Hi All,

Hopefully I can add some clarity here.

Firstly, this survey is 100% optional and anonymous. We will end up with % numbers against the survey questions with no identifiable information next to the answers. The data itself is not accessible other than to view results as a summary and there is absolutely zero chance of us "selling this data on" (as has been suggested in this thread).

Picture buyers in the publishing world are increasingly interested in this type of information, and when I say interested, I'm not talking about us "tapping into" some kind of trend.

We have face to face meetings with world leading publishers who ask us specific questions about where the images on Alamy come from and who takes them. They are keen to source images from a diverse mix of providers that demonstrate equal opportunities and ethical dealings. This subject has become increasingly common in our client meetings over recent times and we felt that we did not have the right level of information to inform them, but also closer to home, we want to make sure we are operating in an ethical and inclusive way.

That is the reason as to why this has been sent. The format, wording and distribution method we've chosen has been reviewed at all levels within the business and signed off by the in-house legal team within PA Media.

I hope this clears up any confusion around the survey, if you have any specific questions then please feel free to email [email protected] and the Contributor Releations team will be happy to help.

Many thanks,

James Allsworth
Head of Content

Thanks for replying. So the questionnaire was sent out with the CUSTOMERS in mind. You say you're not tapping into a trend, but that's exactly what Alamy has been doing.

Maybe, as others pointed out, customers should know about Alamy cutting contributor royalties, removing the 50/50 cut, licensing Rights Managed work for perpetual use, paying us microstock prices. How ethical, diverse and inclusive is that?

Alamy is not a traditional work environment (eg not an office, factory, store). Alamy is a web based agency where we contributors upload our images for licensing. You do have the information on who your contributors are, where they are from, and how to pay them and that should be enough. No need to ask personal sensitive data as it's irrelevant in the process of selling stock.

If ever sensitive data such as race, gender, gender identity, and blah blah, is asked, it should benefit the person in question some way, NOT the company. So how would this serve us contributors? If I come up with a star combination (great race-gender-sexuality-disability-politics combo), will you pay me more or will you accept images of lower quality? If you won't, I have given out information in vain just for Alamy and customers to goggle. My information may be lost or stolen and all over dark web next week (you never told us how this information is stored and protected). And I'm submitting my work from another country from the privacy of my home, it doesn't really matter to anyone who I am as long as I just submit good pictures.

Passing this data onto customers is not acceptable as it means using sensitive personal data in an advertorial way. Maybe your legal team relies on the "100% optional" thing but I highly doubt you have checked if asking sensitive personal data is legal in every country where your contributors come from.

If this survey has been discussed twice on Alamy forum, and you have removed the thread twice, that should tell you something.

This trending diversity & inclusive thing only creates more discrimination. That never works.

" equal opportunities" is called EEO in the the US.   

Quote from: Mantis on November 19, 2021, 09:50

"but also closer to home, we want to make sure we are operating in an ethical and inclusive way."

What does this mean?  What defines whether you are or are not operating in an ethical and inclusive way?  Your contributor base is your contributor base.  The only way I can see meeting some criteria of "ethical and inclusive" is if you could tweak search results by, say, ethnicity, which sort of fits into that equity silo.   But to do that you'd have to know by contributor their ethnicity. So according to your post, that approach is out. Outside of that, how do you use these data from the survey to "make sure" you are operating in an ethical and inclusive way?

So let's say a customer is interviewing you and says, what percentage of women artists make up Alamy, because that's important to us.  You say, well, it's about 40%. The customer says, that's not good enough, we want 60% before we work with companies like yours.  What is Alamy going to do about that statistic?  Fire male contributors to meet that metric? Invest in a campaign to attract more female artists? I mean, if it is viewed as unethical or not inclusive enough for the customer (or Alamy) what is Alamy's countermeasure?

Why isn't it enough to say that there is no barrier to the 'category' of people can apply to supply Alamy so long as their photos meet their standards?
The only thing they could do to make sure they have the 'right' mix  would be to make applicants fill in these details, then reject those who don't tick enough 'diversity' boxes. How would you then make sure people weren't lying?
What if a buyer said, "I only want to buy from suppliers who are X and Y and come from Z."

But the main thing (as mentioned already above) is how can  you claim to be 'ethical' while selling files for low prices and scraping off 60%?
What would you say if a customer asked  you that? "We do it because we have all the power. Suppliers are free to leave."?

Nicely stated.

There are equal opportunities for anyone included minorities of any kind to be contributor. There are equal opportunities to sell images. There are equal opportunities to be successful as contributor. No one cares about ethnicity or sex or anything, just about images. But YOU are creating unequal opportunities. Right now. Good work Alamy!

Exactly!

^^^ Of course, it's nothing but a trend as I previously said (reply #2, above)

However, James from Alamy said, specifically, "we want to make sure we are operating in an ethical and inclusive way!"

Fair pay is unarguably* ethical, and it would apply equally to all sectors of suppliers.

*Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity ..."

Since there is no information about the contributors' gender, religion, ethnicity, etc taken when the photos are submitted, it's about as fair as it can get.

You can't be unfair to particular groups if you don't know they are there.

Doesn�t that then make the survey moot? I mean, how would they take action to right the ethics ship and be able to measure it? How will they know what good looks like?

I am in the country, where this kind of question are illegal. Keep that in your mind please.

You don't need to answer the questions. I didn't.

I want to make sure I am operating in an ethical and inclusive way too. Please Alamy, and other agencies, could you let me know the demographics of your major shareholders/ owners so I can see where your percentage is ending up? Could I also see the make up of your contributor base?

Hmmm.... weird seems to me very likely that it would be much more ethical of you increase the share to your diverse (economically, racially, age group; in fact I bet in every single way) contributor base. Oh wait you only care as long as it looks good and makes you money not costs you money, got it.

The world has gone mad. Or I'm just an unwoke dinosaur.

I got tickets for a series of online concerts.
Afterwards, I got a customer satisfaction questionnaire. Not one was about the quality of the concerts.
All were about my ethnicity, gender choices, sexuality or disabilities and whether any of these had led to difficulties with the booking process or with accessing the content.

I'm trying very hard to understand this, but the only difficulties if would cause would be if any of these directly led to me having a poorly paid job, or none, therefore indirectly I couldn't afford a ticket or a device to view the shows on, or was physically or mentally unable to use a device - therefore I wouldn't have been a customer so wouldn't have got a customer satisfaction questionnaire.

If anyone can see where I'm going wrong on this, please feel free to try to explain. Because it seems to me that like with the Alamy questionnaire, it's just a ticky box exercise.