Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

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

I would like to say something constructive, but......

 

almost 20 years invested in Alamy and ?  Not the first time I've seen this happen.....

 

Chuck

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"You're happy when I'm on my knees

One day it's fine the next it's black

So if you want me off your back

Well come on and let me know

Should I stay or should I go?

If I go there will be trouble 

And if I stay it will be double

So come on and let me know

Should I stay or should I go?"

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sally R said:

 

I've had this song going round my head over the last couple of weeks Ian! All the best with your photography and the work you are doing with slides, your own website etc.

 

 

All the best to you too Sally. Good luck with whatever comes next.

 

I've just signed up to the same site where Alamy sell some of their 'Stockimo' images, where you can get 100% of the sales (as a subscriber), and set your own prices - maybe I will follow Alamy's example. At least it is something else to do.

 

I don't like the feeling it would give  me uploading to Alamy any more. Might reconsider - who knows in this crazy job.

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not worry too much about liabilities. We can easily make it clear in the desciption of each image that a buyer should only buy a license if he has or or can aquire all the rights necessary to publish a photo. A kind of "Buy at your own risk!" disclaimer. I think in some Arab countries you could even be sued for publishing a photo of a woman without a head scarf or a photo of two people kissing. That should and will not be the problem of the photographer.

I sold a lot of photos of privately owned buildings via Alamy, although I never had a property release. Do you really think a property owner would sue the stock photo agency for selling a photo that was taken from a public street? No, they would go after the buyer who used that photo for advertising for example.

If one Alamy photographer will ever be sued for a photo, we will immediately know it, because he would complain about that in this forum.

Also the UK is no longer part of the EU. It would be very hard to sue an EU citizen at a UK court. Of course those of you who live in the UK could be affected, but in Germany I feel very safe.

My main complaint about the new contract are the low commissions. That's why I restricted most of my images except some "best sellers".

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 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.

 

All the best Sally, much the same reasoning for me. My termination notice has been accepted by Alamy and I will be gone by the end of the current contract.

 

I too have that sense of liberation but am disappointed to be losing the community of the forums here. My first task is to get my blog running properly again, my PhD work has suggested a new route for my photography.

 

All the best everyone, whatever your plans.

 

Goodbye, and thank you. It was good while it lasted. (see below!)

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

In line with the information in below post, which Alamy immediately locked to stop discussion, it is interesting that Alamy will send an e-mail to clients for all images that have been licensed and gets removed.  I am now worried on the impact of many clients receiving amounts of such notification on July 1.  I know if I was a client I would then start to worry about any future licensing that i was going to take for potential renewable licence and insist in perpetuity rights and start to look to more stable platform.  Again i am baffled with Alamy's move.   

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

In line with the information in below post, which Alamy immediately locked to stop discussion, it is interesting that Alamy will send an e-mail to clients for all images that have been licensed and gets removed.  I am now worried on the impact of many clients receiving amounts of such notification on July 1.  I know if I was a client I would then start to worry about any future licensing that i was going to take for potential renewable licence and insist in perpetuity rights and start to look to more stable platform.  Again i am baffled with Alamy's move.   

 

 

It would seem that there could be many 1000's of such e mails going out as some contributors leave completely and others delete selected images...

 

Would be interesting to know how this affects images which are left on the site but have added restrictions? What happens if a client wishes to extend licensing and/or re-use a particular image only to find it is no longer available for the required use?

 

How many times can you shoot yourself in the foot before there are no feet left to shoot🤔

 

Phil

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

It would seem that there could be many 1000's of such e mails going out as some contributors leave completely and others delete selected images...

 

Would be interesting to know how this affects images which are left on the site but have added restrictions? What happens if a client wishes to extend licensing and/or re-use a particular image only to find it is no longer available for the required use?

 

How many times can you shoot yourself in the foot before there are no feet left to shoot🤔

 

Phil

 

Twice with a weapon I guess (never done that) unless you are a terrible shot, a lot more with a camera but it would get very boring. 

 

 

The answer to your main question lies in the following clauses I think. The interpretation once again hinges on the meaning of reasonable opinion. It seems to say that they can relicense as long as the new licence is very similar to the original and it remains if effect even after termination of the contract. The restrictions applied are those at the time of the original licence.

 

3. Effects of Deletion

 

3.1.3 Content that is being re-used in accordance with clause 6.5.

 

6.5 When re-licensing Content that has been previously licensed to a Customer, if, in Alamy's reasonable opinion, the context within which the Content is to be used is the same or very similar to that of the previous use (for example, extensions of print runs, foreign language versions, new editions and reproduction in new or different forms of media), Alamy is permitted to grant a re-use licence on the terms and conditions, restrictions and availability in place at the time of the original licence. This clause will remain in full force and effect even after termination of this Contract or deletion of the Content. As an example, Alamy is not entitled to grant licences for a book called 'Countries of the world' if the previous use was a book called 'The world Encyclopaedia' with different content or to grant licences for a magazine or advert if the previous use was for a book.

 

 

Note that this is not new. It was there in the 2019 contract referring to Clause 6.4.1 and presumably long before that.

 

 

 

 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I put it in my termination email weeks ago, I feel that current management is taking Alamy in a direction that is not beneficial to me.

 

For me, that encompasses creeping liability, eroding commission rates, eroding licensing fees, ballooning licensing rights, and PA's possible conflict of interest. Just all too much altogether.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

As I put it in my termination email weeks ago, I feel that current management is taking Alamy in a direction that is not beneficial to me.

 

For me, that encompasses creeping liability, eroding commission rates, eroding licensing fees, ballooning licensing rights, and PA's possible conflict of interest. Just all too much altogether.

 

So does this mean you are leaving or retracting the termination? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 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.

It seems the Carnival is over . I will miss you . Good luck and stay safe.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Twice with a weapon I guess (never done that) unless you are a terrible shot, a lot more with a camera but it would get very boring. 

 

 

The answer to your main question lies in the following clauses I think. The interpretation once again hinges on the meaning of reasonable opinion. It seems to say that they can relicense as long as the new licence is very similar to the original and it remains if effect even after termination of the contract. The restrictions applied are those at the time of the original licence.

 

3. Effects of Deletion

 

3.1.3 Content that is being re-used in accordance with clause 6.5.

 

6.5 When re-licensing Content that has been previously licensed to a Customer, if, in Alamy's reasonable opinion, the context within which the Content is to be used is the same or very similar to that of the previous use (for example, extensions of print runs, foreign language versions, new editions and reproduction in new or different forms of media), Alamy is permitted to grant a re-use licence on the terms and conditions, restrictions and availability in place at the time of the original licence. This clause will remain in full force and effect even after termination of this Contract or deletion of the Content. As an example, Alamy is not entitled to grant licences for a book called 'Countries of the world' if the previous use was a book called 'The world Encyclopaedia' with different content or to grant licences for a magazine or advert if the previous use was for a book.

 

 

Note that this is not new. It was there in the 2019 contract referring to Clause 6.4.1 and presumably long before that.

 

 

 

 

Cheers MDM... I'd forgotten about that bit... Seem to recall that after the last debacle with commission/contract changes some people who deleted their account did report in A.N.Other place that they'd had re-licenses but that it could only happen for 2 years after deletion.

Phil

  • Like 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.