Ollie

An equally unjust and indefensible requirement by Alamy. In other words, outrageous.

For James: Thanks for your earlier clarification of paragraph 5.1 on page 112. I can understand that replying to the many questions on this forum can be time-consuming. But it is not right to ask that we submit our questions individually to Contributors in hope of a reply. Everyone in this forum--and even those who don't regularly participate--has a right to receive good, authoritative clarifications. Responding on this forum is the most efficient way of informing those who produce the product you sell. Not only should all contributors benefit from such clarifications, but posting them he

Old story, new confirmation: Reviewed my insurance coverage today with a major American insurer, which I've been with for several years. Excluded from coverage is "Personal and advertising injury...(4) For which the insured [that's me] has assumed liability in a contract or agreement." In other words, if Alamy's contract requires me [as it does] to indemnify them for any legal expenses resulting from some end-user using one of my images in an offensive way, or from Alamy pursuing some suspected infringement which turns out to be legitimate, my insurance won't cover me for the error committe

"The main objection has been from people who are licensing images themselves..." or who have been with other agencies in the past (before Alamy's promise of 50% in exchange for exclusivity) which may have also licensed our images, and whose licenses are still valid. Tracing sales by former agencies can be time-consuming, and there is always the risk of oversight.

4.1.12 requires us to warrant "there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;" Tell me please how we can warrant that no other person will not do something, might launch a legal action that, no matter how unfounded, might require an expensive legal response.

Exactly. I have about 32,000 images with Alamy. I started selling stock through other agencies around 2000. I did not terminate my relationships with all other agencies, withdrawing all images, until 2019, in order to preserve my 50% commission from Alamy. Many licenses issued in and before 2019 are still valid and will be for years. I can't review all my images in the Alamy collection so as to check some as "previously licensed." But if Alamy would ask me before pursuing a supposed infringement, in many cases I can tell them quickly if the image has been previously licensed. If I am in

I don't want to dismiss the value of good legal advice, but it seems to me this issue can be handled by allowing a family member--a wife, or an adult child--to be a joint owner of the account in question (before death). They are joint owners of the account even if I die. And yes, he, she, or they, would declare the income on their annual income tax return.

Kumar: A good outline of steps which I too will have to take, though not in the same sequence. Probably 98+% of my 32,000 images are marked as exclusive to Alamy, thanks to their generous offer of 2019 to maintain our 50% commission rate if we withdrew our images from all other agencies. (Thanks, Alamy!). Those that aren't exclusive are artworks of various kinds designated as non-exclusive by Alamy fiat. So I'll have to start by designating all images as non-exclusive, to insure I don't get billed for legal charges they incur if they chase an "infringement" that was previously

As long as our heirs can access the account to which monthly payments are sent by Alamy, does it matter? Does Alamy even have to know?

Is our former friend in Barcelona now "a former editor"?--or just former to you (and me)? And is there any way you can point us in the direction of that knowledgeable person you know--an extinct species, I thought--who provides supportive guidance?

Cliff: This thread has accumulated many off-topic posts to the point where I wonder if Alamy management is now reading all new posts carefully. Your questions--especially Numbers 3 and 4--are important enough that they deserve to be submitted directly to Management, i.e. to Emily Shelley and any others whose addresses you might have. Whether they reply on this thread is less important than that they have reflected on your questions, which are important enough that they should influence Alamy's work in revising their proposed contract.

A few years ago the General Counsel for a respected American photographers association told me that lawyers normally launch legal action against all members of the production chain--against the end-user, the agency, and the photographer. They don't just target one.

Quoting Ed Rooney: Everything about this new contract has been discussed for 63 pages now. Still, there are one or two things I'm confused about. Okay, not 'one or two things' --many things. But here's the one that really bothers me: If I changed from exclusive to non-exclusive and make sure all my images say Sell for Editorial Only, will that keep me safe from being sued for misuse by clients? Edo 🤨 The answer is no. No matter what boxes we check, para 4.1.5 gives Alamy the right to do anything with our images: “4.1.5. except for any rights that h

Para 11.2 states “Content which is any way restricted may be excluded from the Distribution Scheme at Alamy’s sole discretion.” Restrictions available on page two of the image metadata page include (1) advertising and promotion, (2) consumer goods, (3) personal use. “Sell for Editorial only” is also available on page two, but it is not listed under the Restrictions heading. So what is it if it isn’t a restriction? It would appear that any use of restrictions (1), (2), or (3) would eliminate the image from the Distributors network. Certainly there are many editorial images showing people o