Exclusivity overzeal

[Rebecca Ore]

7 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

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.

 

Except for art and I went through including indigenous crafts as art -- not sure about manufactured items.  Better safe than sorry., though.  Anything trademarked is editorial only.   I split the difference on exclusive with some of those. 

[andremichel]

40 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

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

 

I don't frequent this forum anymore, so I was not aware of this change. I only came on after discovering my $100 fine. According to a 'pinned' thread I just came across, this clause was added in the updated contract that came into force last month.

 

I doubt all contributors are aware of it as only a small percentage visit the forum.

 

Why didn't Alamy email all contributors to explicitly warn them of the consequences? 

 

I rely on the small crumbs I earn each month to cover bills. It is really cruel how they have wiped out a month's earnings in this way. 

 

I have now changed all 5700 exclusive images to non exclusive. I hope there aren't anymore fines in the pipeline. 

 

Andy

 

 

[andremichel]

40 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

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

 

I don't frequent this forum anymore, so I was not aware of this change. I only came on after discovering my $100 fine. According to a 'pinned' thread I just came across, this clause was added in the updated contract that came into force last month.

 

I doubt all contributors are aware of it as only a small percentage visit the forum.

 

Why didn't Alamy email all contributors to explicitly warn them of the consequences? 

 

I rely on the small crumbs I earn each month to cover bills. It is really cruel how they have wiped out a month's earnings in this way. 

 

I have now changed all 5700 exclusive images to non exclusive. I hope there aren't anymore fines in the pipeline. 

 

Andy

 

 

[Bryan]

Other than for POD, I only sell via Alamy, but I have allowed some organisations free use of my images (local museum for example, a fellow enthusiast's web site). It now appears that these acts of altruism could find my being charged for a service I don't want or need. I've now deleted all of my small Flickr collection - where all of the images carried my copyright notice and were 900 pixels max, as I fear this unjust persecution. 

 

I would have thought that exclusive status would benefit both Alamy and the contributor, but now I see only negatives in being exclusive. Can Alamy persuade me otherwise?

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

Other than for POD, I only sell via Alamy, but I have allowed some organisations free use of my images (local museum for example, a fellow enthusiast's web site). It now appears that these acts of altruism could find my being charged for a service I don't want or need. I've now deleted all of my small Flickr collection - where all of the images carried my copyright notice and were 900 pixels max, as I fear this unjust persecution. 

 

I would have thought that exclusive status would benefit both Alamy and the contributor, but now I see only negatives in being exclusive. Can Alamy persuade me otherwise?

 

 

I have some images on Flickr - just an experiment to see if anybody contacted me to license ( nobody has).

 

I don't understand why you have deleted your Flickr ones Bryan. If somebody pinched an image from there Alamy could go after them for you if it is Exclusive to Alamy. I don't think that being on Flickr makes an image non-Ex does it? 

 

Maybe I have got it wrong about Flickr and I'd be grateful for clarification. 

[gvallee]

I used to be with another small picture library for wildlife pictures. When Alamy came up with the exclusivity scheme and %, I bailed out from the other library and they deleted my portfolio. However, I had a few sales through them. But them being so disorganised, they never told me which pictures sold. I am in a fix now. If a past usage is detected through this other agency, Alamy will think the image is not exclusive. I wouldn't blame them. I think the only way out of it is to go through my spreadsheet of all images supplied to that library and mark them non-exclusive, just in case.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by gvallee