Jump to content

Richard Tadman

Verified
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Forum reputation = neutral

About Richard Tadman

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={901A4182-7287-4923-B0AB-D959E7543E21}&name=Richard+Tadman
  • Images
    2605
  • Joined Alamy
    22 Sep 2009
  1. "and there I was thinking odious, personal attacks were a thing of the past.in this forum." dustydingo - you are quite right to rebuke me for my comments. I apologise unreservedly to Spacecadet for comments that on reflection were both ill-advised and inappropriate.
  2. " Please note that all photographs may be used by the society for any purpose it chooses." ......and you don't think that's draconian? You're obviously more wealthy than me, but I do note a consistent pattern that you seem to persistently glorify in taking a contrary position to most comments on this forum to provoke attention on almost every topic. 8,066 post ? Pretty much says it all - "agent provocateur" springs to mind.
  3. I have an inherent dislike of terms like this. I suspect that most of the time the organisers of these competitions have sought poor advice or copied legal terms from other similar societies without understanding their legal implication or simply because it sounds professional or official. I would never enter any competition on principal which seeks carte blanche to use my image/s for any purpose or in perpetuity without recourse to me. Who do these people think they are? A case in point is the BBC who unashamedly flatter photographers for their weather pictures or the "Countryfile" calendar with appallingly restrictive terms which grant them exclusive rights in perpetuity to use images for any purposes free of charge. A simple agreement to allow them to reproduce your image while acknowledging you as the originator should be ample recompense. If you feel happy to surrender all your rights for the possibility of a credit or vanity publication then fine. I cannot imagine why a local photographic society would feel it necessary to impose such draconian terms on photographers who should be entitled to retain full copyright in their work. A local and very worthwhile charity who I wholeheartedly support recently sought images for their Christmas calendar. Their T&C's however were so restrictive that I refused point blank to submit images which I would otherwise have supported to the hilt. Sadly the vast majority are seduced by the flattery of seeing their name in print or the prestige of being 'chosen' and thereby diminishing the value of those of us who are more commercially astute.
  4. That's good to hear and thanks for the feedback. However this is a forum and not a private messaging system so many others including me would have been grateful for your guidance.
  5. Forgive me but that is hardly a helpful reply. I struggled to find the answer to this too. It might have been equally time effective for you to answer the question rather than rebuke the poster. Unlike you I only use the forum for specific help and information, so you have the advantage on us.
  6. Without perpetuating a somewhat incidental topic, you are confusing two issues. s21 prescribes what means constitute valid notification to a contributor. Thus any of the means listed are deemed to have been received by you. i.e. it wouldn't be a defence to say you didn't receive it. This is not the same as you agreeing to the contents of the notification which amounts to a contract amendment and effectively a new or counter-offer which you need to accept explicitly to incorporate it into the agreement. I'll go and get 'me' coat!
  7. True; but there is a difference in law between successfully delivered (received ) and consenting to it. Felthouse v Bindley - case law.
  8. I follow your logic but I personally wouldn't be unduly concerned. If another client wanted to purchase an image, I can't think of that many cases where exclusivity would be a big factor and the lack of it would hamper a sale. I should be so lucky!
  9. I'm not sure that the second sentence follows from the first? I would have thought that once you serve notice on Alamy, then they are entitled to rely on the agreement that you reached and to re license indefinitely to original buyer/s but I struggle to believe that they can enforce exclusivity in perpetuity. Surely that only applies while you are under contract? I would consider it in restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable, if having terminated your agreement (and with it the exclusivity) you cannot offer it elsewhere. It would seem logical though that you can't subsequently claim exclusivity with a new agency. Maybe someone on this forum knows the definitive answer?
  10. Thanks Starsphinx. So if Joe Bloggs shares a random image to all his "facebook" contacts, I'm guessing that wouldn't be a permissible use?
  11. That's interesting. Thanks for the feedback. The video seems to suggest that you can freely post it to Google, or am I mistaken?
  12. Can anyone please clarify this for me? I was of the opinion that images on Alamy's website were protected against copyright abuse by application of a watermark. Hence, if an image appeared on a social media website that had been lifted from Alamy without obtaining a licence, it was a flagrant breach of copyright and denied the owner and Alamy their fee for using same. However, I have come across this blog which seems to suggest that provided the image is simply shared as described, this is perfectly acceptable and no copyright infringement occurs.. https://www.alamy.com/blog/4807-2 My question therefore; does this not go against the fundamental principal that contributors submit images in order to sell them and not to have them freely shared among anyone on social media who feels so inclined?
  13. Hats off to James for listening to our comments and for his humility in acknowledging the issues caused by the previous video announcement. I don't know how this will play out but credit where it is due.
  14. I said they 'can' look at it and I know from personal experience that they have. They emailed me some time ago over an issue where they correctly pointed out an error in a comment I made. I'm not saying it's common but I know it's happened.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.