Jump to content

meanderingemu

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by meanderingemu

  1. Guardian Online https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/18/kiwi-wars-the-golden-fruit-fuelling-a-feud-between-new-zealand-and-china Giant kiwifruit sculpture Contributor: Michael Williams ID: 2D7H4X2
  2. i would be comfortable in court to argue that the fact the specifically name section 5, and specifically had 2 in a totally different section, where it could have been included in 5, that intent was not there, since they are the one who wrote it. A global "and anything else" has little weight when you think time to make such a distinction, and would generally be more to include related things they didn't include. Burden of proof is always on the contract writer.
  3. small victory but probably the contract, section 12.5.3 only allows them to recoup indemnity from Section 5, not 2.10.
  4. this is the kind of post i will truly miss when you leave.
  5. agree. But it appears that for Alamy the biggest problem is people misidentifying "exclusive"
  6. pretty sure even under current contract you were not allowed to upload images that were not obtained in a matter acceptable to the property owner when on private property. that said, there are plenty of such images in all stock agencies.
  7. i would think images without right is more a civil offence than criminal. Not sure if that affects the ruling. note: saw FSC addressed it above.
  8. I will take time to indicate if there is One or zero person, but this is for search optimisation, not contractual obligation. My people counts are like birds, Zero, One, Many (5+). If someone wants to argue they only saw four, i'll say i included the people in the bus, in case they are visible magnified 😉
  9. but i still thought we were supposed to indicate there was Property for those. Yes the client likely has no issue using it, and under a system where i have to state Commercial/Editorial i would likely put as "Commercial" but not sure i could claim there was "No Property" in image. I agree with many, it is probably time for Alamy to issue what are the expectations of that Question.
  10. i have yet to see any program on any platform that does a decent job to provide Keywords. The best approach for me is to build my templates and kw what i have it the image.
  11. i have learned to ignore it for the first week of the month. However this week i'm half my average and yes it makes it look really bad. that said historically only 15% of my licences ever appeared as zoom before.
  12. i think i really over interpreted the question since day one i have always done. If there was any material thing in picture: Is there property? "Yes" DO you have a release? "No" the only image where i don't have that are wildlife, nature and flowers, and i even have some flowers where i'll state there is property if named speciality species, and i am using the name.
  13. i'm confused so you had images with property in them and mark that them as having a "property waiver" even if you didn't?
  14. note that some are corporate practices and not linked to laws and regulations.
  15. but in fairness the new contract does not change any of contributors requirement when taking images in Spain, or anywhere. We are all subject to contract we accept, so yes indirectly we are bound by English contract laws by doing business with Alamy. The main issue is more on them on how to get a UK judgement enforceable on a non resident if it gets to this, depends on the treaty between your country and the UK.
  16. Exactly. To me the reasoning explained why current management considered the "Exclusive" portfolio to have been not well developed by the predecessors, not why this lead to a reduction in commission for those who provided the exclusive content. Also never addressed if "Exclusive" was such a wrong idea, why it is still the foundation of one of 2021 big initiative. Note: Typo corrected in quoted text
  17. actually because of the Contract change they have reopened the opting out, since the new contract negatively affects Distribution. On Your dashboard GOTO- Additional Revenue Options Select- Distribution This will take you to a page where you can select and unselect all or some specific territories. Note it was never clarified what happens to territories that are not listed, as it says you opt-out of the ones you unselect, which is not possible for "Serbia" which seemed to have lead to issues with one distributor that had 4 off
  18. but in that case i said there Was property, since to me someone owned those things. So it was weird to have someone from Alamy used the terms "No Single Property". I guess all it means is client has to come to a rep, to say let me check with contributor, but is this efficient? Does that mean some clients just don't bother and go elsewhere where they can get a similar image already labelled "ready for commercial use"?
  19. i guess worse case scenario you get a judgement against you, and you have issues next time entering the jurisdiction, but again that is extreme. I guess if you had image that made some dictator mad, and listed in their no entry list 😉
  20. Someone in Spain can always bring claims against you. They can also bring claims against Alamy in Spanish court. Alamy is now stating if your image respected laws, and you are always bound by local laws even as a tourist, they will not hold you liable for their defence. Of course i am not sure how easy and practical it is for someone getting a judgement from a Spanish court to come collect elsewhere. Alamy having European offices might make it easier against them.
  21. but does that mean Alamy wants me to state "There are No property" in the image? This is the one thing that i found odd, even though there clearly was physical matters which are someone's obvious property, the Account Exec used the term "no Single Property" in communication. So yes I have no problem uploading the image, but i still am not clear how i was supposed to answer Alamy's question, "Is there Property"?
  22. i second this. I was shocked to find out according to an Alamy Account Executive yesterday that one of my image taken in central London along the Thames had "no single property" even though i clearly see buildings in background and a generic physical thing in forefront. It made me question if I am shooting myself in the foot on some of my markings.
  23. i think this is one of these items James referred to as " thread cannot be a continuous Q+A as there will always be times when we can't comment or answer each question posted". He did invite to send those by e-mail. 🤔
  24. Sally on more thing, note that "date of sale" doesn't look like a defined contractual term, so you may have ground to argue if Alamy uses an extra-contractual definition that goes against you, since they are the one writing it.
×
×
  • 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.