Jump to content

Cryptoprocta

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cryptoprocta

  1. 3 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

     

    It's taking a suspiciously long time to just revert it to what it was.

    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.

    • Upvote 1
  2. 13 hours ago, sb photos said:

    I just noted an article in the Oxford Mail on-line listing food from supermarkets that has been withdrawn due to incorrectly labelling contents that may cause allergies, and that may contain glass, metal, plastic and a hepatitis risk.  A stock photo of a supermarket basket illustrates the article, captioned 'Aldi, Asda and Tesco urgently recall food items and issue health warnings. (PA)'. If Alamy had licensed such an image from an Alamy contributor for a similar article, and companies recognised their products in the basket and didn't request a  correction that their products weren't affected and it went legal, under the currently proposed new contract, we would be financially responsible for all costs. This example is likely just one of many potential horrendous implications. The sooner conflicting reports from Alamy are resolved and we know exactly where we stand the better.

    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 article - as often they will be.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 31 minutes ago, MDM said:

    The login passwords for the forum and for one's Alamy account have been the same now for some years. I didn't think it was possible to have different passwords in fact. I can't remember when they made the change but it is certainly not recent. I assumed it was the same for everyone.  Maybe they are sorting out stray issues (as with the post about phishing). 

    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!

  4. 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 week butt I've somehow missed hearing about it?

     

     

     

     

  5. 5 hours ago, MizBrown said:

     

    Yeah, I had someone think that "a lot of Photoshop abuse here" referred to this forum, and not to Nicaragua. 

    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.

    • Upvote 3
  6. 9 minutes ago, MDM said:

     

    I hope they are having a redraft of Clause 4.1.6.  where the contributor warrants that:

    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 rights anywhere in the world.

     

    This one appears to have been forgotten in the concern about 5.1. Reading it literally it is asking the contributor to warrant something that nobody could possibly warrant. I have had the attitude that they cannot possibly mean it,  that somebody has made a mistake (there is a typo - indecent occurs twice) and that it will be corrected. While it may not be intended, in its current form It would be extremely alarming if left in.

    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. "

    • Like 1
  7. 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 after the court cases). In particular, they often criticise the Press.

    I thought this article was particularly interesting, firstly in how much the first Muddle offer is to recompense people who object that their photos have been stolen from social media and used by the Muddle - over 10x the OldAlamy rate for not reporting.

    Also note the Online Editor's cavalier disregard for copyright.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehpzf454p6fq27k/Daily Mail Copyright.jpg?dl=0

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 2
    • Upvote 1
  8. 36 minutes ago, Homy said:

     

    Damn, you're right. Another nail in the coffin! In the new contract it says Alamy 80% - You 20% so I thought Alamy would split the 80% between them and the distributor but it says "For Content sales via our Distributors after deduction of Distributor fee or commission". Before Alamy took 30%, the distributor 40% and I 30%. Assuming the distributor still takes 40% it means Alamy will take 48% of the original price and I get only 12%!! 18% deduction from 30% to 12% is a 60% income decrease!!!

    "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."

  9. 40 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

    it goes beyond that.  Court and jurisprudence has also developed around this legal framework.  I have worked on contracts with lawyers and legislators  and many would have loved to change the presentation, but in the end the goal is for it to withstand challenge.       

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  10. 7 hours ago, DawnOne said:

    Alamy- Hello! I have a question. How did you manage to sell one of my photos (of the band Rush) for the princely sum of $4.70, of which you take half?

    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.

    • Like 2
  11. 5 minutes ago, GaryK said:

    I don't agree , the content of a specific image is exactly what this thread is about and how the new contract could affect legal issues with certain subject matter.  

     

    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.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 5
  12. 6 minutes ago, GaryK said:

    I've asked this question previously but didn't get an answer;

     

    What determines an image that could be open to copyright issues as per the new contract,?  I mean what about travel shots with people in the street etc..

    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.

    • Like 2
  13. 24 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

     

    Since when have we been asked to take liability for mistakes Alamy or its distributors might make? Or have I misunderstood the new contract?

     

    Mark

     

     

    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 rights anywhere in the world.

    4.4. You will ensure that all Metadata including, without limitation, any and all other information pertaining to the Content: (i) is and will remain accurate and factually correct;

    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: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties;

     

  14. 1 hour ago, MizBrown said:

     

    It depends on whether the top brass at PA/Alamy see their better photographers as people with valuable skills, or if they see all their photographers as one rich trustee head of a NYC orchestra board saw musicians -- trained workers with some specialized skills who were quite interchangable.   Or Hollywood's term -- "the talent." 

     

     

    I'm guessing the more valuable contributors and agencies can negotiate their own terms directly with PA.

    • Upvote 1
  15. 1 minute ago, Shelly R said:

    Yes I was just looking at the contract wording (and tagging @Sally) because it doesn't specify whether that $250 in 'your total License Fees' for that year is gross sales, what the clients were charged, or if it's my cut. (Also, so the exclusivity benefit is no more?)

     

    At the end of each Revenue Year if your total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds:

    1. are less than $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will automatically switch to Alamy Silver as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table; or
    2. are greater than or equal to $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will remain on Alamy Gold for that year, as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table.

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  16. 1 hour ago, Bill Kuta said:

    Alamy should read the "Discuss Any Subject Here" thread. People are moving on, from Alamy, from stock photography, taking breaks from photography in general. This contract thread is moving down the forum page. I think most people have decided.

    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 meets these criteria, please submit them to XXX for consideration. Going on, (there will be a tick box for submitting specific images for consideration for the elevated collection, or some other way of nominating specific files added in future).

     

    Secondly, as a new company, they should have looked at the whole contract, and probably rewritten the whole thing (which as we have seen rehearsed above, most of us seem to have accepted without considering the minutae of the implications of certain clauses), as I suggested already, iterating between their lawyers and representatives of the Plain English group, and probably with a group of contributors to represent our concerns, (though I don't know how these could have been chosen). That could have gone through several revision rounds before being presented to the contributors as a whole, hopefully avoiding the semblance of incompetence on top of lack of concern for the sustainability of contributors. (Because they know for all who drop off, more dewy-eyed innocents will sign up.)

     

    I'm guessing a proportion of people will have already decided to remove their ports, or stay but not upload new files, based on the money drop.

    Others like me are waiting to see the contract rewrite, while madly positively designating a goodly proportion of their files as editiorial only.

    Others will just keep going on regardless.

     

    I'm not sure there's much more to say here until PA produces their contract revision, but I'm quite prepared to be wrong about that.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  17. 1 minute ago, wilkopix said:

    Last year they wanted to change the royalty structure but half backed down and offered 50% for exclusive content. Then said they had no plans to change it again.

    Many of us pulled work from other agencies to give Alamy the exclusivity. So in terms of time and lost revenue it's been a complete and utter waste.

    Obviously not a company to be trusted anymore .. still waiting to see what changes, if any they will make to the contract. They'll probably change that again in a year too.

    Last year it was Alamy; this year it's PA.

    Next year; who knows?

    • Upvote 3
  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. 1 hour ago, MDM said:

     

    ..., the fact that something is in the current contract does not mean it does not need examination or reconsideration in the light of the changes to contributor liability in the new contract.

     

    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, though clearly it would take me a long time to change all images, and it would take you considerably longer.

    Otherwise the issues highlighted previously such as species changing their names or entire taxonomy; buildings changing their use; politicians changing their portfolio and no doubt many more would leave us in breach of that clause (as we have been for a while, but didn't notice).

    • Upvote 3
×
×
  • 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.