Jump to content

formerly snappyoncalifornia

Verified
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by formerly snappyoncalifornia

  1. My forum swan song. I'm leaving, I won't let the door hit me on the arse on the way out. Wishing you all the best on the photography trail Peace out
  2. In researching indemnification insurance I came across a UK company called "AON" (see https://www.aon.com/getmedia/90b4c09e-05cb-40c2-af7a-9f4876c278de/Aon-NL-IP-Liability_FAQ-Purchasing-Scenarios.aspx) It looks like they offer Intellectual Property Liability Coverage. I wonder if our current scenario is applicable and they could offer individual or group coverage? Anyone in the UK want to look into this?
  3. I'll be honest, I have zoo image ANIMALS for sale. I have been extremely careful to edit out any structure or landscaping that makes the location identifiable. I think it would be extraordinarily hard for someone to claim...that's my turtle!
  4. I worked for a business that had holding accounts for several hundred clients.The amount of interest income generated annually was enough to buy the top executives a new Mercedes every couple of years. Some clients went out of business and abandoned their accounts. It happens.
  5. That is about criminal law and has nothing to do with civil law or contracts.
  6. There is difference between commercial use and commercial gain. If someone pays me for an editorial image, that's commercial gain.
  7. I had a similar question which James answered in part as follows "This clause talks about liability on you, if you breach the contract. It is not talking about a breach that is not caused by you because that would not make it a breach...." I think his response is an incorrect interpretation of the indemnification clause because it includes the phrase "any and all". Be that as it may, I am satisfied with his answer on the record because it creates sufficient ambiguity that would void the indemnification clause if you take the steps to mark your images correctly and have proper releases. In effe
  8. If Alamy is serious about what James has stated then the contract should replace the indemnification clause with the following: Cross Indemnification. Each party to this Agreement agrees to indemnify and hold the other party (the “non-breaching party”) harmless against every loss, cost, damage or expense (including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses) incurred by the non-breaching party as a result of any breach by the other party of the terms of this Agreement or of any representation or warranty made by such party; provided the non-breaching party notifies the other party pr
  9. The only thing ludicrous about it is if you agreed, that is what indemnification means. The courts have upheld it, It's perfectly legal to be the sucker.
  10. James, Thank you for engaging with the forum regarding this issue. As I posted some of the more pointed questions, I hope you will be kind enough to answer. In regards to 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... Question - If an image is marked as editorial only and a distributor or any other agent for Alamy sells it for non-editorial use, and Alamy is sued for damages, am I liable under the indemnification clause to defe
  11. I expressed a willingness to counter sue, there is a world of difference. The point being if Alamy took an action against me by counter suing I would have some leverage to come to an agreement with them for both parties to drop their respective cases, thus I wouldn't be financially harmed. This attitude is called not being a victim.
  12. Your income is being cut by 20% minimum. If Alamy get sued for any reason by ANYONE because of one of your images you must pay the legal fees. If Alamy loses the case YOU must pay the damages. Got it? Uw inkomen wordt met minimaal 20% verlaagd. Als Alamy om welke reden dan ook door IEDEREEN wordt aangeklaagd vanwege een van uw afbeeldingen, moet u de juridische kosten betalen. Als Alamy de zaak verliest, moet JIJ de schadevergoeding betalen. Begrepen?
  13. Back in the day when stock photography was a viable profession the rule of thumb was your well curated (no similars) and properly key-worded portfolio on Alamy earned $1.00 per image per year gross. So you could expect your 1,000 images to earn $1,000.00. Since then reductions in the commission, the rise of microstock and economic upheaval has reduced that percentage to roughly .40 cents per image, $400.00 gross. Now, with a further reduction of 20% you can expect $320.00 or .32 each. So to earn the $250.00 gross sales minimum you need at least 780 images in your portfolio, netting $100.
  14. "The grief" occurs when you realize that you have accepted a duty to defend Alamy and third party distributors and agents around the world even in the absence of a finding or allegation of negligence and that such liability is uninsurable. The more I read up on the law, the scarier this all becomes. For Alamy to hold us legally responsible for another's liability is simply unfair. I am willing to accept responsibility for my own errors and omissions but am unwilling to be liable for the mistakes and oversights of others, completely out of my control. What do we do when a plea for basic
  15. It feels one-sided because it is one-sided. I would hope that some organization in the UK that has a public policy interest in these matters take up our cause in the courts, if applicable. We Americans leave it in your capable hands.
  16. So let's explain what is going on so we all understand this - (not a lawyer, this is not legal advise) The new contract includes an indemnity clause, which in part reads: "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 ..." the key words here are any and all claims. There are 2 types of indemnity clauses, the typical contract will have the phrase "to the extent arising out
  17. One of the unforseen consequences of this new contract is that the BUYERS may be frustrated. If, in an abundance of caution, so many of us mark all images in our portfolio as property/no release it is going to raise doubts about images that clearly do not contain recognizable property. Although there is a link explaining releases I suspect buyers will be calling the Alamy help desk for assurances, or referring the matter to their legal department before placing the order. This would not endear Alamy to buyers. I would allow Alamy to override my catagorization, if they indemnify me.
  18. Today I submitted ONE image....of a flower. If it passes QC (meh) I'll mark it as editorial, non-exclusive property no release. In six months I'll be back to complain it has no sales of .12 cents. Working pro!!! (have you noticed images in QC are always, dark, muddy, and over saturated?)
  19. I suspect when that $3.00 sale comes in showing a .60 cent commission they will have a coffee spew WTF??? moment.
  20. I've been biting my lip before posting this. Don't take this too personally, I'm trying to generalize. You say "For me, photography remains a wonderful HOBBY that has given me much joy and satisfaction. Stock agencies provide an outlet for sharing my work with an international audience…while making a few dollars for the effort." I'm sorry but isn't that the problem? Look, you're 80 years old. You don't need the few dollars you earn from photography, it's a pastime for you. There has been an industry wide assault on the livelihood of working professionals directly caused by hobb
  21. My first take on this is that if you mark everything correctly, you're off the hook. So I'm taking the conservative approach. I've marked my entire port as "editorial only" and I've marked everything as containing property, with no release. I'm deleting all pictures off art, sculpture, trademarked items that are not in "context" (part of a much larger scene). I've also marked everything non-exclusive and will decide what other agencies are appropriate for some images that don't sell at microstock prices.
  22. I've been waiting patiently for an official response from Alamy to our concerns, was it not promised? My dashboard still has the July 1st alert. Unless there is some clarification to our objections by Wednesday morning, my entire portfolio will become non-exclusive. I refuse to be roped in.
  23. Well perhaps being an "exclusive" contributor needs to be vetted properly, apply just like being a News contributor. I would think that an algorithm that randomly samples your images monthly and does an internet search could be created. An agreement to be an exclusive contributor could be written with give backs or worse if caught cheating.
  24. Totally agree. It seems odd that Alamy hasn't highlighted their exclusive content with a unique buyer's search page. As stock shooters we are always looking for ways to differentiate our images from the herd, shouldn't Alamy be using that strategy?
×
×
  • 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.