Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Restricted images no longer available to Distributors.

Permalink Comments (15)13 November 2008 at 10:56 by Alan Capel -Head of Content
Posted under Boring but necessary announcements, News

No entry sign - Image A08GA7 © Andrew Paterson
© Andrew PatersonTo avoid any potential problems with our Distribution network selling restricted images, we have removed all restricted images from the Distribution pool.

There is still no industry standard method for communicating or defining restrictions so it is an impossible task to try to integrate our structure with that of our Distributors.

Contributors do not need to take any action, if you have images with restrictions they are automatically removed from the pool of images made available. They will of course remain on the main Alamy site with their restrictions intact

Top

Add your own commentComments (15)

  1. 13 November 2008 at 11:31 Pete jenkins



    Good News and a sensible move.

    Thank you Alamy.

    Now back to Novel use - any further thoughts?

    Kind regards



    Pete Jenkins
    www.petejenkins.co.uk
    www.onlinepictureproof.com/petejenkins
    www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/

  2. 13 November 2008 at 16:14 Richard Wareham

    Could you update the distributor list please? There have been a couple of instances recently where people have found their images for sale on a distributors site not on the list. This, of course, leads to questions and concerns where there need have been none.
    Plus, its just good form to tell us who is selling our work.
    gr.
    Richard Wareham
    p.s. I've just seen a small bat fly over my house. Cool, he?

  3. 13 November 2008 at 18:10 Alan Gallery

    Some people have set restrictions so that their images can only be used for editorial purposes. This move seems to cut them out of distributer sales for editorial use!!

    alan gallery

  4. 13 November 2008 at 23:54 Darren Bickley

    Hey Richard, that is cool seeing a bat fly over your house. Funny, just the other day I saw a dead bat by a wall at a bank cash machine. It wasn't moving so I assumed it was dead but it could have been sleeping. Quite spooky, really.

  5. 14 November 2008 at 06:58 Sally r @ bill bachman

    Dear Alamy,

    Surely if we could just have that Editorial Only <Button> this sort of step wouldn't need to be taken. It would then be abundantly clear (to Alamy/clients/photographers) when shots were being used in breach of conditions.

    Responsibility & Accountability would rest exactly where it should: with the client.

    Why is it that ALamy is prepared to keep trying new forms of all sorts of things, from keywording to new sales models, but is unwilling to try the Editorial Only <button>.

    What are we all missing about this seemingly simple step that Alamy seems to be so reluctant to take?? Can someone enlighten us please.
    -----

    Furthermore, what is the point of offering the Restriction fields if they cannot then be implemented? ie not wishing MR children to be used in smoking/drinking campaigns.

    It would seem that it is the client who should be penalised for not adhering to the conditions set for an image (and then educated). Yet once again, it is the photographer who is paying the price.

    I am constantly bewildered by what seems like a [lack of] logic


    Sally, [working hard] on [yet another batch keywords]

  6. 16 November 2008 at 02:04 djake

    When the Head of Content writes, "...problems with our Distribution network selling restricted images..."
    it make me wonder.
    Are you really "selling" images? Of course not, they are being licensed!

  7. 16 November 2008 at 10:07 Manfred Grebler

    Sally, I cannot understand your criticism here:

    I have never understood the reasons for a "editorial only" button. When you set "no M" and/or "no PR" this should be fine enough.

    - Some reasons for restrictions are:
    You have an exclusive contract with another ageny for country x, so Alamy must not sell to a customer from x.
    - You sold an exclusive license and Alamy must not do any sells that conflict with this license.

    I have always suspected that some contributors might not respect the restrictions set. So Alamy has now drawn the plug because of this problem. GOOD!

    @Alamy:
    When I set a restriction today, how long will it take until this image will no longer be available for distribution?

  8. 17 November 2008 at 23:29 Sally r @ bill bachman

    test

  9. 18 November 2008 at 21:48 Sally r @ bill bachman

    @ 7

    Manfred, my point is this:

    Using the example of MR children: such images are still very suitable for a wide range of commercial applications, but these images will no longer be distributed due to the restrictions we have nominated to prevent them being used in inappropriate industries - drugs, alcohol, tobacco gambling etc...
    The point you raise about trade & country restrictions should be similarly explicit: if these fields are correctly filled in - and are adhered to by the client - then there should be no instances of the images being used incorrectly.
    The above information accompanies each image and is clearly visible to all clients and distributors.
    You write: "I have always suspected that some contributors might not respect the restrictions set."
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning as it is the contributor who sets the restrictions in the first place. I would have thought the converse was more likely: only when a contributor fails to set a restriction - where one exists - could there be a problem -ie failing to notify Alamy.
    I suspect the real and underlying issue concerns distributors who disregard the image restrictions and allow the sale of such an image to proceed, leading to potential litigation between Alamy/client/contributor/contributor's non-Alamy agency. It is against this scenario that I assume Alamy is protecting itself.

    It would seem that Alamy has decided that it is far easier to block potential problems at the source - itself - rather than taking a client/distributor to task in case it jeopardises the business relationship (and potential sales). Instead of educating and enforcing, Alamy is choosing to remove a percentage of all available images from the distribution network. And I stand by my point that the contributor is yet again penalised, even after they have done their best to give Alamy all pertinent information.

    As I read it, any image with any restrictions can now only be sold through the UK office, thus removing the image from potential markets - both editorial and commercial - around the world (unless sales are negotiated directly through Alamy UK office). So contributors need to consider how the image is most likely to be used before setting restrictions, including “limited” MR (ie one with restrictions – see para 1 above). Will you be better off missing editorial publishing sales in USA and Germany in order to secure a possible MR licensed sale with a commercial client (a license that can only now be negotiated through Alamy UK)
    Put another way: if you want Alamy to distribute your images worldwide, any MR images that carry MR restrictions will need to be changed to non-MR. This of course now limits licensing rights to editorial sales, so those MR images will no longer be considered for commercial sales (requiring a MR).
    The only upside I see (and it is has its merits) is that contributors who retain the restrictions on their images may end up with more direct sales through Alamy UK office – the only office now able to sell them - resulting in better contributor commissions, but this is predicated on the client dealing directly with Alamy UK. One can only hope that Alamy will have the good commercial sense to educate their (worldwide) clients about this small, select library of images that have been corralled at Head Office…
    This is how I understand the implications of this recent notice from managment.. Happy to hear other viewpoints, including Alamy’s !!

  10. 18 November 2008 at 22:08 sally @ bill bachman

    @ 7 (reposting above message as the data transfer lost the layout - hope this is easier to read :o)

    Manfred, my point is this:

    Using the example of MR children: such images are still very suitable for a wide range of commercial applications, but these images will no longer be distributed due to the restrictions we have nominated to prevent them being used in inappropriate industries - drugs, alcohol, tobacco gambling etc...

    The point you raise about trade & country restrictions should be similarly explicit: if these fields are correctly filled in - and are adhered to by the client - then there should be no instances of the images being used incorrectly.

    The above information accompanies each image and is clearly visible to all clients and distributors.

    You write: "I have always suspected that some contributors might not respect the restrictions set."

    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning as it is the contributor who sets the restrictions in the first place. I would have thought the converse was more likely: only when a contributor fails to set a restriction - where one exists - could there be a problem -ie failing to notify Alamy.

    I suspect the real and underlying issue concerns distributors who disregard the image restrictions and allow the sale of such an image to proceed, leading to potential litigation between Alamy/client/contributor/contributor's non-Alamy agency. It is against this scenario that I assume Alamy is protecting itself.

    It would seem that Alamy has decided that it is far easier to block potential problems at the source - itself - rather than taking a client/distributor to task in case it jeopardises the business relationship (and potential sales). Instead of educating and enforcing, Alamy is choosing to remove a percentage of all available images from the distribution network.

    And I stand by my point that the contributor is yet again penalised, even after they have done their best to give Alamy all pertinent information.


    As I read it, any image with any restrictions can now only be sold through the UK office, thus removing the image from potential markets - both editorial and commercial - around the world (unless sales are negotiated directly through Alamy UK office). So contributors need to consider how the image is most likely to be used before setting restrictions, including “limited” MR (ie one with restrictions – see para 1 above). Will you be better off missing editorial publishing sales in USA and Germany in order to secure a possible MR licensed sale with a commercial client (a license that can only now be negotiated through Alamy UK)

    Put another way: if you want Alamy to distribute your images worldwide, any MR images that carry MR restrictions will need to be changed to non-MR. This of course now limits licensing rights to editorial sales, so those MR images will no longer be considered for commercial sales (requiring a MR).

    The only upside I see (and it is has its merits) is that contributors who retain the restrictions on their images may end up with more direct sales through Alamy UK office – the only office now able to sell them - resulting in better contributor commissions, but this is predicated on the client dealing directly with Alamy UK. One can only hope that Alamy will have the good commercial sense to educate their (worldwide) clients about this small, select library of images that have been corralled at Head Office…

    This is how I understand the implications of this recent notice from managment.. Happy to hear other viewpoints, including Alamy’s !!

  11. 19 November 2008 at 09:07 Manfred grebler

    @sally:

    >>> You write: "I have always suspected that some contributors might not respect the restrictions set."

    >>> I'm not sure I follow your reasoning as it is the contributor who sets the restrictions in the first place

    Oh sorry! This was a "spelling" error... :-( I wanted to write: "that some distributors might not respect..."


    >>> And I stand by my point that the contributor is yet again penalised, even after they have done their best to give Alamy all pertinent information

    Yes I agree with that. BUT obviously Alamy is not able to force the distributors to respect the restrictions. (For example just because the distributor's system does not know about restrictions.) Under THESE circumstances it seems to be the best solution to withdraw all these images from distribution to protect all of us.

    BTW: I always have wanted a way to opt in or out for distribution on a per image base. One reason was the uncertainty regarding distributors and restrictions...

  12. 20 November 2008 at 18:31 John mitchell

    I would like to echo Alan Gallery's concern about images set for editorial use only. This type of restriction seems clear enough, and I for one would be happy to see editorial images left in the Distribution pool.

  13. 01 December 2008 at 19:50 Larry Brownstein

    I agree that an Editorial Only button solves a lot of problems.

  14. 02 December 2008 at 07:17 steve bisgrove

    Did some one say a "distributor" list? (Richard Wareham, 13th Nov) I didn't there was a list. Where can I find it?

  15. 05 December 2008 at 16:51 PF

    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-distributors.asp

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.