Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, sb photos said:

I noticed one of last months sales was only a 40%, looked into to it and all from that shoot weren't marked exclusive. That was then correct. I then spent some time checking, all was well. I did find some early images with no super tags, still have to go back over those.

Yes, Alamy have explained that the data for the emails was obtained some time ago and so is out of date, quite a long time ago judging by my number, July or thereabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jodyko said:

 

Yes I'd like to understand this too. Is not the photographic image of someones work of art on public display unique in that it was captured by a particular photographer, camera and moment in time? If this unique image is listed with only Alamy and nowhere else is it not exclusive to Alamy? And how does one measure 1/3 of the frame as a "general" rule and what significance does that ratio have to exclusivity? Please enlighten us.

 

 

ratio is nothing to exclusivity i think, if not below 1/3 it's probably not supposed to even be made available.  but the issue lies deeper i think, for art that is not as someone stated two-dimensional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note regarding the effort to filter out the exclusives: Alamy has all my selected pictures, other agencies have less as they edit my offer as needed. I used the Alamy .csv file as basis in Excel,  using the VLOOKUP formula to check which files dont exist in a list I requested from my other agencies (copied into 2. Excel tab). And then I mailed Alamy contributor service the filtered Excel list of the exclusive ones - done next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

but the issue lies deeper i think, for art that is not as someone stated two-dimensional. 

I agree but the email simply states, "images of artworks." Pretty vague. Not enough for me to change anything I think. By example:

Delayne Corbett"s unfinished sand sculpture, "She’s a Little Bit City and a Little Bit Country," at the 2019 Texas Sandfest. Port Aransas, Texas USA. Stock Photo

More than 1/3 but to me still exclusive to Alamy.

 

But what about something like this? Exclusive or not?

 

United States Space Force logo sculpted in sand at the 2019 Texas Sandfest in Port Aransas, Texas USA. Stock Photo

Edited by jodyko
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

are handmade protest banners and placards qualified as work of art?

hmmm very good question and some of mine taken recently came into mind.

 

This I would classify as artwork - its somebodies photo that somebody has shopped some condoms over the chimneys.

In the picture the placard is 4.97Mpix out of 14.37Mpix, hence roughly 5% larger than a third of the entire frame.

I could have cropped more favorably to stay within 1/3rd boundary, but have not in this case but will in future. 

 

So, should I remove the exclusivity for this picture? :

 Cologne, Germany. 29th Sep, 2019. Activists marching for action on climate change and carrying signs in English and/or German to that respect. Reportedly approximately 20.000 people took part in that demonstration, Credit: hdh/Alamy Live News Stock Photo

 

On the other hand, these are clearly more than a third, but maybe not artwork, so the exclusive flag can be set? 

Cologne, Germany. 29th Sep, 2019. Activists marching for action on climate change and carrying signs in English and/or German to that respect. Reportedly approximately 20.000 people took part in that demonstration, Credit: hdh/Alamy Live News Stock PhotoCologne, Germany. 29th Sep, 2019. Activists marching for action on climate change and carrying signs in English and/or German to that respect. Reportedly approximately 20.000 people took part in that demonstration, Credit: hdh/Alamy Live News Stock Photo

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jodyko said:

I agree but the email simply states, "images of artworks." Pretty vague. Not enough for me to change anything I think. By example:

Delayne Corbett"s unfinished sand sculpture, "She’s a Little Bit City and a Little Bit Country," at the 2019 Texas Sandfest. Port Aransas, Texas USA. Stock Photo

More than 1/3 but to me still exclusive to Alamy.

 

 

 

yeah same here.  and to be honest the following

 R5BMN6.jpg

 

Alamy changed to Editorial Only when they did the sweep, so i assume they are fine with it 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, meanderingemu said:

 

Alamy changed to Editorial Only when they did the sweep, so i assume they are fine with it 

Yes I recently changed some of mine to editorial only per Alamy guidance. The exclusivity is what confuses me. BTW I edited my previous post to include an additional example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best would be if we get a definition of what classifies as artwork and what does not within the context of Alamys rules. 

As we are selling world wide should we take into account rules from the UK, generally Europe (which may differ by country..) or do we need to account for every Remotistan?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hdh said:

Best would be if we get a definition of what classifies as artwork and what does not within the context of Alamys rules. 

Yes. 10% is significant and I think a little more clarification is in order, particularly when contributors are being asked to demote their earnings potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, hdh said:

Best would be if we get a definition of what classifies as artwork and what does not within the context of Alamys rules. 

As we are selling world wide should we take into account rules from the UK, generally Europe (which may differ by country..) or do we need to account for every Remotistan?

 

 

yeah, i've always struggled with a vague notion of "Art".  For example to a quilt maker, their work would be art, what about Alamy?.  A handmade persian rug? Design on a cake?  (i know i consider my favourite sushi restaurant to produce works of art 😀 )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

yeah, i've always struggled with a vague notion of "Art".  For example to a quilt maker, their work would be art, what about Alamy?.  A handmade persian rug? Design on a cake?  (i know i consider my favourite sushi restaurant to produce works of art 😀 )

 

I suppose it's anything for which the creator can possibly claim copyright infringement. However, if an image is being used for editorial purposes only, it's difficult to see how this could be a possibility or a problem in most cases. But perhaps I'm missing something. I'm no expert on this kind of thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a minefield.

 

I've marked some of mine as being non exclusive, but, to be honest I've not got much of a clue a to what Alamy is on about. I guess that a blatant copy of a 2D painting or mural, and there are a number of them available and they do sell here, would be not exclusive, but, as has been pointed out, the likes of statues can be photographed from an infinite number of angles, so how can there be an exclusivity problem?

 

Awaiting my day of judgement on this one, but not really sure that I am guilty of any crime!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

thanks.  this is really helpful.  I think i was trying to be overly cautious. 

You'd better be careful. At least one other agency would consider these very close sister shots, so you could be clear for Alamy but maybe not elsewhere.

TBH, I'm surprised Alamy would consider these two acceptable to have one as exclusive and one not. But they make the rules for their own site, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alamy said:

Impossible to say with 100% certainty.

The question you have to ask yourself is "does my image contain artwork that takes up more than 1/3 of the total frame, by which someone else could claim copyright to?"

If you're not sure, don't take the risk.

Cheers

Alamy

So the 'artwork' rule (re Alamy-exclusivity) is about copyright? I had thought from something which was written previously that it was because you might end up with two people having largely similar photos of e.g. a public statue.

Does that mean it doesn't apply if the work is out of copyright, e.g. in the UK if the artist has been dead for over 70 years? I know that flat art in the public domain cannot be marketed as 'exclusive', but I can't find such a restriction about e.g. public statues.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think this is all part of the continuing squeeze on contributors. Licence fees are falling and, in this competitive market, Alamy is under intense pressure to maintain profits. Last year (around this time) they wanted to cut our commission to 40% on all images (if I recall correctly). After howls of protest they did a partial U-turn and allowed us to keep 50% on exclusive images only.  It's now 12 months later, and approaching the end of Alamy's financial year again, so the "bean counters" have been looking at the financial numbers and realised that because many images are still marked as exclusive they aren't getting as much net revenue as they'd hoped. So what can they do? Ah I know, let's tighten the restrictions on "exclusive only" a bit more, they can claim it's for legal reasons.... and send a simple email (which over-states the requirement) to get more images switched to non-exclusive. For Alamy it's a win-win. More commission and less chance of legal issues with no loss (they never introduced an "exclusive only" filter for buyers). But for contributors it's lose - lose. More work to do and less commission.

 

Or am I being over sceptical?

 

I had previously only applied the "editorial only" and "non-exclusive flag" to 2D artwork for exactly the reasons quoted in the earlier posts, (unless there was only one obvious viewpoint). My concern is where does this end? Many buildings are unique and could be regarded as works of art from the architect. Then there's the industrial design of many products.... Are we going to have to mark those as non-exclusive in the future too? Methinks Alamy could be desperately trying to get extra net income to avoid sinking... (Oops I've gone sceptical again....)

 

I'm now off to change the settings on my 3D artwork images too, but it sticks in the throat. My only consolation is that maybe it's helping Alamy to survive.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hdh said:

Best would be if we get a definition of what classifies as artwork and what does not within the context of Alamys rules. 

As we are selling world wide should we take into account rules from the UK, generally Europe (which may differ by country..) or do we need to account for every Remotistan?

You'd better make sure that for every Remotistan you're photographing in, you know their rules.

In at least some contexts,  a litigant can, presumably with advice, choose either the legislation of the country of the subject, the country of the agency or the country of the artist in which to pursue a claim. Some agencies seek to prevent this by stating that any conflict will be resolved under the laws of X. I have no idea how this would hold up in real life, and I don't see where Alamy has stated this, if it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this topic is that the more you think about it and the more we discuss it, the more confusing in gets. 🥴

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

Personally I think this is all part of the continuing squeeze on contributors. Licence fees are falling and, in this competitive market, Alamy is under intense pressure to maintain profits. Last year (around this time) they wanted to cut our commission to 40% on all images (if I recall correctly). After howls of protest they did a partial U-turn and allowed us to keep 50% on exclusive images only.  It's now 12 months later, and approaching the end of Alamy's financial year again, so the "bean counters" have been looking at the financial numbers and realised that because many images are still marked as exclusive they aren't getting as much net revenue as they'd hoped. So what can they do? Ah I know, let's tighten the restrictions on "exclusive only" a bit more, they can claim it's for legal reasons.... and send a simple email (which over-states the requirement) to get more images switched to non-exclusive. For Alamy it's a win-win. More commission and less chance of legal issues with no loss (they never introduced an "exclusive only" filter for buyers). But for contributors it's lose - lose. More work to do and less commission.

 

Or am I being over sceptical?

 

I had previously only applied the "editorial only" and "non-exclusive flag" to 2D artwork for exactly the reasons quoted in the last 2 posts, (unless there was only one obvious viewpoint). My concern is where does this end? Many buildings are unique and could be regarded as works of art from the architect. Then there's the industrial design of many products.... Are we going to have to mark those as non-exclusive in the future too? Methinks Alamy could be desperately trying to get extra net income to avoid sinking... (Oops I've gone sceptical again....)

 

I'm now off to change the settings on my 3D artwork images too, but it sticks in the throat. My only consolation is that maybe it's helping Alamy to survive.

 

Mark

 

 

 

I wouldn't Mark and I had exactly the same thoughts as you about this email

 

It rang a bell about something I read the other week in that is it copyright infringement taking a photo of 3 dimensional object and the answer was it is not copyright infringement

 

I quote

"

Works on public display

Section 62 of the CDPA ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62) provides an exception to copyright infringement in relation to the representation of certain artistic works on public display. The exception applies to buildings and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public.

The copyright in such works is not infringed by (a) making a graphic work representing it, making a photograph or film of it, or making a broadcast of a visual image of it. Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

 

This article refers to 3d digitisation but would equally apply to photography

 

https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/3d-digitisation-and-intellectual-property-rights

 

So as far as I am concerned any photo I take of public art is by UK law not a copyright infringement and as far as the law states any photo I put up for sale is going to be marked as exclusive in that the photo I took is exclusive to Alamy where so indicated by their terms i.e. not for sale elsewhere.

 

And it doesn't matter whether its 1/3rd or 2/3rd or 90%

 

 

Edited by David Pimborough
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, David Pimborough said:

 

I wouldn't Mark and I had exactly the same thoughts as you about this email

 

It rang a bell about something I read the other week in that is it copyright infringement taking a photo of 3 dimensional object and the answer was it is not copyright infringement

 

I quote

"

Works on public display

Section 62 of the CDPA ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62) provides an exception to copyright infringement in relation to the representation of certain artistic works on public display. The exception applies to buildings and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public.

The copyright in such works is not infringed by (a) making a graphic work representing it, making a photograph or film of it, or making a broadcast of a visual image of it. Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

That's the link I was trying to refind. Thanks.

While posting that, I found it's the same in Canada, also architecture:

32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright

  • ...

  • (b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work

    • (i) an architectural work, provided the copy is not in the nature of an architectural drawing or plan, or

    • (ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building;

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-16.html#h-1038

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However taking photos of 2 dimensional art such as a painting is generally not allowed if you intend to sell the photos (i.e. not for personal use)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

Personally I think this is all part of the continuing squeeze on contributors. Licence fees are falling and, in this competitive market, Alamy is under intense pressure to maintain profits. Last year (around this time) they wanted to cut our commission to 40% on all images (if I recall correctly). After howls of protest they did a partial U-turn and allowed us to keep 50% on exclusive images only.  It's now 12 months later, and approaching the end of Alamy's financial year again, so the "bean counters" have been looking at the financial numbers and realised that because many images are still marked as exclusive they aren't getting as much net revenue as they'd hoped. So what can they do? Ah I know, let's tighten the restrictions on "exclusive only" a bit more, they can claim it's for legal reasons.... and send a simple email (which over-states the requirement) to get more images switched to non-exclusive. For Alamy it's a win-win. More commission and less chance of legal issues with no loss (they never introduced an "exclusive only" filter for buyers). But for contributors it's lose - lose. More work to do and less commission.

 

Or am I being over sceptical?

 

I had previously only applied the "editorial only" and "non-exclusive flag" to 2D artwork for exactly the reasons quoted in the last 2 posts, (unless there was only one obvious viewpoint). My concern is where does this end? Many buildings are unique and could be regarded as works of art from the architect. Then there's the industrial design of many products.... Are we going to have to mark those as non-exclusive in the future too? Methinks Alamy could be desperately trying to get extra net income to avoid sinking... (Oops I've gone sceptical again....)

 

I'm now off to change the settings on my 3D artwork images too, but it sticks in the throat. My only consolation is that maybe it's helping Alamy to survive.

 

Mark

 

 

Yes it is a continuing squeeze on contributors which started with the crash of 2008. I started with Alamy in 2003 when the commission was 70/30 in favour of the contributor now 50/50 for exclusivity or 40/60 for non exclusive. Despite the fact I've done pretty well with Alamy, nearly $500k in sales, this email today has had a really negative affect on any remaining motivation I have and I'm really questioning is it all worth it? The hours sat in front of this screen trying to manage 50k+ is mind numbing and I'm afraid to say it may be time to start looking elsewhere for earning potential for my archive but I'll probably wait and see how this current issue plays out.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

I have a lot of photos of stamps. Do they count as 'artworks'?

 

I quote from Wikipedia

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps/Public_domain

 

United Kingdom

Many British stamps are "Crown Copyright", that expires after 50 years and puts the stamps in the public domain. (See Crown copyright.) This also applies to the stamps of the various territories of the British Empire prior to their independence.

Following the privatisation of Royal Mail as a separate legal entity in 2012 the copyright of new British stamps has been held by Royal Mail in its own right, so in general no stamp may be uploaded."

 

and from the royal mail

https://www.royalmail.com/royal-mail-you/intellectual-property-rights/reproducing-stamps

 

 

So if the stamp is public domain a 100% photo of the stamp is not in breach of copyright

 

However different countries have different rules

 

Edited by David Pimborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several images of The Bean (Cloud Gate) in Chicago where it probably takes up more than a third of the frame. But it's public art and I believe the city has a blanket release because photos of it are used promotionally all the time. It's pretty silly to say photos of it can't be exclusive, especially when no two photos of it are exactly alike.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

You'd better make sure that for every Remotistan you're photographing in, you know their rules.

For the sake of the topic I was more concerned about the selling process. 

i.e A Remotis entity buys a picture that in Remotistan is defined either illegal or has other legal consequences. 

 

Is Photographer/Alamy liable, because we sold it?

After that, are we still allowed to enter Remotistan and do some awesome travel photography?  

 

Edit: 

Brining it back to the topic of the thread;

If in Remotistan is defined that the size of art in a picture that is larger than 1Mpix, it requires a license of the artist, do we have to mark as non-exclusive?

Edited by hdh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.