Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have an unpaid licence from over eight months now. I'm not even going to bother member services about is as I know almost certainly that it, along with many others I suspect, has been written off. Alamy considers the cost of chasing accounts is not cost effective. With the current fee structure it's not - for them. They get their stock for free so the loss to them is minimal as it is the photographers who are subsidising this. 

 

How unlike the bulk of my business all this is. I'd like to see a client walk out of one of the galleries or dealers who handle my work with one of my prints without paying for it! Any unauthorised use is also ruthlessly pursued by the gallery or dealer and not overlooked as being too time consuming or difficult. While I understand that in most cases the price differential between the average stock photo licence and one of my prints is vast, the stock library still needs to protect and support to the utmost those who provide its stock and ultimately, its income. As someone has noted, if a supermarket wants loss leaders like milk for instance, then the supermarket should take the loss, not make the farmer who supplies it take that hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the depth of feeling this is dragging up, is it not time that Alamy engage with us? Staying silent doesn't help. Locking the thread will only prolong the problem.

 

Come on Alamy. Talk to us and engage with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sales generated higher fees it might be worth putting in the time to chase them up. The 50% cut of a $6 newspaper sale barely pays for a phone call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would everyone be happier if Alamy only reported sales when they are collected ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happier if sales were reported within 2 months of use and payment made within 3 months (I'm still waiting for payment of 3 sales in April 2014, with reporting 9 months after use, only after a chase from me in Dec 2014).

 

And these are not trivial $6 sales - over $200 gross in total.

Edited by Keith Douglas
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only just started using this forum and having carried out a search of my pseudonym discovered a report that one of my images was used online in July 2014, one which even now does not show in my sales history - which is very worrying. Delays in payments is one thing, but to not be aware of a usage is disturbing.

My enquiry to Alamy resulted in the following response which may be of interest:

 

We’re working to try to find a better solution.

 

We’ve run a number of internal and (using third parties) external audits of many of our customers and have been checking their download and invoicing records.

 

This has shone more light on the issue of under-reporting . We’re not making any promises here but we’re in the process of consultation with third parties to find a more watertight reporting/policing system

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've only just started using this forum and having carried out a search of my pseudonym discovered a report that one of my images was used online in July 2014, one which even now does not show in my sales history - which is very worrying. Delays in payments is one thing, but to not be aware of a usage is disturbing.

My enquiry to Alamy resulted in the following response which may be of interest:

 

We’re working to try to find a better solution.

 

We’ve run a number of internal and (using third parties) external audits of many of our customers and have been checking their download and invoicing records.

 

This has shone more light on the issue of under-reporting . We’re not making any promises here but we’re in the process of consultation with third parties to find a more watertight reporting/policing system

 

This should have been posted by Alamy in the various sections of the forum where they (and the stock industry) are being criticised, maybe it would help to calm people down.

 

I wonder if any of the 'third parties' are professional photographers on here with their vast experience and great insight? (I'm not counting myself obviously, LOL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree. Alamy monitor the forums so they know what is going on. I don't see what the issue is of communicating with us.

 

In the end, it affects two sides of the coin. Us and Alamy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when a contributor goes after someone for copyright infringement for an image obtained from Alamy? Who's fault will it be? Once you get the lawyers involved things could get ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when a contributor goes after someone for copyright infringement for an image obtained from Alamy? Who's fault will it be? Once you get the lawyers involved things could get ugly.

 

It's not an infringement if they obtained it from Alamy and paid for the license (obviously!). If it's found that they got it from Alamy but haven't paid, Alamy will issue a retrospective license to the infringer if they ask for it. They have done this in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What happens when a contributor goes after someone for copyright infringement for an image obtained from Alamy? Who's fault will it be? Once you get the lawyers involved things could get ugly.

 

It's not an infringement if they obtained it from Alamy and paid for the license (obviously!). If it's found that they got it from Alamy but haven't paid, Alamy will issue a retrospective license to the infringer if they ask for it. They have done this in the past.

 

Shouldn't Alamy issue a retrospective license anyway, if they haven't paid? never mind the infringer needing to ask for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What happens when a contributor goes after someone for copyright infringement for an image obtained from Alamy? Who's fault will it be? Once you get the lawyers involved things could get ugly.

 

It's not an infringement if they obtained it from Alamy and paid for the license (obviously!). If it's found that they got it from Alamy but haven't paid, Alamy will issue a retrospective license to the infringer if they ask for it. They have done this in the past.

 

Shouldn't Alamy issue a retrospective license anyway, if they haven't paid? never mind the infringer needing to ask for it!

 

 

No, issuing retrospective licenses is a get-out clause for infringers. It's like they stole the image and then want to pay the same as someone who bought one legally just because they were caught. They should pay more for infringement.

 

By issuing a retrospective licence, Alamy is encouraging this behaviour. Alamy won't go after infringers so if you find someone using one without a license and try and take them to court, Alamy will undermine your case by issuing the retrospective license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an alamy sale from august for $180 which had not cleared. When I contacted MS regarding this it was refunded and resold a few days later for exactly the same price and licence.

Guess I will have to wait for another length of time before it clears

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha - i have daily mail "sales" that alamy never got paid. A google image search revealed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.