Exclusivity - beware!

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

True, but if I didn't mark it that way, how would they know? So I'm mad at myself, not them. I wouldn't expect them to pay me for something they didn't know.

 

But I am chagrined at uncollected amounts. I have one sold on S 9 months ago that appeared in over a dozen US newspapers along with 49 other Alamy images and I still haven't been paid. In that respect, they're being too lenient on their buyers, and unfair to us. Why not collect upon download like everyplace else? Now that would be a change that would make a big difference. 

 

 

i would expect that if they were lenient they would have allowed the proper commission, if the image is exclusive.  

 

in fact the contract defines "exclusive" as

 

"Exclusive"
means, in relation to an Image, that the Image is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or (where the Image is not supplied by Alamy) distribution channel, including without limitation another stock agency or image site but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales, provided that Images of artworks, or that are not protected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown will never be deemed to be Exclusive.

 

 

It doesn't refer to having it marked with the proper box.   

[formerly snappyoncalifornia]

I believe we are over thinking this issue. Here's my take. Photos are either of 3 dimensional items (sculpture, furniture, etc.) or 2 dimensional (paintings, drawings, posters, stamps and STAINED GLASS, etc.) If its a 3 dimensional item then it can be marked "exclusively at Alamy" no limitations. If it is a 2 dimensional item then you must consider the context - does it fill the entire frame or is it the side of a building with stained glass? Is it a full frame image of a painting or a painting hanging on a wall? Is it a close up of a stamp or a hand holding the stamp? Those photos that are primarily close up representations of 2 dimensional art can not be marked as exclusive. Am I missing something?

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

I believe we are over thinking this issue. Here's my take. Photos are either of 3 dimensional items (sculpture, furniture, etc.) or 2 dimensional (paintings, drawings, posters, stamps and STAINED GLASS, etc.) If its a 3 dimensional item then it can be marked "exclusively at Alamy" no limitations. If it is a 2 dimensional item then you must consider the context - does it fill the entire frame or is it the side of a building with stained glass? Is it a full frame image of a painting or a painting hanging on a wall? Is it a close up of a stamp or a hand holding the stamp? Those photos that are primarily close up representations of 2 dimensional art can not be marked as exclusive. Am I missing something?

i don't know if i am overthinking.  where are you seeing this definition from?

 

which of the following can be put as Exclusive without risk of losing full commission if they sold as per section 2.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil Robinson]

1 hour ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

I believe we are over thinking this issue. Here's my take. Photos are either of 3 dimensional items (sculpture, furniture, etc.) or 2 dimensional (paintings, drawings, posters, stamps and STAINED GLASS, etc.) If its a 3 dimensional item then it can be marked "exclusively at Alamy" no limitations. If it is a 2 dimensional item then you must consider the context - does it fill the entire frame or is it the side of a building with stained glass? Is it a full frame image of a painting or a painting hanging on a wall? Is it a close up of a stamp or a hand holding the stamp? Those photos that are primarily close up representations of 2 dimensional art can not be marked as exclusive. Am I missing something?

No, I think you're absolutely right.

And if Alamy had told us that instead of expecting us to deduce it all from the term "artwork" we wouldn't have a problem.

[Ollie]

You are reading this too narrowly and are not bracing for the next step against us. 

Contract para 2.7:  The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, OR that are not protected 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” . 

Note the "OR"s (my emphasis added).  It's not just images of artworks Alamy is saying can't be designated as Exclusive.  It's also images not protected by copyright, images in the public domain, images whose copyright ownership is unknown.

Tens of thousands of images are available from Creative Commons.  And people who put their images into the Creative Commons pool are not just photographing works of art. 

There are tens of thousands of centuries-old artistic creations, never copyrighted, all over the world.

As now written, the contract does not provide for the possibility that you could photograph a piece of art, get a property release, and then designate the image as Exclusive to Alamy.  The contract says images of artwork must never be marked as "Only available on Alamy."  No mention of a PR.

A photo of a 300-year-old window with a design made of colored glass, made inside a private home with the owner's permission,  could not be marked "Exclusive to Alamy" under the above contract, even though the owner of the house is not going to permit anyone else to make similar images.

Is zeroing in on a fine detail of a historic work of art--a tapestry, a piece of embroidery, an Oriental painting on silk--not a creative endeavor?  Is such a close-up not a unique creation?

The contract seems to prohibit designating as Exclusive to Alamy images of ancient mosaics, temple paintings, and yes, church stained glass windows.  Cave paintings?  What about transitory works of art (sand paintings, floral decorations) intended to last only a few hours (on a beach, at a religious festival), which can never be photographed again by another photographer?  The photos of these works of art become historical in nature, but they may be considered artworks by an agency seeking to enlarge its commission share.

Like many, I used to think Alamy conducted its business with the interests of its contributing photographers in mind.  It is both disheartening and discouraging to see that during the last couple of years this is no longer the case.  Alamy seems oblivious to the creative, artistic, and technical skill required of a photographer to successfully photograph a subject.  You may find images on Creative Commons, or images of historic artwork in the public domain, but the image you make today will be different in lighting, framing, sharpness, or other qualities.  No two "slavish copies" are going to be the same. 

Alamy points to legal advice as motivating its decision.  (Page 4 in this chain).  They really do need to get some new lawyers.  The ambiguities mentioned above demonstrate that the contract was not well drafted.  And lawyers will be the first to remind you that it's the contract that counts, not the later comment by some employee of the firm.  It is regrettable that they have chosen to value bad legal advice more than the bonds of trust that formerly existed with their photographers.

[M.Chapman]

7 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

And if Alamy had told us that instead of expecting us to deduce it all from the term "artwork" we wouldn't have a problem.

 

Apart from the loss of 10% commission on more images for no logical reason....

 

Mark

Edited April 16, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

I would like to be shown some examples of identical images of stained glass windows taken by different photographers - images that cannot be distinguished from each other. I can't find any examples. Fairford church is one of the most famous for its medieval windows. I see some which are similar but none identical even of the most famous. 

 

Light shines through glass, colours change all the time. That is the purpose of them!

 

I would also like to know how Alamy would be able to inform a client that a stained glass image is available for them to use exclusively ( as a front cover perhaps) if these rules apply. How can they know if the image is only on Alamy or not?

Edited April 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

18 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Apart from the loss of 10% commission for no logical reason....

 

Mark

 

 

Precisely.  This has only become an issue since Alamy's shock announcement about changing to 40% commission and then the subsequent row-back and 'knee jerk' rule change. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[stipe]

I really would love to see this quick Alamy's intervention also every time I send them an email asking why a sale reported many months ago is still unpaid or why I discovered a photo of mine published in a book and the photo is not reported as a sale yet!

[Steve F]

Alamy: "We’ve received legal advice on these matters and in most cases the key element comes down to the amount of context in the image. Any direct slavish copy of a 2-dimensional artwork that has fallen into the public domain, are not afforded their own copyright protection due to the lack of originality."

 

I've read Alamy's explanation and I'm still confused. I thought there was a fuss a couple of years ago about not being permitted to sell any pictures that had been taken of artwork, e.g. graffiti, that didn't show sufficient context around, because of copyright issues, i.e. you were creating an image that is almost a direct copy of another 2D artwork and the original artwork producer retained the copyright. So then Alamy removed some pictures from our collection if I remember rightly.

 

So now it seems we can sell these kinds of pictures, but we can't mark them as being exclusive to Alamy.

 

I still don't see what this has got to do with an image being exclusive on Alamy or not. As I pointed out previously, a well photographed landmark may have many almost identical photos taken of it. Your image is only sold on Alamy, but there may be many near identical images on other stock websites. Why is this different for artwork? If you can sell an image of someone else's artwork, you might only sell it on Alamy, but again there may be many near identical copies on other stock agencies. Can someone with more legal understanding explain to me??

[geogphotos]

27 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Alamy: "We’ve received legal advice on these matters and in most cases the key element comes down to the amount of context in the image. Any direct slavish copy of a 2-dimensional artwork that has fallen into the public domain, are not afforded their own copyright protection due to the lack of originality."

 

I've read Alamy's explanation and I'm still confused. I thought there was a fuss a couple of years ago about not being permitted to sell any pictures that had been taken of artwork, e.g. graffiti, that didn't show sufficient context around, because of copyright issues, i.e. you were creating an image that is almost a direct copy of another 2D artwork and the original artwork producer retained the copyright. So then Alamy removed some pictures from our collection if I remember rightly.

 

So now it seems we can sell these kinds of pictures, but we can't mark them as being exclusive to Alamy.

 

I still don't see what this has got to do with an image being exclusive on Alamy or not. As I pointed out previously, a well photographed landmark may have many almost identical photos taken of it. Your image is only sold on Alamy, but there may be many near identical images on other stock websites. Why is this different for artwork? If you can sell an image of someone else's artwork, you might only sell it on Alamy, but again there may be many near identical copies on other stock agencies. Can someone with more legal understanding explain to me??

 

 

The truth is that it has nothing at all to do with legality. The 'legal advice' is a red herring.

 

When I take a photo I own the copyright ( except in the case of an exact copy of a two dimensional subject such as a painting where no new copyright is created). 

 

 Therefore, I own the copyright of my photos of stained glass windows and I am not having Alamy decide that no copyright exists simply because it suits their needs.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[stipe]

15 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I am not having Alamy decide that no copyright exists simply because it suits their needs.

 

 

 

This should be a signature in all our posts

[Allan Bell]

 

In the locked post by Alamy above this thread there is a statement, "If your collection contains images of artworks these can never be marked as Exclusive to Alamy, unless you're the artist."

 

I think that says it all.

 

After all stained glass windows are an art form so must have been produced by an artist.

 

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick.

 

I do understand what Alec is saying about the refunding though.

 

Allan

 

[geogphotos]

12 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

In the locked post by Alamy above this thread there is a statement, "If your collection contains images of artworks these can never be marked as Exclusive to Alamy, unless you're the artist."

 

I think that says it all.

 

After all stained glass windows are an art form so must have been produced by an artist.

 

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick.

 

I do understand what Alec is saying about the refunding though.

 

Allan

 

 

 

I am not making a stained glass window I am creating a photo of it. 

 

As far as I am concerned I own the copyright to that photograph. I am not claiming to own copyright to the stained glass through taking a photo of it.

 

Alamy's claim seems to be that it is not possible to create a new copyright when making a photograph of a stained glass window. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I am not making a stained glass window I am creating a photo of it. 

 

As far as I am concerned I own the copyright to that photograph. I am not claiming to own copyright to the stained glass.

It's that inclusive "or" pointed out by Olly. You own the copyright in the photograph, that goes without saying, but Alamy has apparently decided that stained-glass windows are artworks, so its unilateral, industry-unique, revenue-increasing definition means that you can't list them as exclusive. Even though they are according to everyone else in known space.

I'm not agreeing- far, far, far from it- just pointing it out. I have stained-glass too. And it's exclusive. Or is it, Mr. Alamy contract term 2.7?

Edited April 16, 2020 by spacecadet

[Alex Ramsay]

10 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I am not making a stained glass window I am creating a photo of it. 

 

As far as I am concerned I own the copyright to that photograph. I am not claiming to own copyright to the stained glass through taking a photo of it.

 

Alamy's claim seems to be that it is not possible to create a new copyright when making a photograph of a stained glass window. 

And you do own the copyright to it. Your photograph could never be confused with the original work, unlike a photograph of a watercolour painting, for example. (I'm assuming you don't print on transparent acetate and apply soldered lead glazing bars to the print, of course - that might lead to confusion!)

 

Alex

[Allan Bell]

23 hours ago, spacecadet said:

It's that inclusive "or" pointed out by Olly. You own the copyright in the photograph, that goes without saying, but Alamy has apparently decided that stained-glass windows are artworks, so its unilateral, industry-unique, revenue-increasing definition means that you can't list them as exclusive. Even though they are according to everyone else in known space.

I'm not agreeing- far, far, far from it- just pointing it out. I have stained-glass too. And it's exclusive. Or is it, Mr. Alamy contract term 2.7?

 

Actually I have stained glass windows too but they never sold. Better go back and mark them as not exclusive. For the time being at least.

 

Allan

 

Reversed my decision in the light of Alamy's statement later in the thread.

 

ITMA

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Allan Bell

[Phil Robinson]

 

Is this 2D or 3D?

[geogphotos]

Just now, Phil Robinson said:

 

Is this 2D or 3D?

 

2.5D

[Colblimp]

17 hours ago, Alamy said:

• We’ve received legal advice on these matters
• We have been as lenient as possible
• Alamy has to enforce these terms.  

What a lovely way to treat one's contributors...

[M.Chapman]

16 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

Alamy has to enforce these terms.  

 

Alamy writes the terms and then forces itself to enforce them....

 

Mark

[Phil Robinson]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Alamy writes the terms and then forces itself to enforce them....

 

Mark

 

Nothing wrong with enforcing terms if everyone knows what the terms are.

That NEEDS to be cleared up and the contract amended accordingly, THEN enforce the terms.

[geogphotos]

7 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

 

Nothing wrong with enforcing terms if everyone knows what the terms are.

That NEEDS to be cleared up and the contract amended accordingly, THEN enforce the terms.

 

 

How long before it will be 40% for all?

 

In the interests of 'fairness'.

Edited April 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[losdemas]

51 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

How long before it will be 40% for all?

 

In the interests of 'fairness'.

 

I don't think so...

 

...more like 40% and 30%

 

I'll give it a year.

[Phil Crean]

3 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

 

Is this 2D or 3D?

3D + 2D = 5D(MKIV) 🤣🤣

Phil