EPUK Editorial Photographers United Kingdom and Ireland. The private mailing list and public resource for editorial photographers

Alamy in the rear view mirror

27 May 2015 - David Hoffman

 

From their launch in 1999 Alamy had promoted themselves as the photographer-friendly stock agency. Back then they made promises like "It's not like you are entering an arrangement that ties your images up for a lengthy amount of time." Come February 2015 and they are claiming perpetual and irrevocable rights. 

Perpetual and irrevocable

On 16 February contributors to Alamy received notification of "some changes to your Alamy Contributor Contract". "We don't need anything from you but we recommend you keep a copy for your records", the email assured.

So far so bland and not at all scary. That was until EPUK members realised what the changes meant. Many clauses turned out to be extremely disadvantageous to photographers. One clause even gave Alamy perpetual and irrevocable rights in everything they'd ever licensed, even in the unknown but very large number of images downloaded by potential clients yet never licensed. There was plenty more to worry about too.

Broken promises

From their launch in 1999 Alamy had promoted themselves as the photographer-friendly stock agency. Back then they made promises like "It's not like you are entering an arrangement that ties your images up for a lengthy amount of time." Come February 2015 and they are claiming perpetual and irrevocable rights. Alamy had changed and not to the benefit of the many contributors the agency had amassed and who had given Alamy its distinct character.

The updated Contributor Contract was poorly written, parts were ambiguous and other clauses were impenetrable. EPUK was fortunate in having advice from Nicholas Buckland, an IP expert at solicitors Irwin Mitchell LLP.

Buckland’s advice proved invaluable in clarifying the contract, showing us where we needed to press for changes and giving us confidence that we had properly understood just how damaging these new terms were.

A question of trust

Photographers had come to trust Alamy and earlier contract changes had been accepted without significant fuss. EPUK was concerned that the new terms would be accepted as before, perhaps without even being read. After all, Alamy had always played fair. Until now.

Alamy’s 16 February email gave no warning to photographers as to how extensive, permanent and damaging the new contract was. It became imperative that photographers were alerted so EPUK published an open letter condemning the contract.

Alamy responded quickly and EPUK published their response in full. Alamy described the changes as merely reflecting how they work and tidying up language. They denied that it represented a fundamental shift, stating, "We believe the changes we've made are for the benefit of our photographers." Just how a perpetual, irrevocable rights grab was to the benefit of contributors was not explained.

Questionable intentions

A further EPUK article demolished Alamy's defence and sparked widespread disquiet over the stock agency’s intentions. To their credit, Alamy did take a step back and withdrew the proposed contract offering a far less egregious one in its place.

Although many contributors, who had faced the impossible choice between losing their rights or losing their income, breathed a sigh of relief others decided that this was the last straw.

Alamy's desperate pricing policy together with their assignment of excessively long and wide-ranging licences had long been corroding support for the agency. Perhaps less well known among photographers was Alamy's decision to join with low end agencies such as Stockimo and Snapwire to mutually license each other's work. This unwelcome device meant the distributors kept 75% of the fee while the creator's payout was halved to just 25%.

Red flag

The great proportion of Alamy suppliers are amateurs with, in many cases, a small number of mundane photographs. They'll not be concerned with the contract. Those who have left the agency will be a far more high- end group whose contributions will be high quality and specialist work.

We'll never know whether Alamy's clients notice the loss but the migration away from “the world’s largest stock photo collection” could be a useful boost for some of the smaller, higher-priced niche agencies who will be picking up the ex-Alamy photographers. Could this be a turning point? 

Want to contact the EPUK Website editor? editor@epuk.org

Comments

Thanks to EPUK being ever so awake and not letting Alamy getting away with it, so many of us photographers are now in a slightly better position than before.It really does take a lot of bottle, and EPUK has it, to stop Alamy. It really shows their intention. They are brought to heal this time but one wonders about their long term intentions. Well done EPUK.

Comment 1: Tom Hanley, 27 May 2015, 06:01 PM

Probably best we address some factual inaccuracies

1. You say ‘Perhaps less well known among photographers was Alamy’s decision to join with low end agencies such as Stockimo and Snapwire to mutually license each other’s work. This unwelcome device meant the distributors kept 75% of the fee while the creator’s payout was halved to just 25%.’

What does this mean? Stockimo is an iPhpone App developed and owned by Alamy, Snapwire is a contributing agency on the same deal as everyone else, (including all EPUK members) they have high-end photographers and mobile content. They don’t resell Alamy imagery.

2. You say the great proportion of Alamy contributors are amateurs

This is an assumption on your part and based on what?

3.As for who has left Alamy and why?

We’d imagine the claims you make are based upon anecdotes from a very small number of EPUK photographers, smaller than we anticipated, given the suggested strength of feeling against the contract changes and clarifications.

From our analysis, the number of photographers who left represent less than 0.1% of our active contributor base and were a cross section of pros and amateurs.

We are always sad to see photographers leave us but we make it easy for photographers to do so, giving them freedom of choice. We’ve been pleased that many well respected EPUK photographers we’ve spoken to have taken a balanced view and continue to submit.

Comment 2: Alan Capel -Alamy Head of Content, 28 May 2015, 08:32 AM

Comment on this article

(Your email will not appear on your comment, but we cannot accept your comment without one. We won't give your email address to anyone else)
(You don't need to enter your website address, but if you do, your post will link to it)
 

EPUK reserves the right to edit or delete posts which the moderators feel are irrelevant, offensive, libelous, untrue or just plain nutty; and in extreme cases, to ban those who make them.


EPUK is discussing:

Copyright infringements and how to manage them DACS Payback'Crafted in Britain' by Rob Scott Photographing in public places - where/when/is it allowed?

What is EPUK?

EPUK is an email group for professional editorial photographers who want to talk business. We don’t do techie stuff or in-crowd gossip. We don’t talk cameras or computers. What we talk about are the nuts and bolts of being in business - like copyright, licensing, fees and insurance.

Donate to EPUK

EPUK is run on a not-for-profit basis, funded solely by advertising, donations and hosting other lists. You can make a donation to EPUK through Paypal here:

Donate Now with PayPal

Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors.