Jump to content

Recommended Posts

OK!  I have been quiet till now as I have been reading, rereading and reading again the latest contract changes.

 

As far as I can see there has not been a change in meaning between the old/new contract and the new/new contract.

 

Allan

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Ollie for picking up on clause 4.1.12 of the new May 17th contract and retained in the latest version, and others for commenting on it. It does not seem to be present in the 2019 contract.

 

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

 

Is this in fact so untenable that it couldn't be invoked? Why is there at all?

 

I think I'm right in saying that none of us picked up on this before Alamy agreed to address concerns about the May 17th contract expressed in this forum, in which case it slipped though the net. 

 

I think it would be reasonable therefore for Alamy/PA to explain to us why it's there.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I

15 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks to Ollie for picking up on clause 4.1.12 of the new May 17th contract and retained in the latest version, and others for commenting on it. It does not seem to be present in the 2019 contract.

 

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

 

Is this in fact so untenable that it couldn't be invoked? Why is there at all?

 

I think I'm right in saying that none of us picked up on this before Alamy agreed to address concerns about the May 17th contract expressed in this forum, in which case it slipped though the net. 

 

I think it would be reasonable therefore for Alamy/PA to explain to us why it's there.

 

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

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

I am sure Manfred G knows whereof he speaks  but I'll repeat that I have licences of images with identifiable people taken in public in Germany, and come to think of it, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and France as well. Despite what is sometimes said AFAICS none of those countries requires permission for images taken in public.

If marked as unreleased I am not in breach of warranty AFAICS. Since these images license in the countries in which they were taken I blithely assume that the publishers know their trade. If they don't, I have done nothing wrong. I agree that proving it could be bothersome but there we are.

Two AFAICS is probably two too many but hey.

 

I am not going to get into this one as it would require an awful lot of research but I am pretty sure it applies in Spain to pictures taken in public. It is the sort of thing that most people don't think about and nothing ever happens but that does not mean that it couldn't. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

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.

 

 

I also find it troubling that Alamy still Literally says this is OPTIONAL to provide.  In light with the liability they are passing to us, this appears to be a break in trust that they are setting business partners for trouble,  To me this is like a car rental company writing Optional on the seat belt of the car they are leasing, and especially considering fact probably a significant number of contributors do not have English as their first language, and probably make the now apparent wrong assumption Alamy is a partner. 

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes 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 am going to do something I very rarely do bit I am going to agree with Bob here.  The modifications to Clause 5.1 are the most important changes by far.

 

The only other one that would worry me is Clause 7.1 as mentioned by Mark above which absolves Alamy of blame if an image is licensed on terms that break a contributor restriction (e.g. an editorial only image licensed for advertising). But I think that clause might well qualify as unreasonable if they do not take reasonable care - what is the definition of  reasonable I wonder. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

what is the definition of  reasonable I wonder. 

 

That's what lawyers charge big bucks for answering (obfuscating)

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I am going to do something I very rarely do bit I am going to agree with Bob here.  The modifications to Clause 5.1 are the most important changes by far.

 

The only other one that would worry me is Clause 7.1 as mentioned by Mark above which absolves Alamy of blame if an image is licensed on terms that break a contributor restriction (e.g. an editorial only image licensed for advertising). But I think that clause might well qualify as unreasonable if they do not take reasonable care - what is the definition of  reasonable I wonder. 

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 munutely risky images as editorial only (e.g. city scenes), but it has to be.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by MDM
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.    

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by sb photos
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 by MDM
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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.