Jump to content

Cryptoprocta

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. From Ms Shelley: "Regarding 4.1.6, this change is to alter the wording that said 'UK, USA and elsewhere' to 'anywhere in the world'. Although this doesn't alter the legal meaning, it has caused confusion and concern and we are reviewing it internally to see if it needs redrafting to address this. Customers do pick up the liability for ensuring the images are fit for purpose in their country. "
  4. Many people have shared my experience of having RM files reused but not reported, often several times (in my case 20+ times), by the MuddleGroup, then OldAlamy rewarding them for their dishonesty by billing them their current price rather than the higher price they'd have paid at the time. Yesterday I happened to be reading a Private Eye from last month. For those who don't know, the Eye is a satirical publication, which also does good investigative journalism (the editor, a generally Good Egg, is the most sued man in English legal history - though usually the Eye has been proved right a
  5. I didn't say that, the MD of PA said that. It means that the commission going to each distributor will be different, so you can't know what percentage you'll get until you see the sales.
  6. "We now work with 80 distributors, and have gained around 30 distributor contracts via our merger with PA Images which are usually on a 50/50 basis. It's in Alamy's interest to work to get the best deal but in some cases the distributor will take the majority share if we feel it's the only way we can truly access that market, choice is limited and volumes are high. We have no desire not to be transparent on this but simply can't detail every single arrangement. We are keeping the opt-out available for distribution during the notice period for these changes."
  7. Which is odd, as to the layperson, the aim seems to be to make it as ambiguous as possible so that lawyers can spend hours, weeks or months debating the intricacies and inferences ad nauseum, at the expense of the rest of us.
  8. Is that really the lowest you've had in five years? Lucky you!!! The answer is that the price depends totally on the price the buyer can negotiate, which probably connects to the number of images they commit to buying in a timeframe. So any unique photo we might have can sell for the same price as a photo of the most common subjects. Indeed, IIRC there was a very large value sale a few years back literally of someone's lawn outside their door.
  9. Ooooh, I get to start this month. Better than usual month for me, ironically enough with everything else that's going on, 11 licenses for $244.05 gross / $102.71 net.
  10. Not so much. We've always been responsible for what we submit as stock images. What the new contract seems to do is to 'hold harmless' everyone else but us for the end use, over which we have no control. It's the rewrite of these parts of the contract that we're all anxiously waiting for.
  11. It's not just copyright, after all most of us don't have any copyright on our own faces or bodies, except for some athletes and celebs. Rights for travel shooting (people and buildings) depends from country to country, and sometimes particular regions or areas within a country.
  12. They're going to redraft the contract, because these clauses are 'open to interpretation' (a facility which keeps lawyers in clover) 4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content; 4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity
  13. I'm guessing the more valuable contributors and agencies can negotiate their own terms directly with PA.
  14. And of course, there's a potential conflict of interest where PA can award its own companies/partners even deeper discounts, so making our job reaching targets even harder.
  15. Have to agree. At the beginning I couldn't work out whether it was $250 gross or net, then noted everyone thought it was gross, but I wasn't clear why.
  16. You're mistaking PA for an entity which cares what we think. For a start, instead of that haze about removing the exclusive incentive because of a 'sizeable minority' of people being dishonest, they should have just come out straight from the beginning and said, "We are PA, we are not the old Alamy. We have a different vision for this company. We envision having an elevated collection with a fancy name, for which you will retain 65%. This is the sort of images we want in the elevated collection ... words and examples. If you feel you have images already in your portfolio which meet
  17. Last year it was Alamy; this year it's PA. Next year; who knows?
  18. Following on the above, I have previously taken the peer advice that for RM images we didn't need to tick the editorial box, only indicate that releases were needed for commercial use/not available. Now wanting to take a more belt and braces approach, I want to tick editorial on these files. In Image Manager, I did a search on 'not model released' and ticked editorial only on the 'newest 500 passed', ditto 'contains property'. Is there a quick way to: go through the rest of the files adding editorial only as needed (for extra security) TIA.
  19. This. I've been speculating to myself whether we can cover ourselves for inadvertantly breaching the bit I'm highlighting in clause 4.10: "You will ensure that all Metadata including without limitation captions, keywording, descriptions and Pseudonyms, rights management or other information pertaining to the Images is and will remain accurate and factually correct and does not infringe the copyright or other rights of any third party, and are not defamatory or pornographic." by putting a statement such as "Information correct at the time of shooting" into the description box, th
  20. Just for clarity, there isn't really a British system. Scotland has its own legal system going back centuries. Northern Ireland has its own system going back to 1921. Wales shares most laws with England, but has some national laws also. Of course, many laws are in common, but it can be quite surprising how different Scots Law can be. Though possibly not with regard to the Alamy contract, but IANAL. Yes, I think it's possible that far fewer frivolous cases are brought here. Though one time I was driving along an A road and a bloke came out of a side street and hit me. That being
  21. That is precisely NOT what the worry is about. The worry is about what we can't control as set out in many previous posts. I'm not getting into this any further until we see what Alamy's redraft says.
  22. I got a reply to the letter I sent to Emily Shelley (https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14386-contract-change-2021-official-thread/?do=findComment&comment=287305 Sadly, I hadn't noticed Clause 5.1 when I wrote, but let's hope it will be redrafted for clarity. A lot of what she says has been said already by Alamy, but I've highlighted what she said about Exclusive content, as that is new: " Dear Liz Thank you for your email and I'm sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you. This is not about punishing people, but a business decision based on the valu
×
×
  • 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.