Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Chuck Nacke]

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

[geogphotos]

 

 

"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 June 11, 2021 by geogphotos

[Ed Rooney]

 

Sally R, we'll miss your voice in this forum.

[geogphotos]

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 June 11, 2021 by geogphotos

[Skyscraperfan]

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".

[Martin P Wilson]

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 June 11, 2021 by Martin P Wilson

[John Morrison]

18 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

It was good while it lasted.

 

Eek! This was the slogan engraved on Jimmy Savile's headstone... before it was broken up and sent to landfill... 😮

[Martin P Wilson]

6 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

 

Eek! This was the slogan engraved on Jimmy Savile's headstone... before it was broken up and sent to landfill... 😮

Oops, not someone I would want to be linked with ... Even before everything came out I had always found him creepy.

[meanderingemu]

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.   

 

 

[Phil Crean]

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

[MDM]

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 June 11, 2021 by MDM

[Bill Kuta]

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.

[MDM]

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? 

[Shergar]

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.

 

[meanderingemu]

if we are at the soundtrack portion of dealing with this.....

 

"I know it's over - still I cling
I don't know where else I can go"

 

 

 

 

[Phil Crean]

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

[MDM]

Why doesn't someone set up a Goodbye thread where all those who are leaving can say their farewells or is the contract talk truly flogged to death and there is nothing more to say after 104 pages? I would do it except I think I am staying. Meanwhile here is my favourite leaving (or not) song.

 

 

[M.Chapman]

This whole episode must be causing damage to Alamy's reputation, both with contributors and now with customers too. Customers who have carefully selected and dowloaded images for their publication only to be told they can no longer use them will not be happy. Some books/magazines may even ready for print. What a disaster....

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

Alamy and me?

 

Continuing to share the house purely for financial reasons but no longer in the same relationship. 

 

Divorce is too expensive.

Edited June 11, 2021 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

25 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

This whole episode must be causing damage to Alamy's reputation, both with contributors and now with customers too. Customers who have carefully selected and dowloaded images for their publication only to be told they can no longer use them will not be happy. Some books/magazines may even ready for print. What a disaster....

 

Mark

 

based on above, even those that had no need for a reuse, will still get an e-mail warning them of the current turmoil.  Thyrsis got one just because they asked for a download of a lost file years ago, this wasn't even a paid licence....  So a bunch of alarm bells will go through of instability. 

[Homy]

Please link the videos to your text so the huge thumbnails don't appear and make this long thread even harder to read and scroll through. It's starting to look like a music video thread. Thanks! (not your fault but the thumbnails get so huge in this forum compared to other places)

 

Edit: Not that I care about the red arrows but in case you misunderstood me I have nothing against you giving tribute to your friends. I'm just speaking from a user friendly point of view for the readers since several videos appeared after each other at once.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Homy

[geogphotos]

 

Contributions welcome.

 

"Just press delete Pete"

 

Apologies to Homy. Not going to try and make a rhyme with Homy apart from Moany. 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Contributions welcome.

 

"Just press delete Pete"

 

Apologies to Homy. Not going to try and make a rhyme with Homy apart from Moany. 

 

 

 

 

Go and Cancel Mel....

 

 

[Shergar]

I think what bothers me is that the contract makes Alamy sound like a playground bully. I don't like bullies . 

[geogphotos]

Get a new Url Pearl