Cryptoprocta

That's the case in e.g. Scotland (and also the rest of the UK)*, but other countries could be different. "Article 7 of the Human Rights Act means you cannot be charged with a criminal offence for an action that was not a crime when you committed it. This means that public authorities must explain clearly what counts as a criminal offence so you know when you are breaking the law. It is also against the law for the courts to give you a heavier punishment than was available at the time you committed an offence." This also

I've always done that, as OldAlamy required it. But now I've gone through and ticked 'editorial use only'. Such a tedious process and I hope I haven't inadvertantly missed any.

How do you know these don't have releases? Their contributers often go to great lengths to get releases, even when it might seem nigh-on impossible*. I once had a file rejected there as a possible IP concern. The reviewer happened to highlight the extremely tiny area of concern, which doesn't always happen. I easily cloned out the mark, but out of curiosity went back to the site and found there was a red mark/rough splodge, which could conceivably have been a logo or bit of artwork, but was where something had been stuck onto a grey-painted object, and pulled off revealing the r

I had over 800 files up on Alamy before I had my first sale, and that was over ten years ago when the collection was much smaller. (I had one sale on my micro two days after my first six files went live. Although it was a small amount, I was excitedly doing sums on the back of an envelope - ha!) You're a tiny fish in a large ocean (as am I!). Also in general people sell more and make more on micros. I've only ever heard two people say otherwise, one had well over 10K files here and literally <20 on one micro; the other posted on a different forum that s/he made more on Alamy than any o

.

That's how I've always read it. I says "Artists may find", so referring to artists who are still alive. However, I mark such as 'needs release, no release', and now as 'editorial only' anyway, belt and braces.

This is another of these questions which has different answers across countries. In the UK: "Artists who create sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent public display or in premises which are open to the public will find that their work may be reproduced without their permission in certain formats without infringing their copyright. This exception is outlined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is important to stress that this exception does not extend to all forms of public art. Art forms such as original paintings (eg murals), drawings, engraving

It may be a 'relatively' safe bet that as it was officially allowed in London, images of it wouldn't be obscene or indecent under English Law. But again, I wouldn't necessarily want to be the test case. I note their own webpage has the hero image - but not all of those lower down - posterised.

Probably (IANAL, and I know diddly squat about English Law) reasonable care is that the files on the selling page are marked as being for editorial only, and/or as not having releases. I do think it's possible that I could be losing sales to tourist companies by marking any even munutely risky images as editorial only (e.g. city scenes), but it has to be.

Hmmm, other agencies located outwith the EU require images to be uploaded with the files, so moving forward, that would be worth them considering. The thing is that buyers might require to be assured that the releases exist and are legally sound, so can't wait a week, a month or ... though what will happen is just that they'll move on and choose a file from 'wherever' which has a release immediately or readily available.

Doesn't affect me, but they should surely require the releases to be uploaded with the photos (but enforcing that retrospectively would be a logistical nightmare). What if the release holder was on holiday (even if they took all their releases with them on their laptop, they could be in a place without wi-fi, as I often am) or in hospital, or deceased? (Maybe in the latter case, the clause would be unenforceable) That's a clause to mitigate against OldAlamy's historic incompetence and lack of forethought/imagination. It's almost as unreasonable as the relict clause

OldAlamy was very strict about what they considered a person or a property, so I've marked tiny clusters out-of-focus pixels, and buildings centuries out of the architect's copyright as 'needs release, no release' in the past, and now I've gone through and additionally marked them as editorial-only (all RM). Oddly, I remember them once saying a reflection didn't count as needing a release, which was very surprising to me, but I think that was in the old forum, and I wouldn't be able to find it now. That was as odd as the example someone mentioned in the last couple of pages of this thread whic

Hahaha, "I'm a libertarian speed fiend and I deem your photo of a 'speed limit for safety reasons' sign to be offensive." I'd hope the Man in the Clapham Omnibus might find in your favour, but who wants to be the test case?

We can never second-guess what The Man in the Clapham Omnibus might think.

Does 'assumed intention' have any currency in Law? The wording is that the content uploaded will not be or be deemed to be ... Yes, it's ambiguous: it could mean that end users or even those consume the end use will not deem them to be X Y and Z, but does that clause really preclude a lawsuit?

An improvement on clarity, but still: "4.1.6. the Content uploaded to the System will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar or violate publicity rights; " How can we control what any other person will 'deem to be' any of these things? Presumably an anti-vaxxer would deem images of anything to do with covid vaccination offensive, for example. Ditto any Covid imagery might be deemed offensive by covid-deniers. That's still not a safe clause for suppliers. In Victorian days, not only were ankles deemed to be in

We're not dealing with Alamy, we're dealing with PA Media. Alamy sold us out. Our new 'owners' can, and will, do what they want. We can, and will, deal with that however we want. But we can't turn back the sale, no matter how much we try to 'bargain' our way out of this stage of 'grief'.

According to Ms Shelley, they (presumably PA, not Alamy per se) have in-house lawyers.

They said "early next week". It would be nice if the length of time they're taking is reflecting the care they're taking over the revision. But maybe that's just wishful thinking. It seems that there were quite a few unfavourable clauses in the old contract most of us had somehow 'skimmed over', but this revision has highlighted some of them, as well as the new ambiguities they introduced.

As it ambiguously stands just now. We have to wait for the rewrite.

Any such legal danger could be easily mostly-mitigated by requiring that end users add 'stock photo' to their caption. Other agencies require that. I saw a PA-credited photo of a woman on the BBC website a few days back of which one could 'reasonably' have inferred she was implicated in the subject-matter of the article, and I thought then that the caption should say 'stock photo' (or 'posed by model' if appropriate - I wasn't sure whether it was a posed shot or not, could have been either). The PA credit alone doesn't indicate that a person or product isn't implicated in the topic of the

Oh, OK, thanks. I had to log into both about six weeks ago after a major computer upgrade and I was sure I used different passwords at that point. Oddly, I got logged out of the forum again after closing the tab after writing the above!

Apologies if this has been answered already, I did look here and in the contributor experience forum, but I may have missed it. I was logged out, and when I tried to log back in, I kept getting wrong password, even though I was copying and pasting it from a Notepad file. Then when I clicked on the 'forgotten your password' link, I got taken to the main Alamy homepage. I suddenly thought, what would happen if I put my main Alamy pw to get into the forum ... and it worked. Now the same password gets me into both the forum and the main site. Is that new this wee

That's what I thought you meant. I couldn't work out why you said so definitely and without context that people on this forum were widely abusing Photoshop, and the Sony reference just left me bewildered.

Ah, that may explain some 'surprising' personal use sales! Although Website use includes blogs (hover over the ?), so don't know why they would be PU.