Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[MDM]

Clause 4.9 has been in the contract since at least 2010 (old version i had saved). The recent modification is extremely minor. Stop panicking about things that have been there forever and panic about something important (like climate change, the Pandemic, Clause 7.1). Back to work people.

 

2010 (at least) -2019 contract

4.9. There are and will be no claims by any other party in connection with the use or reproduction of any of the Image

 

2020

4.1.12 there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by MDM

[MDM]

5 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Probably (IANAL, and I know diddly squat about English Law) reasonable care is that the files on the selling page are marked as being for editorial only, and/or as not having releases.

I do think it's possible that I could be losing sales to tourist companies by marking any even slightly doubtful images as editorial only (e.g. city scenes), but it has to be.

 

I think you have to weigh up the risk against what you make from the images. Far too many of my images sell for $ to make it worthwhile risk-taking. 

[Harry Harrison]

41 minutes ago, MDM said:

I noticed it before but am not concerned as this is a standard type of clause relating to copyright primarily (I think) and it is certainly present in the 2019 version - most likely in earlier versions as well. Again people not reading previous contracts and panicking now. You have already signed up to this.

 

2019 contract

4.9. There are and will be no claims by any other party in connection with the use or reproduction of any of the Image

Thanks, I was actually searching the 2019 contract for the word 'exploitation' so didn't find this clause. They are of course slightly different just through the use of that term but I'm happy to go along with the general view that there is nothing to be concerned about if that is the feeling.

[MDM]

Just now, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks, I was actually searching the 2019 contract for the word 'exploitation' so didn't find this clause. They are of course slightly different just through the use of that term but I'm happy to go along with the general view that there is nothing to be concerned about if that is the feeling.

 

OK Harry. I don't think the word exploitation is significant - not sure what it means here in addition to use or reproduction and why they added it but I don't think it changes the meaning. I would have thought use covers just about everything. 

[wilkopix]

17 hours ago, geogphotos said:

More than anything it is the sheer apparent idiocy of these contract changes. Only about 6.6% of images are exclusive.

 

Alamy says that the exclusive images have no commercial value over the non-exclusive. In other words there is no implicit reason why they should outsell the other 93.4% of images which are already at 40%.

 

So why alienate those most loyal and engaged suppliers? The extra 10% can't be costing them all that much. Or gaining them that much compared with what they are throwing away in terms of trust, deleted accounts, loss of interest etc

 

I agree with every word you say.

 

Why are they alienating the loyal, long term and engaged suppliers? As you rightly say it makes no commercial sense.

 

They are actively pushing us to go non exclusive to avoid any conflict with our direct clients and so we can now supply other outlets to make up the shortfall that Alamy have taken from our commission. A bitter pill to swallow especially when the likes of you and I have been loyally supplying Alamy for nearly 20 years each!

 

Simple answer if Alamy are actually listening or have any care for those who supply them:-

 

1. Keep the 50/50 split for exclusive images (It's probably not going to actually cost you anything as its only 6.6% of the collection but will help keep your loyal long term suppliers engaged and producing more material).

2.Ask the photographer first if an infringement is found (as most of us agreed to this option in an email that was sent out a month ago .. put a couple of days time limit on it if that helps speed it up).

 

Not to mention that this is a pretty awful time to cut photographers percentages. Alamy obviously have very little regard to the wellbeing of their suppliers.

[meanderingemu]

@Alamy i hope you are reading the added comments.  In line with the fact the wording has barely changed regarding your trust of your clients and distribution partners- ie. if they misuse you take Zero responsibility, but hold us fully responsible-  if you expect me to still offer some images through Distribution you need to offer the option to remove specific Images from this platform, especially those that though not deemed inappropriate under UK and Wales law would raise flags in others.    

[griangraf]

5 hours ago, MDM said:

2019 contract

 

I just searched Alamy contract 2019 on Google

Thanks for that!

[griangraf]

5 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

Key changes:

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.aspx

 

7th May 2021 contract is here:

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx

 

It seems the original contract is no longer able to be viewed and I didn't download it - I don't understand why Alamy would have uploaded a contract as the 'official contract', that's not actually come into force yet and that they're changing, but there you go. But you can compare the key changes with the original contract using the link at the top.

It is strange that it's not available but thank you for the help.

[sb photos]

2 hours ago, BobD said:

Clause 5 was my main concern, that has now been resolved to my satisfaction. I am prepared to take liability for my own actions if I lie or misrepresent something.

I will be removing a few images that could be a problem ( isolated statues, i.e out of context with their surroundings).

 

As I don't believe I have anything indecent, offensive or profane, the new contract doesn't affect me. 

Re indecent it’s a good job Mary Whitehouse isn’t around. I have around 10 images from the World Naked Bike Ride as it crossed over Westminster Bridge a few years back in my port. On Alamy there is a total 5246 images from their rides. None is porn. Will the 5246 images now be deleted by their contributors? 

[Cryptoprocta]

1 minute ago, sb photos said:

Re indecent it’s a good job Mary Whitehouse isn’t around. I have around 10 images from the World Naked Bike Ride as it crossed over Westminster Bridge a few years back in my port. On Alamy there is a total 5246 images from their rides. None is porn. Will the 5246 images now be deleted by their contributors? 

It may be a 'relatively' safe bet that as it was officially allowed in London, images of it wouldn't be obscene or indecent under English Law.

But again, I wouldn't necessarily want to be the test case.

I note their own webpage has the hero image - but not all of those lower down - posterised.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, BobD said:

Clause 5 was my main concern, that has now been resolved to my satisfaction. I am prepared to take liability for my own actions if I lie or misrepresent something.

I will be removing a few images that could be a problem ( isolated statues, i.e out of context with their surroundings).

 

As I don't believe I have anything indecent, offensive or profane, the new contract doesn't affect me. 

 

 

i have anti and pro abortion slogans from a dual protest, i assume they are both offensive to the other side, so I would like Alamy's Lawyers to make a Clear position on that clause.

 

 

 

The one image i am thinking of removing is a novelty toilet paper roll featuring the image of a certain world leader who wasn't really liked in the country I was visiting.  

[sb photos]

42 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

i have anti and pro abortion slogans from a dual protest, i assume they are both offensive to the other side, so I would like Alamy's Lawyers to make a Clear position on that clause.

 

I have the same, images of pro abortion protestors in the UK’s Parliament Square, anti abortionists marching from a hall nearby, and anti abortionists passing pro abortionists protesting by the Westminster roadside. It was noisy but non violent. It’s bound to happen again, and additionally I wonder what will happen if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is passed as currently written. The new contract and the bill both have very controversial parts.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by sb photos

[MDM]

 

2 hours ago, sb photos said:

I have the same, images of pro abortion protestors in the UK’s Parliament Square, anti abortionists marching from a hall nearby, and anti abortionists passing pro abortionists protesting by the Westminster roadside. It was noisy but non violent. It’s bound to happen again, and additionally I wonder what will happen if the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is passed as currently written. The new contract and the bill both have very controversial parts.

 

 

 

Common sense is required in relation to the very modified version of 4.1.6. This is a total non-issue as far as I am concerned. It is not about people being offended about what others protest about or what happens during protests or other events where you are reporting news or factual material. I think abortion would only ever be a problem if you photographed an actual abortion or an aborted foetus or if you impinged on the privacy of a woman entering an abortion clinic where definite ethical issues would arise even if it was not illegal. As long as you are not giving subjective opinions in captions and actually offending people, I cannot see how this clause could possibly apply to this situation.

 

However, I do wonder about very explicit nudity (the fashion model picture link posted a few pages back) but again if it is posted as news is that a problem? And what about when it is no longer news but stays for sale as editorial only? Does motive of the photographer come into account? For example, If you set up a couple to have sex in public is that different from just happening to photograph a couple having sex in public? What about glamour or soft porn? There used to be a question about glamour and nudity I think when uploading but it disappeared at some point. Some clarity in relation to these types of pictures would be good.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by MDM

[John Mitchell]

6 hours ago, BobD said:

Clause 5 was my main concern, that has now been resolved to my satisfaction. I am prepared to take liability for my own actions if I lie or misrepresent something.

I will be removing a few images that could be a problem ( isolated statues, i.e out of context with their surroundings).

 

As I don't believe I have anything indecent, offensive or profane, the new contract doesn't affect me. 

 

When you say "statues", do you mean conventional ones -- e.g. of kings, queens, explorers, and the like -- or sculptures of the artistic variety? I doubt if most ordinary statues in public places like parks would be considered "property." No?

[BobD]

12 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

When you say "statues", do you mean conventional ones -- e.g. of kings, queens, explorers, and the like -- or sculptures of the artistic variety? I doubt if most ordinary statues in public places like parks would be considered "property." No?

Probably more sculptures than statues, but both, in public places. Subjects that the original creator could still be alive.

But statues could still be a problem if they were created in recent times. I'm no expert but I would think that the creator, regardless how they were commissioned, would still hold the copyright

[meanderingemu]

46 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

Common sense is required in relation to the very modified version of 4.1.6. This is a total non-issue as far as I am concerned. It is not about people being offended about what others protest about or what happens during protests or other events where you are reporting news or factual material. I think abortion would only ever be a problem if you photographed an actual abortion or an aborted foetus or if you impinged on the privacy of a woman entering an abortion clinic where definite ethical issues would arise even if it was not illegal. As long as you are not giving subjective opinions in captions and actually offending people, I cannot see how this clause could possibly apply to this situation.

 

However, I do wonder about very explicit nudity (the fashion model picture link posted a few pages back) but again if it is posted as news is that a problem? And what about when it is no longer news but stays for sale as editorial only? Does motive of the photographer come into account? For example, If you set up a couple to have sex in public is that different from just happening to photograph a couple having sex in public? What about glamour or soft porn? There used to be a question about glamour and nudity I think when uploading but it disappeared at some point. Some clarity in relation to these types of pictures would be good.

 

 

i would generally agree with you, but again would appreciate the statement from Alamy Legal as to why THEY feel this clause is necessary and What are the actual concerns, least they could do for a partner

[Cryptoprocta]

34 minutes ago, BobD said:

Probably more sculptures than statues, but both, in public places. Subjects that the original creator could still be alive.

But statues could still be a problem if they were created in recent times. I'm no expert but I would think that the creator, regardless how they were commissioned, would still hold the copyright

This is another of these questions which has different answers across countries.

In the UK:

"Artists who create sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent public display or in premises which are open to the public will find that their work may be reproduced without their permission in certain formats without infringing their copyright.
This exception is outlined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is important to stress that this exception does not extend to all forms of public art. Art forms such as original paintings (eg murals), drawings, engravings or photographs which are exhibited in public places or in premises open to the public are not included in this provision.

 

The type of reproductions included in this exception:

The Act specifies that copyright in works subject to this exception is not infringed by:

• making a graphic work representing it (eg a drawing or painting);
• making a photograph or film of it;
• broadcasting or including a visual image of it in a cable programme service (eg any appearance of the work in a television programme).
• Provided that the above reproductions have been made in the following permitted circumstances, there will be no infringement of copyright if copies are then issued to the public, broadcast or included in any cable programme service."

https://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/sculpture-and-works-of-artistic-craftsmanship-on-p

[meanderingemu]

8 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

This is another of these questions which has different answers across countries.

In the UK:

"Artists who create sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent public display or in premises which are open to the public will find that their work may be reproduced without their permission in certain formats without infringing their copyright.
This exception is outlined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is important to stress that this exception does not extend to all forms of public art. Art forms such as original paintings (eg murals), drawings, engravings or photographs which are exhibited in public places or in premises open to the public are not included in this provision.

 

https://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/sculpture-and-works-of-artistic-craftsmanship-on-p

 

 

Interesting.  Do i read highlighted correct that being open to public any art that qualifies is fair, regardless how long the art was there?

[Cryptoprocta]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Interesting.  Do i read highlighted correct that being open to public any art that qualifies is fair, regardless how long the art was there?

That's how I've always read it. I says "Artists may find", so referring to artists who are still alive.

However, I mark such as 'needs release, no release', and now as 'editorial only' anyway, belt and braces.

[BobD]

22 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

That's how I've always read it. I says "Artists may find", so referring to artists who are still alive.

However, I mark such as 'needs release, no release', and now as 'editorial only' anyway, belt and braces.

Yes my images of statues or sculptures are marked as you say, I am only delating the images I have isolated, just in case.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

Probably more sculptures than statues, but both, in public places. Subjects that the original creator could still be alive.

But statues could still be a problem if they were created in recent times. I'm no expert but I would think that the creator, regardless how they were commissioned, would still hold the copyright

 

With statues, I generally indicate "property" and no releases, but I haven't been checking the editorial only box. At some point all this starts to seem ridiculous, but you have a point about recent statues. They probably should be editorial only. Back to the drawing board...🙄

Edited June 10, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Bill Kuta]

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

 At some point all this starts to seem ridiculous, .......

Yep, since 2004, been through too many Alamy-induced trawlings through all my images for one thing or another. I'm done.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Bill Kuta said:

Yep, since 2004, been through too many Alamy-induced trawlings through all my images for one thing or another. I'm done.

 

Yes, why I am getting the feeling that I'm doing someone else's work for them.

[Cryptoprocta]

.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[gvallee]

2 hours ago, Sally R said:

I think the changes to the contract clauses are an improvement. For example, the removal of (ii) and (iii) from clause 5.1 definitely makes that clause seem less concerning.

 

However, I have still decided to terminate my account at the end of the current contract. I have been exclusive with Alamy but there is no longer an incentive to do that, but I do not wish to upload to multiple other sites to compete with myself. The new contract boxes me into a corner I don't want to be in. While 50% to 40% commission may not seem huge, with generally falling licence fees it just doesn't seem appealing to keep uploading. I want to redirect my time and energy elsewhere.

 

I actually feel relieved to move on and find new paths with photography and what I want to do with it. I will miss this forum and very much appreciate the advice and support I've received and the sense of community it has provided. I wish everyone the best in whatever their future photographic endeavours are.

 

Oh Sally, I will miss you!! I understand though. I wish you all the best in your future projects, photographic or otherwise.