Bill Brooks

The problem with crafts is copyright. You can own a work of art/craft object (property), but not own the copyright to the property. Here is an article about a book publisher who became embroiled in such a lawsuite. The publisher took the risk and defended the lawsuite. When the average stock sale was $350 with 50-60% to the photographer I would take the small risk to the photographer. However for a $2 sale with 60 cents to me I will not even sit on the sidelines of a mess like this. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/judge-rules-against-key-porter-over-artists-work/article1120353/ Here is the cover of the book. https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Catchers-History-Julie-Black/dp/1552094391 There is a former Canadian stock photographer from the 1990s that now runs a high volume craft studio out of Merida Mexico. He designs the original craft/art object and then has a team of craft people turn out the objects by hand. He supplies authentic crafts all over Mexico to those ladies you see selling crafts in the marketplace. You can bet he knows the law when it comes to stock photography.

A trust has been broken. "Will you agree to my contract?" said a spider to a fly; " 'Tis the prettiest little contract that ever you did spy. The way into my contract is up a winding stair, And I have many pretty things to shew when you are there." "Oh no, no!" said the little fly, "to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."

Also forgot high $$$$ and high $$$$$. I have not seen one of those for months.

Wife/lover/partner and I received our second Covid injection today. It means we will both be 96% protected in about 2 weeks, once the vaccine completely kicks in,.

One size does not fit all, so decide your individual future based on your specific needs. Many of you will have a strategy like Doc. Some of you will not make a decision, do nothing about the change, and allow yourself to be swept along. There is a difference between making a decision to do nothing about the change, or not making any decision because you are only allowing yourself to be swept along. If you make that decision, to do nothing about the change after examining your needs, you are not being swept along. You own the decision. It is your decision, not Alamy's decision. Important because you will want to move forward on your decision to do nothing about the change. Make it work and review it only once a year in light of new evidence, not after every license.

Here is the way I see it. The new contract is written to deal with 2 major Alamy problems. Alamy commission structure and prices are way out of line with the industry average. Industry average being around 20% for the photographer and about $5 per RF sale, with no RM at all. The industry average cannot be ignored. Average Alamy sale price, and the photographers commission, have to be brought into line. This contract is not about a money grab, but about the long term survival of the fittest archive. The second problem is that the collection is unedited. Presently the contents are too legally dangerous to both photographers and Alamy. To have knowledgable Alamy employees examine every single image, and edit the danger from the huge collection is too big a task. Alamy photographers are incapable of editing out the danger. Photographers have shown their incapability by the content they upload, and the discussion on this forum. The danger is much less at other archives, because they have been properly edited in house from the start. The new contract places all the danger of the unedited collection onto the Alamy photographer. The stock photo business was disrupted circa 1995 by the entry of two of the richest people in the world. They moved their edited stock photo business by circa 2006 to a new business model like the business model that unedited Alamy occupies today in 2021. However that 2006 business model was further disrupted by the recession of 2008-2009. In 2009 microstock disrupted the stock industry yet again. Corbus was sold, and the other place moved toward microstock. Alamy today is mostly 2006. Alamy needs to move with the industry into 2021. Alamy is not an island. The stock photo industry in 2021, with the exception of Alamy, is microstock. This new contract makes Alamy competitive with the rest of the industry. Personally the stock photo industry today, is not for me. I am exiting the industry entirely. No stock photographs for sale anywhere, including Alamy. I still have things I want to explore in my photography, but the stock photo component has become a distraction. I had a great run that started in 1967, and lasted until 2010. 2010 is not a typo. No regrets

I have already served notice. I received an almost identical message. I expect Alamy to live up to its email commitment of closing my account June 30. For further clarity, I wish and expect my account to be closed June 30, even if the June 30 contract is withdrawn or amended. If the June 30 contract is amended to your satisfaction, there is no need to celebrate. I think you will have only won a skirmish and not the war. Remember the 40% skirmish with the previous owners, when they were preparing the company for sale. The June 30 contract is what the new buyers wanted, and I expect that it will be like a Phoenix, and rise from the June 30 ashes over and over, until Alamy gets its way. Once Alamy gets its way, I think a even newer contract will be presented. It is like the Borg. However we can escape June 30. I am exclusive to Alamy until June 30, but for me it is not only an Alamy decision. It is a decision to remove all of my stock images from any and all stock photo marketplaces. Alamy sold a stock image today $73 at 50%. Now to get on with my new photography, not stock photography.

I believe Alamy are only going to rewrite some clauses so they will be clearer to photographers. I do not see where they are going to change the intent of the contract at all. How many photographers have been sued? Probably very few, as that is not how it works. Parties in the chain receive threats from the plaintive's lawyer. For reasonable smaller claims, a confidential financial resolution is reached between all parties. It never gets to court. It is not public. No one has been sued. However legal costs and settlement costs have been incurred. For large claims everyone in the chain becomes adversaries, all with their own legal representation. Every entity in the chain for themselves. If an agreement is not reached with the plaintive, then the plaintive may sue. Then it becomes public. Occasionally there is a perfect storm of circumstances that can lead to a large claim regardless how careful all members of the stock photo chain have been. Before 2000 most stock photographers were also commercial photographers. They used professional models which made their model releases enforceable. Commercial photographers understood about trademarks, photographing money, photographing artwork in public places, copyright. They had a good working knowledge of the legal aspects of stock photography, and knew their risks. They had their own limited companies, and also carried insurance just in case. When the prices paid for stock photography fell, around 2000, professional stock photographers stopped production. They went on to other types of photography, but left their existing stock on sale because it was largely bullet proof legally. New submissions from professional stock photographers fell off, so stock archives had a problem. Stock archives conducted misleading PR campaigns that placed newspaper stories about how a stay at home mom was supplementing family income by using her new digital camera to photograph her family and friends. Misleading PR campaigns about how amateur authenticity with real people, not professional slickness with actors, was the new trend. New amateur stock shooters, poured in, but had no concept about the risks they were taking. The "Photo AGENCY Council of America" (PACA) understood the risk, and changed their name to "Photo ARCHIVE Council of America"(PACA). Former agencies took the agency language out of their photographers contracts and became archives. If you are an agent you have a heightened responsibility to act in the best interests of the people you represent. Archives are depositories, they represent no one. The new Alamy contract is an honest contract that lays out the risk that photographers have been taking all along. Everything in this contract, is standard stock industry practice, and has been so for many years. Do the low returns, due to low prices and a smaller cut, justify the risks and any future production? That is the question.

Public attitudes are changing more in line with the Quebec judgment where a street photographer was sued by his human subject for publishing her image in a gallery exhibition of his work. The street photographer lost the case up to the supreme court, even though the photograph was taken in a public place. "Le droit à l’image In a landmark 1996 decision Éditions vice-versa inc. c. Aubry, the Quebec Court of Appeal concluded that the very act of publishing a picture of someone without their consent could justify compensation – even if there was nothing inherently wrong or intimate about the pictures at issue. This case involved a photographer who had published a photograph of a woman without her consent, while she was in a public place. The Supreme Court of Canada in Aubry c. Éditions Vice-Versa inc. confirmed the Court of Appeal decision, and concluded that this aspect of privacy, known as the right to one’s image (“le droit à l’image”), is specifically protected under Quebec law." Here is a recent confrontation in the USA. Uploading an image on Alamy for sale could be considered publishing the image. The photographer would be the publisher, and the publisher is responsible, right? https://petapixel.com/2021/05/26/woman-confronts-creep-photog-in-tiktok-video-draws-backlash/ In Canada TV and newspapers are starting to use out of focus images for sensitive uses like obesity, children at play, patients in Covid ICUs. For practical purposes photographs of people who are in the news, published as real news, is fast becoming the only safe street photography featuring people.

I also had the car serviced this morning. The car had an unexpected recall, so not to waste 3 hours waiting, I went for a long walk. I became a flâneur. Clean sharp light from a bright sun in a completely blue sky. Perfect walking temperature of 16 degrees celsius. Wandered aimless outside, among big box chain stores. Stores with their new perfectively sunlit, spanking new, signs and logos. Stopped and watched some interesting construction on the new Light Rail Transit line. Even saw a new demo railcar for the line. It was a real stock photo, get my numbers up day. My SonyX100 was clipped to my belt, but it stayed there. No stock images taken or contemplated. Sat on a bench and daydreamed about my artist hero J. M. W. Turner. Maybe I will stand on his giant shoulders, and try to develop a new abstract style, but only for my own wall. FREEDOM

Some wishful thinking around responsibility in this thread. In the end you may not be responsible, but any fool can sue. I think this contract says if a lawsuite happens for any reason, the photographer has to bear the legal burden. I know of a wrong caption, many years ago before Alamy was even conceived, that caused an $80,000 shredding and reprint job. Sensitive use. A nice family portrait used to illustrate an article on incest. A photograph of a group of college students in front of an identifiable college building for a story on professors demanding sex for grades. This is an internet age folks, where everyone is a publisher. Any client with a credit card can can obtain your image, no questions asked, from Alamy. It doesn't matter how you designate the image. RM or RF, only editorial, release or no release, counts for almost nothing in a legal sense. So be careful with your trust

Right you are Robert, and in my opinion their fingerprints are all over this contract.

This really sums it up. Everyone should read it. I wish I had the same depth polish and breadth as this poster. I would keyword it as enlightened, informed, aware, educated, knowledgeable, learned, wise, literate, intellectual, tutored, illuminated, apprised; civilized, refined, cultured, cultivated, sophisticated, advanced, developed, liberal, open-minded, broad-minded. Thanks Nodvandigtid

Here are some ideas to ponder Cost of a Toronto media lawyer (not a family lawyer) with extensive knowledge of the Media business, and international legal contacts. $750 per hour. Cost of rendering a written opinion with strategy, $10,000. Cost of multiple meeting with all parties, $30,000 plus expenses, AND UP. One of my child models, who still refers to me as Uncle, is now a media lawyer in mid career. It is not worth bothering him with this contract for a pro bono hour, as I already know the answer. Everyone is referring to this contract offer as applying to everyone. Maybe not. Alamy can make any deal, at any price, with anyone they want. I think a large famous curated image collection like National Geographic could demand and get 70%, and also get top position in the sort order. Museums, national archives, The National Trust for example, have expertly curated image collections. However, in my opinion, they have been unsuccessful in reaping a financial benefit over the internet, and meeting their main mandate of being a museum without walls for the entire world. Alamy could solve both problems. Alamy now has the business connections, expertise, and IT to bring these large collections onto the Alamy sales platform. However, if they do, I doubt that it will be under the new contract being presented to us. Dealing with thousands of wild eyed suppliers is costly. Alamy is now a extension of the large corporate organizations that own Alamy. Large corporations prefer to deal with other large corporations.

The fog descends