Jump to content

Cryptoprocta

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. I'm pretty shocked about that, Allan. I can say with great confidence that with your portfolio you'd have made many times more than that on micro/s over these years (things going downhill there too now) but you have every right to your choices. I also am super concerned about the terms, and am too risk averse to continue here unless these are changed.
  2. Allan, I hope you're not saying you earn less than $250 gross - or even net - annually from Alamy? If so, you have been missing out on a LOT of income over the years.
  3. And yet: "Why did Alamy choose to sell to the PA Media Group? It was important to Alamy to choose a business that shared its ethos of integrity and quality, but also shared its vision for continuing to connect a community of content creators and content users." https://pamediagroup.com/faqs-pa-media-group-acquires-alamy
  4. There are a few areas where one part of the contract seems to conflict with, or even contradict another. It's just not good enough. Must. Try. Harder.
  5. This is the whole problem. We shouldn't have a contract in which we are each interpreting the clauses in our own interests. There really shouldn't be any room for one person saying, "It surely means this ..." and someone else saying, "But it could also mean that ..." - and maybe we have all missed what they really meant, or what their intentions really are. All ambiguity does is sow mistrust and keep lawyers in clover. If they mean something, make it clear in the contract, even if it means going back to basics and rewriting the whole thing. Then things would only appear in
  6. They have it in the contract that they can do so, even if they were to claim they have 'no plans' for doing it. "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"
  7. Quite probably. I'd be Gold and I don't imagine they care for one moment if I stay or go either.
  8. I've always erred very much on the cautious side with indicating files which have no releases, even when there is no need for them, and even though if you don't say you have releases, the selling page says that there are none, even if they don't need any. I do note that they have reserved the right to sell images any way they want, which potentially would include selling editorials as commercial, while trying to hold themselves not to have liability. Anyway, I'll see what they have to say when they get back to us, and meanwhile make sure my ducks are in a row for if I have to jump sh
  9. By their response to our concerns, we'll find out if they want contributors to stay.
  10. There is so much more I could have written in my email to Ms Shelley, but hope that the rest of you have covered them in your emails. Dear Ms Shelley, As an Alamy contributor of fourteen years standing, I’m obviously concerned about my 20% commission drop. Although I can believe that people are cheating, punishing everyone for the wrongdoings of the minority, is unconscionable, and has seriously undermined my confidence in Alamy as a fair agency. In my previous life I was a teacher. Punishing the whole class, even for the misdemeanours of the majority, common in my childhood, was
  11. <Writes> We have no plans to change commission rates to achieve it <Hits> Send <Says> Now let's start planning ...
  12. I wish they had proof-read their contract better, to not label things as new which aren't. But again, an unreasonable clause, so why is it there? They need to remove 'will remain'.
  13. Is this also an oversight? " 9.1 In addition to the promotion rights set out in 8.3 above you grant Alamy permission to sell your Images at any price and by any method we feel appropriate and to supply Images to third parties without Alamy having to consult you, including but not limited to trials with new Customers, prototypes/proof of concept and high volume low unit price licences. Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third parties, you will not receive payment.
  14. Have I missed something? In the old commission table, it clearly says: "Alamy Distribution Commission For sales through our Distributors 70% (30% to Alamy, 40% to the Distributor)" I the new commission table, it says: "For Content sales via our Distributors after deduction of Distributor fee or commission 60% 40% 60% 40% 80% 20%" But there is no indication of what the Distributor fee will be. We can't just assume it will remain as 40%. Where's the transparency?
  15. So again, is it malice or incompetence which made them do it like this? (hypothetical). It doesn't engender much trust that they know what they're doing. They seem to have a rather cavalier and slipshod attitude to crafting something as important as a contributor contract. There is a real and present danger that they may be equally slipshod in any buyer contract they may produce. Or in any future dealings with contributors, who clearly are just a fly in their ointment.
  16. Ah, OK, sorry, I missed that because as well as that, they for some reason also put it as a new clause in 4.1.11 - more incompetence.
  17. So again, you have to wonder about the competence of the company which drew up the new contract. Should they be relying on crowdsourcing from the forum to point out the issues?
  18. I've mentioned the ones I've noticed already: 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 Inter alia, this gives them the right to license images I designated RM as RF, which would break my contract with my other place (where I earn much more) It gives them the right to sell editorial files for commerical uses, and not to charge any money for licences. 4.1.6. any use or exploitati
  19. I've been listing the clauses which cause me concern throughout this thread. One is a deal breaker for me and several others; others are of serious concern to me. None of them may be of concern to you. That's our respective prerogatives. It's everyone's individual responsibility to check the new contract terms and decide if they are willing to continue under these terms - or at least to wait to see if there is a rewriting of the clauses to be clearer and less equivocal/obfuscatory. As you've been aroud the block for a while, like me, you must have seen many times people asking q
  20. Also here is a first read on Illegal Contracts: https://hallellis.co.uk/illegal-contracts-agreements
  21. It's easy enough to read here: https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.aspx
  22. Has anyone commented on: New Clause "4.1.11. the author of the Content has waived all moral rights in respect of the Content" According to Wikipedia: "Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. The moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mu
  23. Me: (frantically calculating the distance between here and Liverpool)
×
×
  • 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.