, it might be easier to not declare anything as exclusive, even if it is, to avoid this issue.

 

 

I have all mine marked as Non-Ex so that I can be in control of pursuing infringements. I find that I can still refer posssible infringements to Alamy because I keep records and can inform them when I know that an image is only with Alamy even if it is marked as Non-Ex. 

 

The Alamy infringement team has been able to get payments for me and I am grateful to them for that. But to be honest I don't find the system very easy to monitor. You report an infringement and then are sort of left hanging - is it being investigaed or not, what progress is being made, has the investigation ended, is there actually a licence in place but not reported?

 

I appreciate that they are probably over-worked and very busy but that just adds to my motivation for keeping control myself. 

 

The majority of my images are in fact only on Alamy.

Edited July 28, 2023 by geogphotos

[wilkopix]

9 hours ago, Alamy said:

The "Exclusivity admin fee" is charged where an image has been incorrectly marked as ‘exclusive’ to Alamy, Alamy has searched for and found an infringement, and we've had to close the case because it’s available on another stock site.

 

As there is a considerable investment in looking for infringements, we are now passing on part of the cost already spent. We'd therefore recommend all contributors to check the images they have on sale to ensure that only images exclusive to Alamy are marked as ‘exclusive’.

 

An image can’t be marked as exclusive if:

o   It’s available on another stock agency site

o   It’s either an exact reproduction (in all or part) of a work of art

o   It’s not protected by copyright

o   It’s in the public domain

o   Copyright ownership is unknown

Just an 'aside' to exclusivity, would it not be possible to contact the photographer first once an possible infringement is found, just to make absolutely sure that the image hasn't be sold directly or may even have been the original client for that image?

 

I have quite a few images on Alamy that are part of photoshoots that have been commissioned and an agreement was made with the client that the images could be used for stock (usually for a reduced fee). These images are only on Alamy but I have marked them as non exclusive as I don't want the original client being chased.

 

I agree with Geogphotos on the points he has raised.

[andremichel]

I discovered without warning that I had been fined $100 today for two images. My cleared funds have dropped from $137 to $37, meaning no pay out this month for the first time in maybe 10 years. 

 

I just checked and I currently have 5700 images marked as exclusive with Alamy. It is possible that a small number were marked in error.

 

I haven't contributed any new content with Alamy or any other libraries for several years now due to dismal performance, nor edited any image config, so it would be  a difficult task to figure out where any error might exist across my libraries. 

 

As I am scared of further fines, I am going to mark every single image as non exclusive regardless.

 

Is it even legal for Alamy to introduce random charges?

 

Surely it would be fairer for Alamy to warn their contributors first, that such fines would be introduced in future, before hitting us with them?!

 

Is there anything in our contract that allows them to do so?

 

Andy

Edited July 28, 2023 by andremichel

[Martyn]

5 hours ago, PatsyCollins said:

Do we gain anything by being exclusive? If not, it might be easier to not declare anything as exclusive, even if it is, to avoid this issue.

 

Just a headache I suspect ... I agree with what others have posted above ... all of my images are on Alamy only but I have had them marked as non exclusive for some time now as I can't see any positives for doing otherwise ... a potential client can always contact Alamy and ask if the image is elsewhere if it's so important and Alamy in turn can ask me ....

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, andremichel said:

 

Is there anything in our contract that allows them to do so?

Yes in principle. See contributor contract https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx Clause 2.10. 

 

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.

 

Mark