Jump to content

Exclusivity - beware!


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I can't download the data spreadsheet because that isn't working!

A small crumb but Alamy seem to have been able to fix that easily on a case by case basis, just need to email them, and they can also at the same time send you the csv just as they used to.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

2BEJYMY.jpg2BEG2NG.jpg2B7PGJ0.jpg2B5GC7K.jpg2BB792W.jpg2B5GKF9.jpg

Wonder which of these can and can't be sold as exclusive...

Yes.

It's a hand-grenade under everyone's collection waiting for Alamy to pull the pin.

There's a tremendous amount of goodwill from contributors which A seems determined to play fast and loose with.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

Yes.

It's a hand-grenade under everyone's collection waiting for Alamy to pull the pin.

There's a tremendous amount of goodwill from contributors which A seems determined to play fast and loose with.

 

And they can just make their mind up about it when you have had a sale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

2BEJYMY.jpg2BEG2NG.jpg2B7PGJ0.jpg2B5GC7K.jpg2BB792W.jpg2B5GKF9.jpg

Wonder which of these can and can't be sold as exclusive...

 

 

until they sell, you are fine as exclusive, after, Alamy will figure if it's worth calling them artwork to get 20% of your commission back  (or cancel your account and take all of it)

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I0000k4lGeIAJL94.jpg

 

Exclusive?

Non-exclusive?

Common-sense says exclusive. But who knows until we get a proper answer. A proper answer. Not one that just suits Alamy.

And, if images such as that are "deemed" non-exclusive, the reason.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I0000k4lGeIAJL94.jpg

 

Exclusive?

Non-exclusive?

 

This is the problem.
If I'd seen that I'd like to think I'd have shot it in pretty much the same way, resulting in a very similar image.

What's the difference between that and a window? Or an Art Nouveau lamppost? Or a decorative park bench?
We need CLEAR guidance. 

Edited by Phil Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the Copyright Act, as I understand it, copyright of a sculpture or other three-dimensional artwork is not infringed by making a (necessarily) two-dimensional photograph of it. This would surely apply to geogphotos' pew-end above, and should also apply to stained glass, in my opinion

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 minute ago, Alex Ramsay said:

Under the Copyright Act, as I understand it, copyright of a sculpture or other three-dimensional artwork is not infringed by making a (necessarily) two-dimensional photograph of it. This would surely apply to geogphotos' pew-end above, and should also apply to stained glass, in my opinion

 

Alex

Yes but Alamy's definition goes far wider than our CDPA. The CDPA doesn't use the word "artwork"- it uses "artistic work", which is much wider. If this is Alamy's basis for its definition, we've even had buildings. I can't believe they'll go that far.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex Ramsay said:

Under the Copyright Act, as I understand it, copyright of a sculpture or other three-dimensional artwork is not infringed by making a (necessarily) two-dimensional photograph of it. This would surely apply to geogphotos' pew-end above, and should also apply to stained glass, in my opinion

 

Alex

 

 

nowhere does Alamy refer to this in the guidelines.  Rule 2.7 only states

 

The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, or that are notprotected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown must never be marked as “Only available on Alamy” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alex Ramsay said:

Under the Copyright Act, as I understand it, copyright of a sculpture or other three-dimensional artwork is not infringed by making a (necessarily) two-dimensional photograph of it. This would surely apply to geogphotos' pew-end above, and should also apply to stained glass, in my opinion

 

Alex

 

I think this a separate issue from copyright. This is about whether Alamy think they can tell their customers that this is only only place they can find a particular image. 
If a customer is looking for an accurate copy of the Mona Lisa or the Sgt Pepper album sleeve, that would clearly not be the case.

This is about whether or not it is possible to photograph the same thing in a different way, or better, than someone else.

But more than that it's about clarity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

nowhere does Alamy refer to this in the guidelines.  Rule 2.7 only states

 

The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, or that are notprotected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown must never be marked as “Only available on Alamy” 

So we're back to the question of 'what defines an artwork' in Alamy's view, then. Can we hope for an answer?

 

Alex

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

 

Yes but Alamy's definition goes far wider than our CDPA. The CDPA doesn't use the word "artwork"- it uses "artistic work", which is much wider. If this is Alamy's basis for its definition, we've even had buildings. I can't believe they'll go that far.

 

in addition CDPA is for UK,  what about my stainglass in Mexico?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alex Ramsay said:

So we're back to the question of 'what defines an artwork' in Alamy's view, then. Can we hope for an answer?

 

Alex

 

 

the answer seems clear today, wherever they feel they can claw back 20% of the commission retro-actively

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

in addition CDPA is for UK,  what about my stainglass in Mexico?

Our CPDA isn't really relevant to the contract. We merely mention it because we're trying to understand Alamy's new criteria by reference to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

the answer seems clear today, wherever they feel they can claw back 20% of the commission retro-actively

I'm sure it's not capricious. But it's doing a fair job of looking like it- set a trap the rules for avoiding which are unclear then retrospectively charge a profitable penalty (because Alamy is paid for the licence before it claws back the commission) when it's triggered.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've received a list of some images which have been included.

Many are stamps - not what I'd call 'artworks' but I can understand that.

Also graffiti - less convinced about some, but OK.

Also tiled pictures on the Paris Metro and mosaics.

And, yes, stained glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

I've received a list of some images which have been included.

Many are stamps - not what I'd call 'artworks' but I can understand that.

Also graffiti - less convinced about some, but OK.

Also tiled pictures on the Paris Metro and mosaics.

And, yes, stained glass.

Crikey. Hadn't occurred to me.

Only a matter of time then.

This is nothing more than a money-making exercise. As I said before, great timing, Alamy. I could really do with losing another 20% of my income right now.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alamy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.