Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14386-contract-change-2021-official-thread/?do=findComment&comment=288399
  2. Maybe we should have a rest to gather our strength until we see if they're able to write an acceptable new contract. (not holding my breath - it's worrying that they don't put enough effort into the first draft to have it be legal and unambiguous - they couldn't even get one out of two. :-() We'll likely need all our energy to mull over the new clauses when they come.
  3. Or just take it out of their 20%/60% clawback. If we were to individually 'share', what would stop them making that another cash cow, which they could keep milking for more each year? Them doing it would make it more likely they'd hold the other parties responsible for their actions, not harmless, to prevent their premiums going up too steeply.
  4. Remember, you need to give us 45 days notice after you change the wording, as that will be a new contract.
  5. Could be, but I thought at the beginning that it was an unreasonable contract. I just didn't want to be the one testing it in a foreign legislature. English Law: https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge-base/the-perils-of-unreasonable-contract-terms
  6. I just hopped onto Simply Business and their Professional Indemnity Insurance is specifically "For if you make mistakes that cost a client money." That's possible I guess if we mis-label an image, but it's not most of what the worry Alamy is currently causing us is about. It's mostly not about us making mistakes, it's about "Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns" doing something wrong. That wouldn't even cover us for the well-rehearsed blip in Alamy search which can link any word in the caption or caption with any other word to make an irrelevant phrase.
  7. Wouldn't you think Alamy should take out relevant insurance out of their 20% clawback? That would be much more sensible and a bit more fair. And not hold customers harmless of misusing files.
  8. Is that an expense for tax purposes, do you know? I'd ask my accountant, but she's part-year and won't be working till late September.
  9. Think of two £40 sales instead of two £50 sales as being proporitionately the same as one sale for £80 instead of £100. £80 is 80% of (or 20% less than) £100, and £40 is 80% of (or 20% less than) £50. Alternately, 10% of £100 is £10; 10% of £50 is £5, so 20% of £50 is £10. If all else fails, do what I do: https://www.percentage-calculator.uk/
  10. I've said it before, but I've just seen this. We really need Katie Porter:
  11. There's common sense, and there are 'unreasonable contracts'. But Alamy has spelled out "5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur". I* think that's unreasonable, as we can't control what customers do, even if we have 'locked down' our images far more than legally necessary. James' answe
  12. I totally agree, but I don't have the time, money or emotional energy to be the test case.
  13. That would seem to be a good represenation of PA's view of the contributors. C'mon PA, get a better-written, better thought-out contract, in Plain English and unambiguous.
  14. PA won't see it that way. They bought a 'product' and now want to wring all they can from their investment, while minimising any risks or liabilities they might incur. It's "just business".
  15. I think there was an official Alamy forum before 2013, but not in this 'home', I think it was on the main Alamy server, then they were split, so that the forum is now separate from the main Alamy site. The old one may be gone completely (?)
  16. Good catch. New 5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: ... ... ... (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; James said above that the customers are told that they should not use files in certain ways; b
  17. And better still if he could persuade 'them' to rewrite the contract clearly, from scratch if necessary.
  18. Wow, 'always' is a very long time. So I can rest safe in the knowledge that you will always respect that I have restricted my images to RM? (Does an anonymous post in a forum mean anything in Law [meaning a Court of Law, not the village I grew up in, for clarity]?)
  19. Yes, I've been thinking that all along. A big agency seemed to have that as a strategy for a while, but it backfired on them to such an extent that they've scaled it down a lot.
  20. Vulgar's first meaning in several dictionaries is along the lines of "lacking sophistication or good taste." Who is going to be the arbiter? You need to amend this clause, and indeed the whole contract, to make your intentions crystal clear, so that you don't have to say 'this is what that clause means' or 'this is intended ...'. We're not mind readers.
  21. Clause 4.1.9 " there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;" (slight amendment of previous clause 4.9) How can I guarantee that? If someone who happens to be in one of my editorial-only pics finds their image used in an inappropriate way, they have every right to sue the end user. In previous Live News submissions, the people are the main subject of the photo, so would be easily used and recogniseable. Despite being in the old contract, that's another unreasonable clause.
  22. But that's what we've been doing with all of these clauses. We want Alamy to make their contract crystal clear, and not to try to abnegate all responsibility and push it onto us. It doesn't matter if the badly written clauses were old or new. And note that Alamy themselves highlighted these clauses as being new. If they were not new, why have they specifically highlighted them? The cynical might say it was specifically so that they can say, "We warned you!" Can you think of a reason why they'd indicate that some clauses are new, drawing our attention to them, when they are not n
  23. Grief, I'm shocked all round. That is the trouble, we're totally at the mercy of algorithms. Although so far I'm still doing much better at my 'other place' than here, I have seen files which sold there almost every day, sometimes more than once, disappear way down below the top ten search pages in search overnight, never to recover. Which gives the lie to the oft-quoted adage 'cream rises to the top'. Note also that it would theoretically be within the power of agencies with a tiered payment system to game the system to make sure no-one, or hardly anyone, got enough sale
  • 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.