pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy Imposed US$250 EAF Fine without Any Specifics  (Read 1379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 30, 2025, 21:07 »
+1
Recently Alamy sent me a generic letter without any specifics. It has charged US$250  Exclusivity Administration Fee (EAF) on my sales.

But it doesn't bother to tell me which image(s) were in violation.

I have been an Alamy contributor for almost 18 years. Initially, there was no such thing as exclusive to Alamy. Since I became exclusive, I have always been careful to mark my submission to Alamy with a special code. Could there be a mistake somewhere? If there is, it would be an advertent error.

But my images have been stolen many times.  Is it possible that someone stole my images and sell them through other agencies?

I sell prints through FAA. But it is permitted, according to my understanding.

Alamy should have the decency to give me the specifics so I can assess the situation. Maybe it is wrong and I can help find the thief.

The following is the email from Alamy:

Hi There,

 Exclusivity Admin Fee on your sales report

Were adding an Exclusivity Administration Fee (EAF) on your sales report due to you incorrectly marking images in your account as being 'Exclusive to Alamy' 

This is a fee that is charged in one of two scenarios: 

We have found a potential infringement, and we've opened up a legal case to make a claim but then had to close the case because the image has been incorrectly marked as being exclusive to Alamy ($150 charge)
We have searched for a potential infringement but the image is found to be available on another stock site so the image has been incorrectly marked as being exclusive to Alamy ($50 charge)
The reason we are adding this fee to your account is because there is a considerable investment in looking for infringements, whereby each exclusive image we search for incurs a cost.

As the image has been incorrectly marked as being exclusive we are now passing on a proportion of the cost already spent to your account, as outlined in the contributor contract:

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 is available on 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.

An image should not be marked as exclusive if:

o            Its available on another stock agency site

o            Its an exact reproduction (in all or part) of a work of art (this does not include having additional unique or incidental features in the image, for example a person standing in front of a painting. The general rule of thumb is that to be exclusive an artwork cant take up any more than 1/3 of the image frame.)

o            Its not protected by copyright

o            Its in the public domain (for example, copyright has expired on a photograph from 1880)

o            Copyright ownership is unknown

 

For the image(s) which should not be marked as exclusive we have added the Exclusivity Admin Fee to your account and have removed its exclusive status.

Its important that your images are marked correctly we'd prefer to work with you so that these costs are avoided in future, and we can help you claim for images that are genuinely exclusive to Alamy.

To avoid further charges being made on exclusive images being incorrectly marked, please can you now review and check whether all the other images in your account should be marked as exclusive. Please remove the exclusive status if you find that they should not be marked as exclusive according to the terms outlined above.

If we find new cases of images being incorrectly marked as exclusive incurring further costs, after two months from the date of this email, then we will apply the corresponding fees to your account and we will also remove the exclusive status for all the images found in your account and remove any default settings for exclusive status.

If you need more time to amend your images, or if you have any questions about this please contact [email protected]

Thanks

Alamy


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2025, 15:54 »
+1
This is a fee that is charged where an image has been incorrectly marked as exclusive to Alamy, Alamy has searched for and found an infringement, and we've opened a legal case to make a claim but then had to close the case because it isnt in fact exclusive to Alamy.

As there is a considerable investment in looking for infringements, we are now passing on part of the cost already spent. This is part of the contributor contract:

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 is available on 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.
...
Please can you review the rest of the images you have on sale to ensure that only images exclusive to Alamy are marked as exclusive.

All the best,


An Image from long ago, before 2019 and maybe 2017, that wasn't marked exclusive, as far as I know, when I uploaded it. It was also somehow switched to Editorial. We aren't the first and someone else I know just got one of these, this week. Mine was in December, for $150 fee, deducted from my commissions.

When I questioned and support does reply, they gave me a whole long story about fees for checking and how they had a screen shot to prove, it was marked Exclusive. Well, fine, except they run the site and they could have changed the Exclusive check box, in one of those adjustments, like what boxes are used or not, whether the description is searched or not, what's visible, what's not. But I'd have to made a screen shoot from ten years ago, as proof, and what proof is that? I could have changed it after.

In other words, we're guilty and there's no appeal. Good luck trying to get any other answer than that.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2025, 10:44 »
+3
This is shocking.

This administrative fee made sense when Alamy paid higher for exclusive content, I believe it was 60% when sold directly...but they got rid of this benefit about two years ago.

So now it just seems like a cash grab. As someone who does occasionally upload exclusively on Alamy as RM I will be extra careful from now on in case I upload elsewhere by accident.

In related news, the lawsuit brought on by Bild where I'm involved is still pending. Had also to pay an administrative fee.

« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2025, 13:40 »
+2
Pete and Brasilnut, thank you very for your comments.

Have you noticed that the letter starts with "Hi there"? It doesn't even bother to address me. Talking about professionalism!

Even if you get a parking ticket, it specifies what the fine is for. You cannot just fine people without getting their side of the story.  In particular, it is very possible that the images were stolen or sold before Alamy even started the exclusive program.

Alamy offers no transparency. It does not specify which image was duplicated and what it will do with the duplicate image.

I need to know because I want to disable (and remove) the images if there are indeed any duplicates to avoid future problems.

But Alamy does not say what it's going to do with the image other than grabbing the money. Why, because the money is there, they don't even have to investigate anything, just help themselves with the money in the trust.

It is very concerning.

I got an email from the support, which says that my email was forwarded to the infringement team.

Are there any UK authorities that can look into it?




Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2025, 14:58 »
+2
They did tell me the specific image ID and I'm pretty sure it was up on Adobe. I don't think it has ever sold anywhere. But that means, yes it was me and my image, not a stolen image that someone else was using. An underlying fact is, we don't get paid more for exclusive anymore, there's no reason for me to have anything exclusive. Now I don't.

It looks like AIM has tools where someone can find all the exclusive images and mark them to regular status. Alamy was kind enough to do that for me, after I wrote.

I'm glad you brought this up again, it might have been missed, within another thread or only on the Alamy forum. Anyone can go look, make the should go look, right now and check for Exclusive images that aren't or possibly Exclusive images, that don't need to be, because there's no benefit to uploading Exclusive to Alamy anymore, that I know of?


« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2025, 15:49 »
0
That's interesting that they identified the image for you.

Why don't they tell me then?

I am still waiting to hear from the infringement team.

I will decide if I will change my exclusive status after I hear from Alamy.




« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2025, 18:34 »
0
Maybe they want to get rid of the exclusive program?

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2025, 07:34 »
0
https://www.alamy.com/blog/safeguarding-your-photographs-from-copyright-theft

Quote
We have also updated our monthly process and comms about when a contributor may have incurred an Exclusivity Admin fee, so that if an image has been incorrectly marked, they'll get fair warning to fix any incorrectly marked images whilst we pause the infringements process for their portfolio. Unfortunately, these fees cannot be avoided, but we hope that the improved comms will reduce the number of incorrectly marked images we find, and this will be a benefit for both Alamy and contributors.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2025, 12:01 »
+1
https://www.alamy.com/blog/safeguarding-your-photographs-from-copyright-theft

Quote
We have also updated our monthly process and comms about when a contributor may have incurred an Exclusivity Admin fee, so that if an image has been incorrectly marked, they'll get fair warning to fix any incorrectly marked images whilst we pause the infringements process for their portfolio. Unfortunately, these fees cannot be avoided, but we hope that the improved comms will reduce the number of incorrectly marked images we find, and this will be a benefit for both Alamy and contributors.

Well I'm so happy for everyone else now that people got $50 and $150 fees and Orchidpoet the worst I've ever read $250!  ::)

True, Alamy is supposed to protect our Exclusive images and go after stolen and misused images. If someone is interested, that's fine. But no warning, and they've been slapping people with fines for months. Not only that, there are questions whether the images were actually marked Exclusive, when uploaded many years ago, or if something in the Alamy system, changed them. But we have no way to contest the fines or prove some image from 2013, wasn't altered. And I'll admit I could have made an error, or maybe it was exclusive then, and I added it to Adobe in 2015, after they bought Fotolia.

So yes, there is some help, for someone who does have true exclusive content on Alamy. And if someone does and they find an infringing use, and we report it to Alamy, then Alamy will go after that for us.

Reminder:

Cannot be marked as exclusive to Alamy if:

    Its available on another stock agency site
    Its an exact reproduction (in all or part) of a work of art (this does not include having additional unique or incidental features in the image, for example a person standing in front of a painting. The general rule of thumb is that to be exclusive an artwork cant take up any more than 1/3 of the image frame)
    Its not protected by copyright
    Its in the public domain
    Copyright ownership is unknown

« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2025, 12:58 »
+1
Thanks, Pete, I feel so honored! ::)

In addition to selling through FAA for prints, I only sell RM through Alamy and RF through Getty/IS. Both are exclusive. If my images are available through any other sites, they are absolutely not authorized.

But before I was exclusive, I sold images through multiple agencies.

Without knowing specifics, such as which images and where they were sold, I don't know how to correct the errors if there are any.

By not even addressing me by name, and slapping US$250 without warning and specifics, does Alamy have any respect for its long-time contributors?

That's so heavy-handed, unethical, and unfair. Is it even legal? I don't know why we deserve such contempt on top of the rate cuts and devaluation of our work.

Do you know how I can contact any Alamy executives?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2025, 13:05 by Orchidpoet »

« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2025, 16:14 »
+1
For $250 I assume you have to sell a lot at Alamy to get that fee covered. Doesn't seem worth it to go exclusive there since almost nobody sells well over there as I get from here. Unless offcourse you are absolutely not sloppy and know where you uploaded images to.

« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2025, 07:56 »
+5
This thread caused me to run a check for wrongly marked exclusive images. For anyone not sure how to do this - just go to the Alamy Image Manager from your contributor dashboard then use the Attributes box at the top and scroll down and tick Exclusive to Alamy. This brings up any images marked as exclusive. I only had five of which three were correct. The other two (a Greek ferry boat and a British politician) were wrongly marked as exclusive. I suspect I was intending to tick the Sell for Editorial box and got the wrong one :) All sorted now....

« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2025, 09:01 »
+2
This thread caused me to run a check for wrongly marked exclusive images. For anyone not sure how to do this - just go to the Alamy Image Manager from your contributor dashboard then use the Attributes box at the top and scroll down and tick Exclusive to Alamy. This brings up any images marked as exclusive. I only had five of which three were correct. The other two (a Greek ferry boat and a British politician) were wrongly marked as exclusive. I suspect I was intending to tick the Sell for Editorial box and got the wrong one :) All sorted now....

Thanks for the very valuable tip. I actually also found 2 exclusive pictures, for the same reason, just clicked on the wrong box.

« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2025, 13:35 »
+3
Almay responded today.

The image is somewhat similar to another image. They are not identical. They were produced in 2010 before Alamy offered any exclusive content. Alamy did not say which version of the image that the "infringer" was using.

I have asked Alamy to do the following:

1. Remove the image from Alamy collection immediately.

2. Change my status to non-exclusive contributor immediately.

I would never have done this knowingly.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2025, 13:41 by Orchidpoet »

« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2025, 22:00 »
+1
I'm sorry to hear that this happened to you.  However, thank you for warning the rest of us about it.  I had quite a few old files marked exclusive, going back to the distant past when Alamy was the only agency that I dealt with that accepted editorial photos. 

I have now gone in and unmarked all of them.  It was relatively easy to do, thanks to the person above pointing me to the attributes feature.  Once you have located them, you can just select all and unmark them as one batch.

U11


« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2025, 22:05 »
0
run a search and found 2 of my pictures marked as exclusive to alamy
unchecked the mark
« Last Edit: February 05, 2025, 22:08 by U11 »

« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2025, 17:54 »
+1
I have not uploaded to Alamy but things like this make me wary. The amount of the so called "fines" vary for the same "offence" as though it is a random amount from some person  who may or may not be having a good day. Coupled with the number of people who find sales for which they have not been credited .... it does sound like their accounting department needs a good shake up!

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2025, 13:49 »
0
I have not uploaded to Alamy but things like this make me wary. The amount of the so called "fines" vary for the same "offence" as though it is a random amount from some person  who may or may not be having a good day. Coupled with the number of people who find sales for which they have not been credited .... it does sound like their accounting department needs a good shake up!

Yeah, Alamy is different in many ways, but they are honest. Or at least were, for their history, before they were sold to PA news. I don't see any changes.

This whole fine thing is new and started end of last year. The first I saw was someone on the forum who got fined $50. I didn't think anything of that, because I didn't believe I had any mismarked. Then someone else got one, and said, they had gone through and removed any settings that said "Exclusive". The answer from Alamy was, the violation had occurred months before they altered the Exclusive Settings.

Wow I should have jumped at that as a warning, but I didn't. Then I got mine for an image from 2014 that wasn't Editorial and wasn't Exclusive, and shouldn't have been. I admit it could have been my mistake when I was marking others, but the whole batch, wasn't anything Editorial and wasn't exclusive, and they were marked as such.

I appealed to Alamy, they basically said, "tough beans" the people who find infringements found it on a different agency site. They charged Alamy a fee and Alamy charged me an addition fee. Thank You.

As for the other part, Alamy has never charged at the time of download. They claim it's some standard use system in the business. The buyers are supposed to report uses. True, people do find unpaid and unregistered uses, and have since the start. I wish Alamy would change their system. I'm sure what they earn and collect would improve substantially enough to cover and perceived loss from the honor system clients who go somewhere else.

I don't know if Alamy calls it a fine or an offense, I called it a fine, because they took money from my account.  :) If I used the wrong terminology, then I stand corrected.

I'll just add some humor to this. As the new email came out and said people would get one warning, and they could correct all their assets. I wrote back using the support email thread that was created when I committed my "Offense"  ;) and quoted the email and asked if I would get my money back for my first fine, and that I had marked all my images, non-exclusive.

As probably everyone here is laughing at me, and somewhere saying, "You must be kidding, I bet they don't answer you!" Or "do you really think they will refund you anything?" Nope, I'm not so sure I'll even get

and I'm more assured in my opinion that I won't see a penny returned. But at least I wrote them with a chance that they could do "the right thing".


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4121 Views
Last post July 08, 2008, 19:48
by louoates
13 Replies
4879 Views
Last post December 09, 2008, 20:47
by bittersweet
38 Replies
34663 Views
Last post January 01, 2013, 08:00
by sharpshot
5 Replies
8071 Views
Last post January 17, 2015, 04:45
by ShadySue
77 Replies
26097 Views
Last post December 07, 2020, 00:14
by Free_Soul

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors