Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[imageplotter]

23 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

Perhaps you can keep your red arrows for something more serious? I gave you one.

I've not given you any red arrows. An am generally not too bothered about these gimmicky tools (which attempt to polarise opinion) and tend to use mostly just likes/positive arrows if any at all. 

 

Anyway. Back to the alamy contract, which is sadly not a gimmick.

[BobD]

After 108 pages it boils down to either you accept the new contract and terms or you don't.

I can only give my opinion. 

If I was going to be on the silver tier I would most certainly reject it, If you are selling $250 a year you would be netting 10 pence (13c) per day, You would probably be spending more on electricity posting on the forum.

As I am in gold, as I am sure most people are, I will accept it but any more detrimental change and I will be gone.

 

But unless you are a platinum supplier and regardless of whether you intend to submit elsewhere, I would not leave any images exclusive on Alamy. I have now changed all my exclusive to non exclusive.

 

I admire the very proficient contributors here that have decided to go, in my opinion Alamy is the loser, and I wish all those that have taken that stance all good luck in their future endeavours.

[BidC]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

And then disappointed when they discover they need over 1,000 images to generate 1 sale/month and, when the first sale it comes, it's only for $6.

 

Mark

 

I've been having sales since I had only 60 images. This month (so far), I've had three. People on here said I'd never recover from a 0.18 CTR. Its now around 0.48. They said black and white would never sell. I've sold B+W. They said grey skies and an image that was not all sun and blue skies would never sell. I've sold a few. I have only had a couple of sales under $6. Why turn one's nose up at a cup of coffee. I dont spend an enormous amount of time editing, as I believe those pictures are not worth submitting. I also do Live News from time to time, and have also sold; and yes, I find it has been worth it (both in terms of money and the people I meet).

 

Continuing or not is up to the individual, but the Alamy arm of PA is a business and the changes are their decision. Any photographer publishing in the public realm (which includes submitting to a public portfolio) should have insurance. As do the editors who may choose our images to support a story. The rate is another matter, but again the choice to stay or go is individual.  What other 'hobby' (if that is what it is to you) pays you to contribute and gives you a meeting place where you can freely chat to your friends (free of charge). Those who have a business will make a decision based on that business and its future.

 

I think there's been a lot of grumbling, negativity, and many doom and gloom scenarios painted here; along with snide comments, and perhaps some over reaction, which helps no one really (imo). I've very much appreciated the one or individuals who have been sensible and *kind*. Life shakes us up, and we adapt - things will never be as they were in the 'good old days' - but (and apologies Chris/Imageplotter here for the digression), but as an example good things happen - we no longer have polio or people unable to pay for health care.

 

Finally, I hope you all find where the compass takes you, and settle where you are happy. .... 

 

I won't log-in to reply, so please discuss as you wish ! God Bless.

 

 

 

 

[Kathy deWitt]

Someone please remind me...is there a danger to keeping images exclusive if you do not intend to place them elsewhere?

Thank you!

Kathy

[BidC]

31 minutes ago, imageplotter said:

I've not given you any red arrows. An am generally not too bothered about these gimmicky tools (which attempt to polarise opinion) and tend to use mostly just likes/positive arrows if any at all. 

 

Anyway. Back to the alamy contract, which is sadly not a gimmick.

 Dear Chris - there have been 108 pages of discussion on the new contract (or clauses of concern). Why not grab a cup of coffee, and take the laptop out into the sun to read ... (We had the Red Arrows here today - what a great sight !).

[gvallee]

13 minutes ago, BidC said:

 Dear Chris - there have been 108 pages of discussion on the new contract (or clauses of concern). Why not grab a cup of coffee, and take the laptop out into the sun to read ... (We had the Red Arrows here today - what a great sight !).

 

3 red arrows to each of us who mentioned jabs before her post, a brand new red arrow seconds after her reply to me. Yeah right. Sometimes I wonder why I love the Australian Bush.

 

[MDM]

1 minute ago, gvallee said:

 

3 red arrows to each of us who mentioned jabs before her post, a brand new red arrow seconds after her reply to me. Yeah right. Sometimes I wonder why I love the Australian Bush.

 

 

I believe her. Why would she bother saying she didn't give them if she did? She is certainly not afraid to say what she thinks. There are plenty of others who love to sling the red arrows for any diversion from the subject of this thread despite the fact that it has been completely flogged to death by now. 

[MDM]

22 minutes ago, Kathy deWitt said:

Someone please remind me...is there a danger to keeping images exclusive if you do not intend to place them elsewhere?

Thank you!

Kathy

 

The main objection has been from people who are licensing images themselves and do not want the Alamy infringements team contacting their clients without asking first if they have licensed the images themselves. That seems fair to me and a simple solution could be a tick box in the database saying yes or no. If yes then Alamy should contact the contributor first. If that is not a concern, then there is no problem although there is no longer any apparent financial advantage in having images marked exclusive.

[gvallee]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I believe her. Why would she bother saying she didn't give them if she did? She is certainly not afraid to say what she thinks. There are plenty of others who love to sling the red arrows for any diversion from the subject of this thread despite the fact that it has been completely flogged to death by now. 

 

I can see no point in discussing this further. Over and out. 

[MDM]

 

16 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

I can see no point in discussing this further. Over and out. 

 

Me too. I wish I could give myself a red arrow. I really deserve it. 🤣🤣 🤣🤣 🤣🤣 🤣

 

[Kathy deWitt]

21 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

The main objection has been from people who are licensing images themselves and do not want the Alamy infringements team contacting their clients without asking first if they have licensed the images themselves. That seems fair to me and a simple solution could be a tick box in the database saying yes or no. If yes then Alamy should contact the contributor first. If that is not a concern, then there is no problem although there is no longer any apparent financial advantage in having images marked exclusive.

Many thanks for your reply MDM.  I have been reading all along and appreciate all of the work gone in to this subject but thought I may have missed something.

Kathy

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Kathy deWitt

[geogphotos]

51 minutes ago, Kathy deWitt said:

Someone please remind me...is there a danger to keeping images exclusive if you do not intend to place them elsewhere?

Thank you!

Kathy

 

For me the main problem is that I would lose my ability to chase copyright infringements. The Alamy system seems to lack transpareny and any fees will be split more ways. I would prefer to use a system such as Pixsy.

Edited June 14, 2021 by geogphotos

[wilkopix]

2 hours ago, Kathy deWitt said:

Someone please remind me...is there a danger to keeping images exclusive if you do not intend to place them elsewhere?

Thank you!

Kathy

There is now no reason to stay exclusive. Lots of good reasons to go non exclusive.

1. You can put your images with as many outlets as you want to help make up the 20% loss that Alamy are now taking from you.

2. If you sell direct it stops Alamy contacting your client before informing you.

[sb photos]

11 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

There is now no reason to stay exclusive. Lots of good reasons to go non exclusive.

1. You can put your images with as many outlets as you want to help make up the 20% loss that Alamy are now taking from you.

2. If you sell direct it stops Alamy contacting your client before informing you.

I agree with both points. I’m only exclusive until just before the new contract is introduced. All we have to be careful of is that we don’t place our images elsewhere where they might license for lower fees, then we would be competing with our Alamy port.

[Cal]

Pardon me if I'm being dim (I probably am) but I still don't really see how the amendments to the contract changes the situation for us contributors.

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

I struggle with legalese but the above just sounds to me like a huge trap. My best selling photo by far is one of Piers Corbyn at a protest. It is marked editorial due to its nature and that it was a live news upload. At the time I felt that this was enough to cover all bases. The above now makes me feel unsure. If Piers (or anyone in the image for that matter) was to take issue with it existing on Alamy, the above section of the contract makes it sound like any complaint and possible intent to sue for damages lodged with Alamy would be directly passed on to me. How is press photography even viable then? I feel like I will now have to remove this set (and frankly anything else with people, IP or trademarks in it) for fear of being sued even although I have made the disclaimer it is editorial and/or contains unreleased property etc. Am I barking up the wrong tree or do others feel this new contract basically screws editorial contributors to Alamy?

[geogphotos]

10 minutes ago, Cal said:

Pardon me if I'm being dim (I probably am) but I still don't really see how the amendments to the contract changes the situation for us contributors.

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

I struggle with legalese but the above just sounds to me like a huge trap. My best selling photo by far is one of Piers Corbyn at a protest. It is marked editorial due to its nature and that it was a live news upload. At the time I felt that this was enough to cover all bases. The above now makes me feel unsure. If Piers (or anyone in the image for that matter) was to take issue with it existing on Alamy, the above section of the contract makes it sound like any complaint and possible intent to sue for damages lodged with Alamy would be directly passed on to me. How is press photography even viable then? I feel like I will now have to remove this set (and frankly anything else with people, IP or trademarks in it) for fear of being sued even although I have made the disclaimer it is editorial and/or contains unreleased property etc. Am I barking up the wrong tree or do others feel this new contract basically screws editorial contributors to Alamy?

 

 

i) On what grounds could Corybn or anybody else claim that you have  infringed their copyright 

 

ii) And if you have given Alamy the correct information what risk is there?

 

[spacecadet]

17 minutes ago, Cal said:

Pardon me if I'm being dim (I probably am) but I still don't really see how the amendments to the contract changes the situation for us contributors.

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

I struggle with legalese but the above just sounds to me like a huge trap. My best selling photo by far is one of Piers Corbyn at a protest. It is marked editorial due to its nature and that it was a live news upload. At the time I felt that this was enough to cover all bases. The above now makes me feel unsure. If Piers (or anyone in the image for that matter) was to take issue with it existing on Alamy, the above section of the contract makes it sound like any complaint and possible intent to sue for damages lodged with Alamy would be directly passed on to me. How is press photography even viable then? I feel like I will now have to remove this set (and frankly anything else with people, IP or trademarks in it) for fear of being sued even although I have made the disclaimer it is editorial and/or contains unreleased property etc. Am I barking up the wrong tree or do others feel this new contract basically screws editorial contributors to Alamy?

I think not because it only refers to claims for copyright infringment. There's no copyright in Piers Corbyn's face. There may be personality rights (though not in the UK), or design right in his Savile Row suit, but no copyright.

Edit: What Geog said.

You warrant that you own the copyright anyway- re clause 2.

Edited June 14, 2021 by spacecadet

[BobD]

11 minutes ago, Cal said:

Pardon me if I'm being dim (I probably am) but I still don't really see how the amendments to the contract changes the situation for us contributors.

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

I struggle with legalese but the above just sounds to me like a huge trap. My best selling photo by far is one of Piers Corbyn at a protest. It is marked editorial due to its nature and that it was a live news upload. At the time I felt that this was enough to cover all bases. The above now makes me feel unsure. If Piers (or anyone in the image for that matter) was to take issue with it existing on Alamy, the above section of the contract makes it sound like any complaint and possible intent to sue for damages lodged with Alamy would be directly passed on to me. How is press photography even viable then? I feel like I will now have to remove this set (and frankly anything else with people, IP or trademarks in it) for fear of being sued even although I have made the disclaimer it is editorial and/or contains unreleased property etc. Am I barking up the wrong tree or do others feel this new contract basically screws editorial contributors to Alamy?

 

If you don't infringe someone else's copyright or misrepresent the content, i.e say you have a release when you haven't then there should be nothing to worry about. Piers, or anyone else have no right to privacy in public under UK law, so unless you misrepresent what was occurring when you took the image you have nothing to worry about. 

[MizBrown]

4 hours ago, BidC said:

or people unable to pay for health care.

 

Depends on your country.  The UK has a spectacularly good system if they'd only fund it fully.  In the US, freelancers have neglected going to doctors because of costs and some have died (in the US, insurance is tied to work, and not at all equally good).

[MizBrown]

8 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

As mentioned in another post, I suspect most submissions will be from other agencies, not individual Alamy contributors. I often wonder how much some photographers earn based upon supplying an agency, then the images go through one or two more agencies before being marketed by Alamy. I've noticed a growth in names of photographers supplying live news by this route. It can't be worth the time and effort for the photographers. I considered it some time back, it wasn't worth it, and even more so now. Personally, I'm now more selective what I shoot, often fitting in with either my own interests or a day out for other reasons.

 

A lot of Alamy Blog's samples are from agencies and a fair chunk of its example photos are also model released.  If I remember correctly, agencies can set minimum prices in the new contract, but individual photographers can't.  

[Cal]

8 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I think not because it only refers to claims for copyright infringment. There's no copyright in Piers Corbyn's face. There may be personality rights (though not in the UK), or design right in his Savile Row suit, but no copyright.

Edit: What Geog said.

You warrant that you own the copyright anyway- re clause 2.

 

Understood. I've obviously jumped to some unnecessary conclusions then. My portfolio is marked up correctly but I remember some talk earlier on in the thread about possible ramifications arising from misuse of images (by the client) that were marked as editorial and this blame then being placed on the contributor. I have read back many pages but I can't find a clear answer as to whether this was debunked as a storm in a teacup or a valid concern?

[MDM]

The fact that someone might  find conspiracy theories about Covid, vaccines and the pandemic incredibly offensive and downright dangerous (yes numerous people have become seriously ill and many have actually died as a consequence of believing these notions) does not mean it is illegal for you or anyone lose to photograph the proponents of these so-called theories and to make these photos available for licensing for editorial usage. England is still a free country and it is still legal for people to spread whatever conspiracy theory takes their fancy as long as it does not break other laws. However, if one was to phrase the captions differently in a way that was offensive to the subjects, it might be a different story. 

[meanderingemu]

5 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

Understood. I've obviously jumped to some unnecessary conclusions then. My portfolio is marked up correctly but I remember some talk earlier on in the thread about possible ramifications arising from misuse of images (by the client) that were marked as editorial and this blame then being placed on the contributor. I have read back many pages but I can't find a clear answer as to whether this was debunked as a storm in a teacup or a valid concern?

 

 

valid concern of misuse, yes it is and it always was.  Nothing has changed with this new contract.  I think people are just finally realising we do have some exposure, though likely highly minimal in most of our cases.  Now it is up to each and everyone to figure their risk tolerance- and this would vary based on location and type of photo you produce.  

[MizBrown]

5 hours ago, Kathy deWitt said:

Someone please remind me...is there a danger to keeping images exclusive if you do not intend to place them elsewhere?

Thank you!

Kathy

 

As long as you haven't sold them directly to clients, there's no danger.  The problem was for people who had only placed photos at Alamy and no other agencies but had made direct client sales, as was allowed by Alamy's definition of exclusive (not on any other stock agency).   Now, photographers whose photos were exclusive in terms of only being with one stock agency but who had made direct client sales would not be contacted before their clients were asked if they had a legitimate contract for the work.  No direct clients or sales from one's own website, no problem. 

[Kathy deWitt]

5 hours ago, Kathy deWitt said:

Someone please remind me...is there a danger to keeping images exclusive if you do not intend to place them elsewhere?

Thank you!

Kathy

Ian, Rob, Steve, Miz Brown thankyou...helpful replies. Got it now.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Kathy deWitt