I was hit with a $50 “Exclusivity Admin” penalty by Alamy, 3 months after all my images were changed to non-exclusive

[andremichel]

Hi everyone,

 

On October 31st my account was debited by $50, labelled as an “Exclusivity Admin fee”. I had no prior warning or explanation.

 

This is particularly galling, considering I had deliberately changed all my images to non-exclusive 3 months earlier on July 31st due to this new rule in the contract. I had even discussed this change with contributor support at the time.

 

I doubt very much that this is a legitimate penalty, but I have so far got nowhere trying to get a clear explanation, one that I understand, from contributor support of what went wrong. They have also refused a refund point blank.

 

I do not have any inside information, but my theory is that it is due to a flawed process.

 

I suspect it works similar to this:

 

Alamy’s infringement team select Exclusive images in bulk to send off to third party companies for infringement processing on a certain date, which are then slowly worked through one by one over a period of time, trying to detect infringements. Any potential infringements are then flagged back to Alamy who then checks if the images are on sale at other libraries.

 

However if there is any delay whatsoever between the date an Exclusive image is originally selected for infringement processing and the date it is then discovered as being on sale elsewhere (and given a penalty), then the process is flawed and risks generating illegitimate penalties; as in the meantime, the contributor may have changed the image to non-exclusive and started licensing it across other platforms (which is their right to do so).

 

If such a delay spans weeks or even months, then there is a major problem, given that out of the 10s of millions of images on the database, thousands of images are likely changing state between exclusive and non-exclusive on a daily basis.

 

Considering my penalty occurred more that 3 months after I switched all my images to non-exclusive on July 31st, I suspect something like this has occurred with mine.

 

Given I changed 5400 images to non-exclusive on July 31st, I have become rather paranoid over potential further penalties popping up in the same way.

 

If their process is not as I describe above, then I hope that Alamy can come forward and explain how it really works. How do they handle the on-going daily changes in image exclusivity status in parallel to infringement processing progressing and how do they avoid the problems I describe above from happening?

 

Also a clear explanation on why my image received a penalty after 3 months in non-exclusive state would be welcome. I want to understand whether there is a legitimate reason for the penalty or not. 

 

Thanks Andy

[geogphotos]

I can understand why you are so annoyed and perplexed. Not making any contact with you and then not being able to provide an answer is really poor.

 

Alamy really lets itself down in some of its policies and practices towards contributors. 

 

You have my empathy. All mine are also labelled non-exclusive even though most are only on Alamy.

 

The thing that gets me most is Alamy's insistence that I must consult them before starting any of my own infringement claims - these are my images why should I have to have Alamy's approval before pursuing an infringer? 

[geogphotos]

Just to add that I find the staff working in CR to be very helpful and efficient.  No complaints at all just lots of praise for how they help me.

 

But it is not them that makes the rules, 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

1 hour ago, andremichel said:

On October 31st my account was debited by $50, labelled as an “Exclusivity Admin fee”.  I had deliberately changed all my images to non-exclusive 3 months earlier on July 31st due to this new rule in the contract. I had even discussed this change with contributor support at the time.

Geog is correct, IMO.

Infringement department is reasonable in their responses.

Do you see how I reduced your OP down to less than ?70? words?

I would send NON-CONFRONTATIONAL email like that to Infringement team.

Asking for further explanation...

[andremichel]

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

I would send NON-CONFRONTATIONAL email like that to Infringement team.

Asking for further explanation...

 

I probably made the mistake of contacting 'contributor relations' instead of the Infringement team directly. Communication has got rather confused.

 

[spacecadet]

16 hours ago, geogphotos said:

why should I have to have Alamy's approval before pursuing an infringer? 

It's a condition of contract. 16.7.

[andremichel]

19 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Infringement department is reasonable in their responses.

 

 

The only response I have had from the infringement team is this:

 

"This case is since the contract change came in. They changed the exclusivity of the image at the end of July which is a month after the contract change came in, the case was opened and then had to be closed prior to them changing it."

 

Maybe it makes sense to you, but it doesn't explain much to me. I find it vague and confusing. 

 

I changed the exclusivity of this image (together with 5399 others) end of July.

 

If the infringement activity occurred prior to July 31, it doesn't explain why the penalty was applied 3 months later on October 31st. What's to stop them sending another penalty next week with the same vague explanation?

 

While Chantelle of "Contributor relations" thought it helpful if she gave me a lecture, even though she already knew (through multiple conversations with her and Louise) that all my images had been non-exclusive since July 31: 

 

"We won’t be refunding the fee – as already mentioned there is a considerable investment in looking for infringements so it’s necessary for us to pass a portion of the cost and time already spent in opening and closing a case. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure their images are marked correctly so we strongly recommend that you check if any of your other images are not marked as exclusive when they shouldn’t be, to avoid being charged again in future."

 

When I read things like this, I feel I am getting nowhere fast. She surely can't be listening. 

 

Am I the only contributor to have been hit by these penalties?

 

I don't know why, but this has affected me quite badly. It isn't just because of the money. I am seriously considering closing down my account for good. 

[spacecadet]

It seems clear to me.

The contract change was at the end of June but you didn't change the exclusivity until the end of July. The case was opened during July but had to be closed later (the quote says "prior to changing it (the exclusivity) but it must mean "after". Either way, Alamy started work on the infringement after the contract change but before you went non-exclusive. I assume the fees are being applied later in batches, perhaps to allow for double-checking. It's a shock but I think you've been properly charged.

[geogphotos]

20 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

It seems clear to me.

The contract change was at the end of June but you didn't change the exclusivity until the end of July. The case was opened during July but had to be closed later (the quote says "prior to changing it (the exclusivity) but it must mean "after". Either way, Alamy started work on the infringement after the contract change but before you went non-exclusive. I assume the fees are being applied later in batches, perhaps to allow for double-checking. It's a shock but I think you've been properly charged.

 

 

"They changed the exclusivity of the image at the end of July which is a month after the contract change came in, the case was opened and then had to be closed prior to them changing it."

 

I think this means the case was opened prior to the image in question being changed to non-exclusive. The case was opened before the end of July when the image was still exclusive. 

[wilkopix]

23 hours ago, geogphotos said:

You have my empathy. All mine are also labelled non-exclusive even though most are only on Alamy.

Me too .. for this very reason. It's just not worth the hassle plus there is now no longer any financial benifit from being exclusive.

[spacecadet]

29 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

"They changed the exclusivity of the image at the end of July which is a month after the contract change came in, the case was opened and then had to be closed prior to them changing it."

 

I think this means the case was opened prior to the image in question being changed to non-exclusive. The case was opened before the end of July when the image was still exclusive. 

Got it, my mistake. This changes my opinion of course.

If the case was started when the image was exclusive then he is not at fault. It's Alamy's problem if it didn't tell him about the case being opened- had they done so he wouldn't have changed the status and their explanation is balderdash. There's no restriction on changing exclusivity status.

[spacecadet]

15 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

 there is now no longer any financial benifit from being exclusive.

Except the small one of Alamy actively pursuing infringements automatically.

[M.Chapman]

39 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Except the small one of Alamy actively pursuing infringements automatically.

 

Not quite so small in my case. A significant proportion (33%) of my net Alamy income so far for this year will have come from infringement payments (although that is partly due to the relatively poor fees on actual sales...). Some of these infringements I've reported, but the higher value ones Alamy's infringement team found.

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

11 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Not quite so small in my case. A significant proportion (33%) of my net Alamy income so far for this year will have come from infringement payments (although that is partly due to the relatively poor fees on actual sales...). Some of these infringements I've reported, but the higher value ones Alamy's infringement team found.

 

Mark

 

 

I see this the other way around. By being non-exclusive I keep control over chasing copyright infringements and keep more of the pie. 

 

I do still report some infringements to Alamy as appropriate ( when an image has an Alamy watermark, Alamy credit but no licence, when I know 100% that it is only on Alamy).

Edited November 6, 2023 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Got it, my mistake. This changes my opinion of course.

If the case was started when the image was exclusive then he is not at fault. It's Alamy's problem if it didn't tell him about the case being opened- had they done so he wouldn't have changed the status and their explanation is balderdash. There's no restriction on changing exclusivity status.

 

 

The case was opened by Alamy when the image was labelled as exclusive but Alamy found it to be available elsewhere ( we don't know the details) - that is why they are charging.

[spacecadet]

13 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The case was opened by Alamy when the image was labelled as exclusive but Alamy found it to be available elsewhere ( we don't know the details) - that is why they are charging.

Right. Wrong end of stick. I have now read the post properly.

If it is the case it would have helped if the OP had stated outright that he did in fact have a non-exclusive image marked as exclusive rather than alluding to it indirectly in the third person.

[andremichel]

On 06/11/2023 at 16:19, spacecadet said:

It seems clear to me...

 

Either way, Alamy started work on the infringement after the contract change but before you went non-exclusive. 

 

I wish I had your confidence. You are clearly reading between the lines.

 

What is critical is not only when the image was sent for infringement work, but what date did they check that my "Exclusive" image was actually not exclusive? If this check occurred after July 31st, then the penalty is illegitimate. From July 31st I am allowed to sell all 13,000 plus images I have on Alamy, including the 5400 I changed, via other outlets. 

 

For it to be legitimate, all dates need to be within the small window of July. 

 

Date 1: "Exclusive" Image sent to external company for Infringement work

Date 2: Potential Infringement reported back to Alamy

Date 3: Alamy discover the image is on sale on other outlets so is not in fact exclusive. 

 

I have asked for clarification of all these dates, but all I got in return (so far) was silence. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by andremichel

[andremichel]

 

Regardless of the above discussion and speculation, I don't know whether two penalties I received (July 31 & October 31) are legitimate or not and I see this as a problem. 

 

I also do not know whether more penalties are in the pipeline. I asked at the end of July and asked again at the end of October. I am still waiting and may never get a reply. 

 

My current cleared funds are only $10. I don't know if they are waiting for them to reach $50 before doing it again. 

 

Having been hit by 2 penalties at the end of July, (one of which I had clear proof was wrong and was eventually refunded after a long struggle by me), I do not understand why they would then wait until October 31 to clobber me again, if all this activity had occurred in July. 

 

I am looking for transparency and accountability. Is it too much to ask?

[andremichel]

One other point. 

 

The only reason I didn't change all my images to non-exclusive before the new contract came in, was because I did not know anything about it. 

 

I only discovered they had changed the contract to allow them to apply $50 penalties on July 31st when I was hit by 2 penalties.

 

I had stopped being an active contributor during the pandemic. I very rarely visit the forum, so did not get to see the notice pinned at the top before it was too late.

 

I did not receive the "marketing email" either as apparently I am not opted in for them. Though I don't see how a marketing email is an appropriate way of communicating such important information anyway. 

 

Regular forum contributors are not the majority - not by a long shot. They are not typical. I suspect there are many semi-dormant contributors like myself who will not have known of the change when it came into force. 

[geogphotos]

"This case is since the contract change came in. They changed the exclusivity of the image at the end of July which is a month after the contract change came in, the case was opened and then had to be closed prior to them changing it."

 

Alamy opened the infringement case before you had changed the exclusivity status and had closed the case before the exclusivity status was changed at the end of July.

 

If this is true you had the image labelled as Exclusive when it wasn't Exclusive. 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

1 hour ago, andremichel said:

The only reason I didn't change all my images to non-exclusive before the new contract came in, was because I did not know anything about it. 

Andre my infringement immersed buddy,

 

Geog photos seems on top of your situation, he does.  I'll add:

One changes one's images' status when one's image status's change.

When did image(s) under fire become available at other agency(ies)?

Ask yourself: did I fudge things a bit?  Some may have made

earlier gains, e.g., 50% instead of 40%, but now are giving some back...

They had a fever & the only prescription is more cowbell.

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg