geogphotos

As I was told in a newsagents in rural Ireland when they only had yesterday's copy of the Guardian. If you want today's paper come back tomorrow.

Warm congratulations Jeff - an impressive and inspirational milestone.

One of my Fine Art creations....😁

Geography Photos – August 2024 sales report https://geographyphotos.blog/2024/09/01/geography-photos-august-2024-sales-report/

57 for 1247

All very true. The point I am making is a different one. Alamy must know, or can easily check, about these breaches of contract. There must presumably in law be some onus on Alamy to actually police their own contract. One wonders what happens at the point of a sale, perhaps involving a member of Alamy staff, for subjects such as the Natural History museum. In the past ( long ago now) I reported to Alamy images that directly contradicted their contract rules ( this was when I was annoyed to see RF versions with unreleased property etc). I would check back weeks later and would see that nothing had changed despite Alamy being directly informed. So rightly or wrongly, even if a contributor knows about the terms of the contract, they will see tens of thousands of images already on Alamy that are in breach and may feel that there is some safety in numbers, or some sort of tacit approval. On reflection, and to return to the OP, it actually might be really helpful to everyone for Alamy to create a list of 'forbidden' museums and other 'forbiddens'.

Mark, Did you mean to write RF rather than RM? My understanding is that it is images set as RF that require releases for commercial use. With RM we have always been told that releases are optional even for commercial uses ( it is at the buyer's discretion). Maybe I am out of date with all the 'RF editorial' stuff? Try another 'London Natural History museum' search for RF images only. Then see how many claim to have releases ( a dubious handful) and how many don't.

On one level it is indeed very simple - the wording of the contract. But I also think that it is more complex than that and I would doubt in law that Alamy can simply pass all responsibility to its contributors. Any publisher has to take ultimate responsibility for what it publishes whether in print or on the internet. Just try a search for 'London Natural History museum' to see that the situation is far from simple.

The Fine Art and Photo Prints will be offered through an Alamy partnership with Media Storehouse. https://www.mediastorehouse.co.uk I don't think Alamy images are available as yet On the Alamy website the buyer will select the 'Buy a Print' button underneath an image and be taken to the Media Storehouse site to make their order, they will then handle the printing and postage, and make payment via Alamy to us for our share. MS have operations around the world so your order will be processed by the one closest geographically. My understanding of the 'unethical' opinion was that the individual already has their own arrangements for selling prints, and to avoid Alamy competing with them they will have to change their images to Editorial Only - therefore missing out on commercial sales. This was not what they agreed to when they signed up with Alamy and the person is unhappy that the change has been made. Others have pointed out contract which gives Alamy the right to decide how to market our images.

I'd say that it is about potential risk rather than legal precedent. Also to some extent about ethics in the case of museums who have clear, known rules. We both sumbit to another place. I have been told by LN ( who edits) that they do not want any more of museum interiors. With Alamy no checks are made but contractually we accept responsibility for what we upload. Not to do with museums but hasn't there been some legal wrangle between Alamy and a German newspaper publishing group? In that case Alamy has alerted contributors that they may have exposure to financial penalties - NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS - but there have been contributors posting here in some alarm and worry.

I think that Alamy reacts when it has to - when it feels under some sort of legal threat. And in the past has chosen not to resist but to just go along with what has been requested. But having said that we only know when they have conducted a purge. There may have been times when they refused to co-operate with the complainer and the complainer has backed off. Maybe PA have been more assertive that Alamy was in the past - who knows? They are not going to tell us or encourage us to push the boundaries because if they did they would become implicated. For Alamy it is much easier ( and more profitable) to sit on the sidelines and leave the responsibility to the contributor. These comments based on nothing but my suppositions. 😵‍💫

Alamy also loses out on commercial sales when images are switched to Editorial Only. I would imagine that those photographers with existing Fine Art print sales would be those most ready to switch their Alamy images away from the 'Buy a Print' option. Would these be photographers who have images of high commercial potential that Alamy will no longer be able to profit from? It would have been more straightfoward for Alamy to make the MediaStorehouse deal an opt out on an image by image level while keeping images available for commercial use. It doesn't affect me just thinking aloud.

The onus is on the contributor. I don't think that anything has changed. Alamy did have a blitz on removing London National History museum images - a long time ago and no doubt after pressure was put on them. Likewise National Trust properties have been culled from time to time. Contributors are responsible for what they upload. Alamy does not supervise or regulate this.

Yes Sally - you are right. When I log-in with Firefox I get the screen with Personal Use and other options as listed above. I think it best to wait and see because none of this makes any sense to me at the moment.