pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Rules Concerning Alamy  (Read 6027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 26, 2009, 06:55 »
0
Exclusivity used to just apply to RF images. You could have RM images with Alamy and still be able to be exclusive. In another forum it has now been announced that this is no longer the case. If you have any images at Alamy you will not be eligible for exclusivity.

The original thread can be found on in the micropayment yahoo group.


« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2009, 06:59 »
0
wow, that is an interesting find. Thanks for posting that.  Here is what the quote from istock was

Quote
"In the 'RM' agreement signed with Alamy - they reserve the right to change the agreement to RF at any time with 45 days notice to you. As files are held on their site for a 6 month period, we unfortunately would not be able to approve your exclusivity application with files posted on Alamy."

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2009, 07:57 »
0
So I wonder what that means for exclusives who already have images at Alamy.

« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2009, 10:12 »
0
Exclusivity used to just apply to RF images. You could have RM images with Alamy and still be able to be exclusive. In another forum it has now been announced that this is no longer the case. If you have any images at Alamy you will not be eligible for exclusivity.

The original thread can be found on in the micropayment yahoo group.
Sorry, but I do not believe that to be correct and I doubt that the quote was actually an iStock employee. In the exclusive forum on iStock (only exclusives have access) this topic was again discussed on March 23 and no iStock employee said that you couldn't sell RM on other sites.

Think about it. Why would iStock make such a major policy change without saying so on iStock's site? Also, the change would require a change in the exclusive contract itself. Just because Alamy can change to RF within 45 days doesn't effect your exclusive contract on iStock as long as you take down the images when you receive the 45 days notice. There are a large number of exclusives that have images on Alamy as RM.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 10:26 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2009, 10:25 »
0
wow, that is an interesting find. Thanks for posting that.  Here is what the quote from istock was

Quote
"In the 'RM' agreement signed with Alamy - they reserve the right to change the agreement to RF at any time with 45 days notice to you. As files are held on their site for a 6 month period, we unfortunately would not be able to approve your exclusivity application with files posted on Alamy."

Untrue. Have a read of the agreement at Alamy:
Quote
6.2 Where you appoint Alamy as your licensee to grant Royalty Free Licences or Rights Managed - Exclusive Licences in respect of an Image, Alamy may vary the Licences it grants in respect of that Image from Royalty Free or Rights Managed-Exclusive to Rights Managed-by giving 45 days prior notice to you at any time. If you notify Alamy during the 45 day notice period that you do not agree to such variation then Alamy may either continue to grant Licences in accordance with the original licence type in respect of that Image or, at Alamys option, may delete that Image from the System.

They can change a licence with 45 days notice but if you don't agree either the change won't happen or the image will be deleted. As long as you refuse any change to RF then you're not breaching the istock exclusivity agreement.

« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2009, 10:26 »
0
Also, I imagine most contributions to Alamy by istock exclusives are editorial (i.e. no releases) so there's no chance of them being changed to RF anyway!

« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2009, 10:30 »
0
It's not an announcement in the way that you are thinking of them. Like Bruce posting that he's leaving. This is more like the way that most of us get our information. An IS contributor tried to become exclusive and was denied because he has RM images on Alamy. He posted the situation to the Yahoo group and Leaf has already quoted what the contributor was told by IS as the reason why he was denied.

Craig - this was brought up in the Yahoo thread. The answer given by IS was doesn't matter. If you have images on Alamy you can't be exclusive.


« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2009, 10:58 »
0
Craig - this was brought up in the Yahoo thread. The answer given by IS was doesn't matter. If you have images on Alamy you can't be exclusive.
Sorry, but actual posts by actual employees on IS contradict the anonymous posting on a yahoo email group. Since a large group of exclusives sell images on Alamy, and I generally don't put much stock in unsubstantiated claims on yahoo groups, I'm going to stick with what iStock employees have actually said on iStock and what the contracts actually say.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 11:00 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2009, 11:47 »
0
Sorry yingyang, I've actually been trying to get istock CR to state selling RM on alamy is ok, and they (CR) are steadfast under the impression that the RF to RM is a two way street regardless of how clearly the clause states it only goes one way.  Supposedly I've been passed on to compliance.  I'm pretty sure CE will clear this up.  There's not really any ambiguity in the clause.

« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2009, 11:57 »
0
So what will happen to those who are exclusive and have images with Alamy?

Sorry yingyang, I've actually been trying to get istock CR to state selling RM on alamy is ok, and they (CR) are steadfast under the impression that the RF to RM is a two way street regardless of how clearly the clause states it only goes one way.  Supposedly I've been passed on to compliance.  I'm pretty sure CE will clear this up.  There's not really any ambiguity in the clause.

« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2009, 12:01 »
0
Hopefully CE will clear it up pretty quickly. The response from CR that the contributor in question received is simply untrue. It clearly states that files can only be moved to RF with the owner's permission, as long as you refuse any files being moved to RF then you're only ever selling RM which the istock exclusivity agreement explicitly allows!

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2009, 13:11 »
0
Sorry yingyang, I've actually been trying to get istock CR to state selling RM on alamy is ok, and they (CR) are steadfast under the impression that the RF to RM is a two way street regardless of how clearly the clause states it only goes one way.  Supposedly I've been passed on to compliance.  I'm pretty sure CE will clear this up.  There's not really any ambiguity in the clause.

Since iStock puts your images (and I mean sjlocke personally for others reading this) up on Alamy, and many people who are exclusives have been selling RM and Editorial on Alamy for years, I find it interesting that one person should come running to the Yahoo group and Alamy with identical messages, creating a storm, saying that IS says exclusives can't sell at Alamy.

Somewhere I think someone made a mistake, because it's been going on for years. The only other answer is IS changed their policy and people who are already Grandfathered in, can continue?

Whatever you come up with I'll believe as the accurate answer.

Quote from: iStock Information
Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:

    * Rights-managed files with other organizations
    * Personal portfolio sites
    * Work for hire/editorial work contracts
    * Prints for sale
    * Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com

Are there other restrictions?

    * Images, video or audio files may not be sold on the artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    * Artist may not give away files for free, from their own or any other site.
    * Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere

It seems pretty clear to me that exclusives are allowed to sell on Alamy, just as long as they don't sell RF files there.

Also straight from the IS contract, Excluded Items,

(1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto (such as stand alone audio files); or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 13:45 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2009, 16:50 »
0
I didn't know Alamy could change RM to RF.  In which situations would they do it?

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2009, 18:22 »
0
Racephoto, istock doesn't put my images on Alamy.  Getty does distribute mine and other photodisc work there though.

Regardless, I just got word from CE that there was some internal confusion over the Alamy terms.  However he has confirmed there is no conflict for exclusives when it comes to submitting non-istock content to Alamy as RM.  If anyone still has issues with support with this, point them to CE for the resolution.

« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2009, 09:46 »
0
Hi Everyone:

I'm the "anonymous" original poster on the Yahoo Microstock group that has run into this Alamy/iStock Exclusivity problem. I've been in microstock and a member of iStock, among other sites, since 2004. But I'm a small player, and keep a low profile.

What was stated on the Yahoo Microstock forum (and recounted here) is correct and factual regarding my correspondence with iStock support. Needless to say, I too was surprised by the response. If you still doubt its credibility, please contact me directly, and I'll be happy to share the email correspondence with you in order to eliminate any doubts you might have. 

My real question: Sean you say that if anyone still has problems with this (which I do), point them to CE. Pardon the (probably) ignorant question, but what is CE?

Regards,

Ron 

« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2009, 10:26 »
0
CE stands for Compliance Enforcement. It's usually referenced when you report a violation of the TOS or find watermarked IS images on the web.

« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2009, 14:20 »
0

« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2009, 18:28 »
0
Thank you, Sean & Azurelaroux. I've emailed CE - we'll see what they say.

Regards,

Ron S.

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2009, 06:33 »
0
Thank you, Sean & Azurelaroux. I've emailed CE - we'll see what they say.

Regards,

Ron S.

Seems you were not the only one then as this appeared at the same time on the Alamy forum.

Quote
Why I can't: because iStock rejected my application for exclusivity because I have RM (L) images on Alamy. And not the same as those on their site. I agree with you on the interpretation of their policy, this was how I interpreted it too. They seem to see it differently, and I did get it from the horse's mouth. I actually rang them, they were very nice and helpful, and the lady even checked with their legal people again. She later emailed me with the exact part of the Alamy contract that is an issue for them. Possibly an excuse I don't know. I have been with them for a couple of years, also as an 'experiment' and made very little money (I have made many more times that off my own stock site but it has a limited market), but I thought I'd make more of an effort. I may be better off making an effort to shoot good stuff for Alamy or just get a 'real' job. All I know is that they have certainly made a reasonable amount of money off my efforts, my few files with them have had good sales, so it's rather annoying to have the rejection when I was pretty sure others were doing it. It's not like they ever announced that the RM images allowed on other sites didn't include Alamy.

Odd co-incidence?

« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2009, 20:41 »
0
A positive end to the saga: I contacted CE at iStock, as Sean suggested.   He apologized for the confusion, and said there does not appear to be any conflict between being an Exclusive Artist with iStock, and licensing your images as RM via Alamy. Within a few minutes, my exclusivity application was approved.

Thanks to everyone here, and especially to Sean, for your suggestions, and to iStock for recognizing that their interpretation of the Alamy agreement needed revisiting.

Ron

« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2009, 21:48 »
0
Schweet!

DanP68

« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2009, 21:55 »
0
Congratulations Ron.  I'm glad this was cleared up and everything worked out for you.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5720 Views
Last post July 17, 2006, 16:31
by madelaide
7 Replies
3563 Views
Last post January 29, 2008, 12:10
by leaf
6 Replies
2987 Views
Last post February 21, 2008, 03:08
by Peter
1 Replies
1758 Views
Last post April 10, 2008, 11:17
by leaf
28 Replies
7485 Views
Last post January 25, 2009, 17:56
by madelaide

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results