Jump to content

Taina

Verified
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Forum reputation = neutral

About Taina

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={944557CF-7D00-4377-8B1C-ECDEE26F329B}&name=Taina+Sohlman
  • Images
    6719
  • Joined Alamy
    03 Aug 2009

Recent Profile Visitors

179 profile views
  1. The clause 4.1.6. IS too relative and vague. Who uploads? Who decides if the content is indecent, obscene, etc? Who is responsible? Using passive tense just blurs this clause. I guess one should use common sense, but even common sense is out of the window these days...
  2. Exactly. Exclusive images are Alamy's strength. Why give that strength up, voluntarily?
  3. Naturally legal documents require a certain format to make them valid. I'm sure all of us have dealt with a few of these during our lifetime. But - if the document is made super complicated, needlessly complicated, you'll have to wonder what the intentions behind that action are.
  4. True. I wonder why the contract is written in such heavy legalese? Alamy should bear in mind that their contributors work with images, not within law, and many don't even speak English as their native language.
  5. LOL. Stock never pays that kind of money... By the way. You took my post out of context. What I said was, "I do not care about the payment cut at this point, the liabilities and no control over the licensing of our own work (that we own the copyright of!) are way more serious issues." Of course I am against the payment cut. But the other issues are waaaay more serious and can cause waaaay more harm. I believe that the payment cut and the tier system were just a smokescreen to introduce clauses with more serious consequences. 4.1.5. Gives Alamy free rights
  6. Correct. No topics are 100% safe under the new contract. It is nice to hear that they are going to consider some rewording and revisions, but knowing how much is wrong with the contract, are they ready to make enough changes? I do not care about the payment cut at this point, the liabilities and no control over the licensing of our own work (that we own the copyright of!) are way more serious issues.
  7. Clauses 4.1.5, 5.1, and 7.1. would mean that for a contributor it will be safe to upload only images of flowers and bugs. (Maybe also sunsets, if they don't have any property or people visible.) These won't sue us. That is if you'll continue with Alamy. I've halted my uploads anyway...
  8. Clause 4.1.5 needs to be rewritten. The current form grants Alamy free rights to license contributor images and override any restrictions. Alamy can offer any explanations and clarifications but they won't matter. What's in print matters, and as long as this clause stays in the contract, the contract is simply unsustainable.
  9. The new clause 4.1.5. needs to go. It allows Alamy to license our content in any way (RM,RF, FREE) they see fit - against contributor's choice. 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;
×
×
  • 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.