GreenStockCreative Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I had an image license on July 31 2014 that has yet to clear. My two inquiries to customer service have received replies "we're still chasing" or similar wording. Any suggestions on what to do? Are there some licenses that are simply uncollectable by Alamy and have to be deducted from the account balance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Some of us had sales through a distributor in Brazil in June of 2012 that are, I'm afraid, a loss. Alamy no longer does business with that company. On the other hand, a sale I had through a distributor in Japan took 8 months to clear, but it cleared. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I like Alamy for some things but the billing side of things frustrates me a lot. A certain other library I'm with will sell the image and get payment for it that month. Why can Alamy not do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digi2ap Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I too have a sale that has yet to clear which is now over six months - June 2014 - UK editorial usage so assuming it will be paid at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Alamy are unusual in that they advise you of the sale a lot earlier than other agencies - ie when it is invoiced, not when it has cleared. This can be a bit frustrating, but on balance I think the more information, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWheal Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 i have daily mail sales not cleared from august. Considering they are meant to pay monthly I don't understand. Have contacted MS but no joy yet. I know the amounts are pittance but its the principle. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Some of us had sales through a distributor in Brazil in June of 2012 that are, I'm afraid, a loss. Alamy no longer does business with that company. On the other hand, a sale I had through a distributor in Japan took 8 months to clear, but it cleared. Paulette Generally, when I provide something for someone to sell on my behalf, if they let it go and can't collect payment they should stand the loss! Shame that photo stock is such a strange animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie5 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I have one from around that same time that was used on MSN.com. that hasn't been paid yet. MSN used two of my photos of the same subject and paid for one but not the other. Alamy says I shouldn't be so impatient. Companies I have worked for think 90 day pay schedules are outrageous. Here we are at almost 180 days. I guess stock photography is a different world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Some of us had sales through a distributor in Brazil in June of 2012 that are, I'm afraid, a loss. Alamy no longer does business with that company. On the other hand, a sale I had through a distributor in Japan took 8 months to clear, but it cleared. Paulette Generally, when I provide something for someone to sell on my behalf, if they let it go and can't collect payment they should stand the loss! Shame that photo stock is such a strange animal. Not sure I entirely agree with that. Where I am due bonuses for various pieces of work (totally unrelated to photography), they are contingent on the client actually paying. It's always a bit of a grey area where you have someone acting as your agent - musicians with agents must be the same. i.e. the venue fails to pay. That must be a pretty good parallel, where Alamy are acting as your agent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It's always a bit of a grey area where you have someone acting as your agent - musicians with agents must be the same. i.e. the venue fails to pay. That must be a pretty good parallel, where Alamy are acting as your agent? I don't believe Alamy is acting as our agent. An agent has certain legal implications that I believe do not apply to Alamy contributor's relationship with Alamy. Wiki: Agent (law), in commercial law, is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal) to create a legal relationship with a third party Alamy's Terms and Conditions refer to Alamy as the contributors licensee: 6.1 You appoint Alamy as your non-exclusive licensee to exploit all Rights in the Images in the Territory in all media whether current or yet to be developed, using the System. But I've been wrong more than once before.... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It's always a bit of a grey area where you have someone acting as your agent - musicians with agents must be the same. i.e. the venue fails to pay. That must be a pretty good parallel, where Alamy are acting as your agent? I don't believe Alamy is acting as our agent. An agent has certain legal implications that I believe do not apply to Alamy contributor's relationship with Alamy. Wiki: Agent (law), in commercial law, is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal) to create a legal relationship with a third party Alamy's Terms and Conditions refer to Alamy as the contributors licensee: 6.1 You appoint Alamy as your non-exclusive licensee to exploit all Rights in the Images in the Territory in all media whether current or yet to be developed, using the System. But I've been wrong more than once before.... ;-) I am no lawyer... but isn't that exactly what Alamy are doing when they create a license for the use of your photograph between you and a third party? Anyway, I'm not sure that the legal minutiae are particularly important here - my point was just that the arrangement is neither particularly unusual nor surprising. Practically speaking, the risk to Alamy if they guaranteed payment might be substantial, resulting in still less being paid to the contributors. Managing that kind of risk is a significant burden (this falls closer to what I do as a day job). In a worst case scenario (e.g. a major publisher going bust and not paying Alamy for months' of purchases) and Alamy going bust in turn would mean everyone receiving partial payments... eventually. Protection from risk has a cost attached - ultimately the photographer will always pay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I'm sorry but I find this all a tad barmy! How is it that a organization can come to Alamy to buy an image that is to be used on 07th August 2014. I am notified on 12 December 2014. That is four months later than when it was published. And now on the 30th January 2015 it hasn't been paid for? 5 months after the sale and no money? I can dig out a report from A N Other agency that has a newspaper sale and track a similar sale if folks want to see the difference. As I said earlier, I like Alamy for some things but the reporting of and payment of certain invoices is beyond ridiculous! Edit. Found an example of how it should be done: A N Other library shows a sale on my November statement to a UK newspaper on 11th Nov 2014. It states the use is from 11th to 12th Nov, so just like Alamy's details on the sales page. I received that statement on the 20th Dec 2014. Payment was received on 25th Jan 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertSnapper Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I have one from around that same time that was used on MSN.com. that hasn't been paid yet. MSN used two of my photos of the same subject and paid for one but not the other. Alamy says I shouldn't be so impatient. Companies I have worked for think 90 day pay schedules are outrageous. Here we are at almost 180 days. I guess stock photography is a different world. I've dealt with MSN direct in the past. They can pay in a matter of days once they receive the invoice. MSN is owned by Microsoft, so not short of a few quid (bucks). I'm finding that the Mail Online is generally good at self reporting now (unlike some time ago), but as has been mentioned, taking a longer time now for payments to clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I'm sorry but I find this all a tad barmy! How is it that a organization can come to Alamy to buy an image that is to be used on 07th August 2014. I am notified on 12 December 2014. That is four months later than when it was published. And now on the 30th January 2015 it hasn't been paid for? 5 months after the sale and no money? I can dig out a report from A N Other agency that has a newspaper sale and track a similar sale if folks want to see the difference. As I said earlier, I like Alamy for some things but the reporting of and payment of certain invoices is beyond ridiculous! Edit. Found an example of how it should be done: A N Other library shows a sale on my November statement to a UK newspaper on 11th Nov 2014. It states the use is from 11th to 12th Nov, so just like Alamy's details on the sales page. I received that statement on the 20th Dec 2014. Payment was received on 25th Jan 2015. I have not had many problems with sales although one is still outstanding and it is not a news sale either. From what I read here and elsewhere I agree with others that Alamy needs to tighten up on billing and collection of monies. Perhaps even bringing into force with buyers Alamy published terms of sale. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Some of us had sales through a distributor in Brazil in June of 2012 that are, I'm afraid, a loss. Alamy no longer does business with that company. On the other hand, a sale I had through a distributor in Japan took 8 months to clear, but it cleared. Paulette Generally, when I provide something for someone to sell on my behalf, if they let it go and can't collect payment they should stand the loss! Shame that photo stock is such a strange animal. Not sure I entirely agree with that. Where I am due bonuses for various pieces of work (totally unrelated to photography), they are contingent on the client actually paying. It's always a bit of a grey area where you have someone acting as your agent - musicians with agents must be the same. i.e. the venue fails to pay. That must be a pretty good parallel, where Alamy are acting as your agent? My point is, that be where I supply a physical product, ie a picture, and even a digital downloaded picture file in my opinion is a tangible product I would expect to be paid if they (my agent) sell it, not sure I would class bonuses the same. The real problem is that the customer takes the product away, and then promises to tell the agent later, if they use it, and promise to pay for it even later! I could clear a retail shop of stock in minutes if I used that system. I'm quite aware that this is the industry model, but it won't change if everyone continues to accept it, unfortunately we probably will (continue to accept it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 This seems to be a regularly recurring subject and I really think that Alamy needs to open up to us about what is going on. In my example above, one particular image library is quite capable of getting the dosh in from a UK newspaper so why can Alamy not be as good. It makes no sense. Just accepting that it is the norm here isn't good enough when there is evidence that other organisations are collecting quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It is not a sale until the money is in the suppliers bank account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It is not a sale until the money is in the suppliers bank account. We are aware of that, but surely they should charge on delivery, and negotiate for refunds later if the product is not used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It is not a sale until the money is in the suppliers bank account. We are aware of that, but surely they should charge on delivery, and negotiate for refunds later if the product is not used. I agree and don't agree. Very often you will have people with accounts that buy things "on account". The crux of the matter is though that when you buy on account you have a bill to settle at the end of the month. Begs the question, why after all this time are they not being settled. I can't understand for the life of me why an organization as big as the DM is so bad at paying. I'm sure if Alamy owed money to the DM then the DM would be banging on their door HARD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It is not a sale until the money is in the suppliers bank account. True - until that point it is a theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I'm sorry but I find this all a tad barmy! How is it that a organization can come to Alamy to buy an image that is to be used on 07th August 2014. I am notified on 12 December 2014. That is four months later than when it was published. And now on the 30th January 2015 it hasn't been paid for? 5 months after the sale and no money? I can dig out a report from A N Other agency that has a newspaper sale and track a similar sale if folks want to see the difference. As I said earlier, I like Alamy for some things but the reporting of and payment of certain invoices is beyond ridiculous! Edit. Found an example of how it should be done: A N Other library shows a sale on my November statement to a UK newspaper on 11th Nov 2014. It states the use is from 11th to 12th Nov, so just like Alamy's details on the sales page. I received that statement on the 20th Dec 2014. Payment was received on 25th Jan 2015. But Jools, do you actually know that the image was used on the 11th November. The library you refer to doesn't, to my knowledge, tell you when the invoice was generated. That is the difference with Alamy, that they tell you when the invoice was generated not just that it has cleared. Personally I am less concerned about how long it takes to clear so long as it does clear, unlike a textbook sale of mine invoiced on 22nd August and refunded today. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I'm sorry Pearl, I disagree. There are many many instances on this forum of images going unpaid for months on end. It's about time that Alamy started being more pro-active in these things. Oh, and from memory said library did say in the past how they got money and it's a damn sight better than the collecting going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It would be in the interests of the handful of biggest agencies to collectively challenge the behaviour of the self-billing clients. Not as a cartel but to jointly improve the support of their contributors. Or they can continue on the current path and we end up with the situation that suppliers to the supermarkets face; where it is getting to the point that it would be more profitable to not do the business. Arguably that is already the case for most Alamy contributors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 It would be in the interests of the handful of biggest agencies to collectively challenge the behaviour of the self-billing clients. Not as a cartel but to jointly improve the support of their contributors. Or they can continue on the current path and we end up with the situation that suppliers to the supermarkets face; where it is getting to the point that it would be more profitable to not do the business. Arguably that is already the case for most Alamy contributors. Martin, an asbolute +1 for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie5 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 At the very least there should be a surcharge split evenly between Alamy and the contributor for the late payment. I have had to do all the documentation for the usage of my image and then forwarded it to Member Services who then have to pursue the matter. When an unreported usage occurs I have to wait 90 days to report the usage, so I have to track the time passed. Bad behavior shouldn't be rewarded. I currently have another image that I have a feeling will not be reported so I have a documentation file ready and waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.