Jump to content

Phil Crean

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Phil Crean

  1. 13 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

      For those who are moving on, I do respect your decision and wish you better roads ahead!

     

    Michael

    That pretty much sums up my thoughts & feelings right now...

     

    I'll be deleting some images and placing restrictions on others.

    I'll probably still put some new images on but I'll not be going out of my way to shoot stock.

    The reducing returns and obvious lack of care by the new management give me little incentive to put more than the minimum effort in.

    Phil

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
  2. 57 minutes ago, MDM said:

     

    Twice with a weapon I guess (never done that) unless you are a terrible shot, a lot more with a camera but it would get very boring. 

     

     

    The answer to your main question lies in the following clauses I think. The interpretation once again hinges on the meaning of reasonable opinion. It seems to say that they can relicense as long as the new licence is very similar to the original and it remains if effect even after termination of the contract. The restrictions applied are those at the time of the original licence.

     

    3. Effects of Deletion

     

    3.1.3 Content that is being re-used in accordance with clause 6.5.

     

    6.5 When re-licensing Content that has been previously licensed to a Customer, if, in Alamy's reasonable opinion, the context within which the Content is to be used is the same or very similar to that of the previous use (for example, extensions of print runs, foreign language versions, new editions and reproduction in new or different forms of media), Alamy is permitted to grant a re-use licence on the terms and conditions, restrictions and availability in place at the time of the original licence. This clause will remain in full force and effect even after termination of this Contract or deletion of the Content. As an example, Alamy is not entitled to grant licences for a book called 'Countries of the world' if the previous use was a book called 'The world Encyclopaedia' with different content or to grant licences for a magazine or advert if the previous use was for a book.

     

     

    Note that this is not new. It was there in the 2019 contract referring to Clause 6.4.1 and presumably long before that.

     

     

     

     

    Cheers MDM... I'd forgotten about that bit... Seem to recall that after the last debacle with commission/contract changes some people who deleted their account did report in A.N.Other place that they'd had re-licenses but that it could only happen for 2 years after deletion.

    Phil

    • Like 1
  3. 1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

    In line with the information in below post, which Alamy immediately locked to stop discussion, it is interesting that Alamy will send an e-mail to clients for all images that have been licensed and gets removed.  I am now worried on the impact of many clients receiving amounts of such notification on July 1.  I know if I was a client I would then start to worry about any future licensing that i was going to take for potential renewable licence and insist in perpetuity rights and start to look to more stable platform.  Again i am baffled with Alamy's move.   

     

     

    It would seem that there could be many 1000's of such e mails going out as some contributors leave completely and others delete selected images...

     

    Would be interesting to know how this affects images which are left on the site but have added restrictions? What happens if a client wishes to extend licensing and/or re-use a particular image only to find it is no longer available for the required use?

     

    How many times can you shoot yourself in the foot before there are no feet left to shoot🤔

     

    Phil

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3
  4. 13 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

    Though I won’t be terminating my contract, my enthusiasm for stock has taken a hit. I doubt if I’ll be organising many more trips with the sole purpose of shooting stock. I’ll just upload enough pix to keep my port ‘ticking over’.

     

    The transfer of the business to PA would have been a good moment to confirm that the marketing of stock imagery is a collaborative venture. We could have heard about new initiatives to promote the collection, which would enrich both Alamy and the contributors. We could have been enthused! Instead, the handover has been marked by animosity and disappointment, as contributors are left in no doubt where they stand in the ‘pecking order’…

    This is pretty much where I'm at just now, plus I may look at deleting some images and restricting others. I've already started to look at distribution and unticked those who have been persistent low $ fees.

    It's a further step on the road to killing the stock industry and I'll be surprised if Alamy and the other large general agencies are still in business in 10 years time...

    Phil

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3
  5. 9 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

    that will be to the court to decide, and it may vary per legislative environment where image taken.  But that has not changed from the current contract, we always had the responsibility to ensure we were in the right to take image for commercial purpose under all circumstances.  

     

    I generally check the conditions of entry.  I think the bigger issue is Private property that people deem public.  But again this is not a change from Today's contract to the new one.  

     

     

    However by saying there is property and no release that automatically takes it out of Commercial uses... Then it is up to the end user to verify that they can use it for whatever purpose they have in mind...

    At least that is my understanding(notalawyer.com!)

    Phil

  6. 33 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

     

     

    Ignorance of the law/rules is not a valid defence, so it may not include a "deliberate lie".

     

    For example not finding out commercial distribution of image taken in a paid venue, and assuming this meant it was ok for "editorial purpose" is on the Contributor.  

    Ok so lets say I've been to a paid venue and see no conditions restricting photography but later the venue issue a claim against a usage; if I have said that there is property and I don't have a release, am I not covered?

    Phil

  7. 2 minutes ago, MDM said:

     

    If you say that you have copyright and it turns out down the line that you don't, then you remain responsible for that even after termination of the contract. Again this is standard and has probably been there all along. 

    Indeed claiming Copyright in an image where you don't own it would leave you open to charges of fraud, (I would think, notalawyer.com!)

    Phil

  8. Just now, Richard Tadman said:

     

    Effectively, if you misrepresent one of your images or licences, Alamy are reserving the right to pursue you for this even if the contract is subsequently terminated. The alleged 'breach' will survive termination of the agreement if it only becomes apparent later. It's not altogether unusual legally, but certainly unwelcome.

    Thanks... However I would expect that you would have to have lied deliberately in order for that to be enforced.

    Phil

  9. 7 minutes ago, Abiyoyo said:

    Phil,

    In my case opting out of that Spanish distributor I could miss some more interesting sales, e.g. Newspapers, editorials. There is always a big dilemma in dealing these cases,

    Jorge

    Very true...But for me I am tired of these ridiculous low fees and then for my share to be reduced even further is no longer worthwhile...

    Phil

    • Upvote 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, VbFolly said:

    I had an unreported use in The Guardian Print in January. I reported it as un unauthorised use earlier this month, and it came in as a sale yesterday, but only for web use, so for a lower price than it should have been. It's difficult to find the enthusiasm to keep chasing these infringements at the moment, especially as they are usually only worth a couple of dollars.

    I would go back and ask them to also bill for the print use....

     

    • Upvote 2
×
×
  • 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.