spacecadet Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I have a feeling our rights as a U.S. citizen will supersede any contract Alamy produces. Just a reminder that other nationalities are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I have a feeling our rights as a U.S. citizen will supersede any contract Alamy produces. Hmmmm. You voluntarily entered into a contract with Alamy, part of which states: "This Contract shall be governed by and interpreted in all respects in accordance with the laws of England and Wales . If any dispute shall arise between you and Alamy in connection with or in relation to this Contract the matter shall be resolved by the Courts of England and Wales" If anyone's rights as a citizen of any country "superseded" any contract said citizen entered into, why would contracts even exits? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I have a feeling our rights as a U.S. citizen will supersede any contract Alamy produces. Hmmmm. You voluntarily entered into a contract with Alamy, part of which states: "This Contract shall be governed by and interpreted in all respects in accordance with the laws of England and Wales . If any dispute shall arise between you and Alamy in connection with or in relation to this Contract the matter shall be resolved by the Courts of England and Wales" If anyone's rights as a citizen of any country "superseded" any contract said citizen entered into, why would contracts even exits? dd The only proviso there is that you cannot normally sign away statutory [and Constitutional?] rights. I suppose an extreme example would be that a US citizen could not sign themselves into slavery under the laws of another country, whatever the legal jurisdiction of the contract. Signing away employment rights in Europe would be similar (and obviously not so extreme). Companies however, have few rights of that kind, so I would expect a contract to be binding (unless it required that the law be broken) if it fulfills all the other requirements (e.g. reciprocity in England). To be clear, I am not a lawyer in any sense. The above is drawn from my limited experience of negotiation contracts over the years. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Holt Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 An open letter from EPUK to Alamy http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms After also reading this via a link posted on the AOP list, my initial view that the terms were essentially innocuous has turned to the point that I am wondering whether to either remove my images from Alamy altogether, or merely stop submitting images until this is resolved. Just hope Alamy HQ haven't gone away for half term. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie5 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This is a good read. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This "in perpetuity" concept came into being over twenty years ago via TV sales. We were all ticking along nicely until the legal departments of TV production companies got involved. There was "in perpetuity", there was "media in existence and yet to be invented", there was "throughout the universe", there was "offshore continental shelf" (that means oil drilling rigs). Lots of other types of clients got hold of the concept so agencies like Alamy, Getty et al have had to respond. Bonkers, but we are were we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Bonkers it may be but we don't have to roll over and simply accept it.I was already holding fire on submitting new material while I worked out what, if any material, from my new direction was appropriate to Alamy. I am now focussing on where and how I will earn from my photography and only then will I consider what I do with Alamy. I don't see any point in giving away my work in perpetuity for the returns Alamy provides. So don't be surprised if I am not around as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 It doesn't make for enjoyable reading and even though I'm not the smartest when it comes to contracts and such like it won't take forever for me to pull my collection if I think Alamy are playing the game unfairly. At the moment it seems to me that Alamy value customers more than they do their contributors. Shame that because otherwise I've enjoyed being here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 It doesn't make for enjoyable reading and even though I'm not the smartest when it comes to contracts and such like it won't take forever for me to pull my collection if I think Alamy are playing the game unfairly. At the moment it seems to me that Alamy value customers more than they do their contributors. Shame that because otherwise I've enjoyed being here. I am about a week from marking my 13th anniversary with Alamy but will I make it to 14 or beyond? I hope Alamy responds to the criticism in a positive way(to be fair they often have in the past) and work to rebalance the market to give contibutors a fairer shout; as they did when they started out. My fear is that Alamy has adopted a particular business model and are so far down the road they are committed to it whether or not it still makes sense. I too have noted the rise of new smaller libraries who presumably can give customers and contributors a more personal service - question is can they achieve sufficient critical mass to be sustainable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 This is a good read. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.htmlIndeed it is . . . can't see which bit is relevant to yours and my contracts with Alamy though, with regards to somehow being exempt from the conditions and terms of said contract because of citizenship of any particular state (as you raised above). The main concerns over parts of this contract are to do with uncertainty about the actual meaning and practical implications of certain stated conditions of the contract, in no way related to citizenship or otherwise of this state or that. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Ramsay Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 It may not be much help, but it is surely worth a few minutes of everyone's time to write directly to Messrs Capel and West saying that we largely agree with the concerns expressed in David Hoffman's open letter (http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms), and asking how they plan to respond. Their addresses are at the head of the EPUK letter. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isphoto Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I am not happy with a contract that says i cannot take action against infringers especially when they have blatantly downloaded images from Alamy and not declared it. If alamy cannot control this follow up, then I want to be able to do it and I don't care if client relationships are rocked, the bottom line is Alamy should be acting in our best interests, not worrying about upsetting the clients that do not declare use. I was happy enough to leave the limited number of images with Alamy that I have, but the returns (i get three to four times the rates I get through Alamy on a regular basis with direct sales) really are not worth the continuing risk to the control over my images that these new terms bring into play. I have sent member services a cancellation notice and will now sit back and see how the stock image market pans out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I do not like at all the way Alamy assisted an infringer to gain a retrospective licence in order to avoid litigation from the photographer (details on EPUK website). They didn't even obtain the image from Alamy in the first place. They've crossed the line there and someone needs to provide some reassurance that this is not normal business practice. They have swung drastically towards assisting the customer at all costs no matter the impact on the photographer. They need to respond to EPUK addressing the issues/concerns highlighted. I like dealing with Alamy and want to continue but these ethics really worry me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I do not like at all the way Alamy assisted an infringer to gain a retrospective licence in order to avoid litigation from the photographer (details on EPUK website). They didn't even obtain the image from Alamy in the first place. They've crossed the line there and someone needs to provide some reassurance that this is not normal business practice. They have swung drastically towards assisting the customer at all costs no matter the impact on the photographer. They need to respond to EPUK addressing the issues/concerns highlighted. I like dealing with Alamy and want to continue but these ethics really worry me. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I doubt the 'retrospective licence' would save the infringer in court, after all the correspondence would have given them away and they shared it with the photographer. But it is of concern that Alamy co-operated with him when it was clear what he was trying to do. Of course the damages for a Farcebook use would be quite modest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I doubt the 'retrospective licence' would save the infringer in court, after all the correspondence would have given them away and they shared it with the photographer. But it is of concern that Alamy co-operated with him when it was clear what he was trying to do. Of course the damages for a Farcebook use would be quite modest. True, but as you say, it's their willingness to try and help someone to do this even when it was clear what they were doing. That to me just feels wrong, I thought Alamy were better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I doubt the 'retrospective licence' would save the infringer in court, after all the correspondence would have given them away and they shared it with the photographer. But it is of concern that Alamy co-operated with him when it was clear what he was trying to do. Of course the damages for a Farcebook use would be quite modest. True, but as you say, it's their willingness to try and help someone to do this even when it was clear what they were doing. That to me just feels wrong, I thought Alamy were better than that. This highly inappropriate behaviour seems to suggest that Alamy has lost its way somewhat as far as its representation of its contributors interests are concerned. In fact doesn't it drag Alamy into being a complicit party to infringement and at risk of litigation themselves? Just a thought. Has anyone had any feedback from Alamy on this matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I doubt the 'retrospective licence' would save the infringer in court, after all the correspondence would have given them away and they shared it with the photographer. But it is of concern that Alamy co-operated with him when it was clear what he was trying to do. Of course the damages for a Farcebook use would be quite modest. True, but as you say, it's their willingness to try and help someone to do this even when it was clear what they were doing. That to me just feels wrong, I thought Alamy were better than that. This highly inappropriate behaviour seems to suggest that Alamy has lost its way somewhat as far as its representation of its contributors interests are concerned. In fact doesn't it drag Alamy into being a complicit party to infringement and at risk of litigation themselves? Just a thought. Has anyone had any feedback from Alamy on this matter? Nothing. No idea whether it's being looked into or not... or... whether they are hoping for it to blow over! You'd need a legal bod to decide whether they were complicit in trying to cover up an infringement or not. From a business point of view, it's damaging to their reputation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Please excuse my simple question. Therefore, if Alamy goes after an infringer, who then pays for a license for the picture they used/stole before, we and Alamy then get paid ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Please excuse my simple question. Therefore, if Alamy goes after an infringer, who then pays for a license for the picture they used/stole before, we and Alamy then get paid ? ..... and waste any money time spent on the solicitor / legal representative chasing the infringer. An infringer should not be rewarded with a low cost license as a result of trying to defraud the photographer, they should be paying the full mark up price plus expenses otherwise where is the deterrent to not do it again? Besides, if the image was not acquired from Alamy, they shouldn't be getting involved in helping the person try to cover it up with a retrospective license without consulting the photographer first. Could you imagine if our courts worked that way? Someone nicks a £1000 laptop and is then asked to pay the shop £500 by the courts! No account taken for their expenses bringing them to justice or the cost of the item! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 We're preparing a full response to the EPUK letter that will be ready very soon. If the response is not posted to the EPUK website in full, we will post it somewhere where everyone can read it. The response covers all of the concerns raised. Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 It doesn't claim to be perpetual and there's nothing extending for the full term of copyright. It would be on the same terms and the same duration as the original licence. As has already been noted it says 'a' (singular) licence. You're already held to licences extending beyond the point at which you leave Alamy- I have many 10- year licences which would still apply if I terminated tomorrow. I don't see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Of course the damages for a Farcebook use would be quite modest. Not if its a large US manufacturer which shelled out $8,000 for one of my images illegally appearing on their FB page! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.