Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

no problem..  not sure where i didn't give benefit of doubt.  all i mentioned was fact the sale example wasn't really one that fit the conspiracy theory that Alamy is withholding sales.   or are you saying there is a doubt about that and i should give it some benefit?

Ah, well, let’s stop it there. Perhaps Dave didn’t understand how the newspapers work. I really don’t much, either. I think I probably would have expected a license to be reported also, if I’d known the image was in print. Realize not all of us, especially people like me who almost never have a newspaper license, (so we don’t pay attention to those threads) know how they report and pay.  I’ve had a couple of sales to UK newspapers, but never saw the images in print and didn’t know how late they paid. The sale just showed up on my page like all others.
I kind of think tempers are short with all that’s been going on here.

BTW, I only made my first sale of the month yesterday! 😁

Edited by Betty LaRue
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

No conspiracy, just a harbinger

 

I sure hope not. Actually, I was wrong. I overlooked a mid-$$ license in the mix. Still, I'm not used to seeing quite so many small amounts coming in one after another. Better than nothing, of course.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Old story, new confirmation:  Reviewed my insurance coverage today with a major American insurer, which I've been with for several years.  Excluded from coverage is "Personal and advertising injury...(4) For which the insured [that's me] has assumed liability in a contract or agreement."  In other words, if Alamy's contract requires me [as it does] to indemnify them for any legal expenses resulting from some end-user using one of my images in an offensive way, or from Alamy pursuing some suspected infringement which turns out to be legitimate, my insurance won't cover me for the error committed by Alamy, an Alamy distributor, or an end-user.  Makes it hard to sign the Alamy contract.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ollie said:

Old story, new confirmation:  Reviewed my insurance coverage today with a major American insurer, which I've been with for several years.  Excluded from coverage is "Personal and advertising injury...(4) For which the insured [that's me] has assumed liability in a contract or agreement."  In other words, if Alamy's contract requires me [as it does] to indemnify them for any legal expenses resulting from some end-user using one of my images in an offensive way, or from Alamy pursuing some suspected infringement which turns out to be legitimate, my insurance won't cover me for the error committed by Alamy, an Alamy distributor, or an end-user.  Makes it hard to sign the Alamy contract.

 

Thanks for the update. That makes sense form the insurance company's POV. I've not been planning to leave. However, hearing stuff like this certainly does give me second thoughts, especially without some badly needed clarification from Alamy, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming (unless I've missed something).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

No conspiracy, just a harbinger

 

Thought the same thing. Very small sales in June here, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paul J said:

Plus I wonder how many go unreported and missed, due to Alamy's lack of following up of downloads.

Lots go unreported. I regularly do an online search and Copytrack throws up uses. It’s a regular part of my workload to keep track of uses and compare to what is invoiced. And it’s a regular part of my workflow to report unreported uses to Alamy.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Thanks for the update. That makes sense form the insurance company's POV. I've not been planning to leave. However, hearing stuff like this certainly does give me second thoughts, especially without some badly needed clarification from Alamy, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming (unless I've missed something).

 

I don't think you've missed anything, John. Remaining with Alamy increasingly looks like an impossibility for small contributors unless one is going to rely on crossing one's fingers and whistling in the dark. I was greatly struck by what formerlysnaponcalifornia posted when another contributor posted a request for clarity last night:

"Your income is being cut by 20% minimum. If Alamy get sued for any reason by ANYONE because of one of your images you must pay the legal fees. If Alamy loses the case YOU must pay the damages. Got it?"

That seems to put it in a nutshell, and a scary nutshell at that.

I'm still exploring professional indemnity insurance options but am feeling more and more gloomy about being able to continue here. Alamy's silence in the face of reported account terminations is telling. I don't feel at all wanted. 😟

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

If Alamy get sued for any reason by ANYONE because of one of your images you must pay the legal fees. If Alamy loses the case YOU must pay the damages. Got it?

 

if @Alamy could confirm for certain whether this is an accurate "plain English translation" that would be great.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

Your income is being cut by 20% minimum. If Alamy get sued for any reason by ANYONE because of one of your images you must pay the legal fees. If Alamy loses the case YOU must pay the damages. Got it?

 

Uw inkomen wordt met minimaal 20% verlaagd. Als Alamy om welke reden dan ook door IEDEREEN wordt aangeklaagd vanwege een van uw afbeeldingen, moet u de juridische kosten betalen. Als Alamy de zaak verliest, moet JIJ de schadevergoeding betalen. Begrepen?

This is the worrying thing.... And it is the conclusion that many are coming to. If it is the case then it will be impossible to carry on as a contributor.

 

@Alamy We need to know if this is a correct interpretation and if not what is the correct legal interpretation...

Phil

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

This is the worrying thing.... And it is the conclusion that many are coming to. If it is the case then it will be impossible to carry on as a contributor.

 

@Alamy We need to know if this is a correct interpretation and if not what is the correct legal interpretation...

Phil

 

That is not correct.

 

This thread cannot be a continuous Q+A as there will always be times when we can't comment or answer each question posted, and it wouldn't be fair to those who don't get an answer. We continue to ask you to email us if you have any specific question.

 

However, to answer this, the key point of clause 5.1 is the highlighted section in red here:

 

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 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.

 

It means you are liable if you infringe a copyright (e.g by uploading content that is copyright protected or you don't have the rights to) and/or any breach of the contract itself (e.g, incorrectly marking an image as having a model release when it in fact doesn't).

 

This has always been part of the Alamy contract.

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

I don't think you've missed anything, John. Remaining with Alamy increasingly looks like an impossibility for small contributors unless one is going to rely on crossing one's fingers and whistling in the dark. I was greatly struck by what formerlysnaponcalifornia posted when another contributor posted a request for clarity last night:

"Your income is being cut by 20% minimum. If Alamy get sued for any reason by ANYONE because of one of your images you must pay the legal fees. If Alamy loses the case YOU must pay the damages. Got it?"

That seems to put it in a nutshell, and a scary nutshell at that.

I'm still exploring professional indemnity insurance options but am feeling more and more gloomy about being able to continue here. Alamy's silence in the face of reported account terminations is telling. I don't feel at all wanted. 😟

 

Once again for the sake of balance I would like to point out that Clause 5.1, which is the one that seems to be scaring people, has been in the Alamy contract since at least 2010 in a very similar form to the current version. The May 17th version which did appear to be somewhat more draconian in relation to what we contributors are responsible for has been retracted.

 

I have quoted the two relevant  5.1 clauses below and they are very similar. In plain English it is my opinion that they are saying that if Alamy gets sued for anything and you, the contributor, have made warranties (see  Section 4) that turn out to be untrue, then you are indemnifying Alamy (saying that Alamy is not guilty) and agree to pay reasonable legal costs if that happened. So if you say  that you were legally allowed to take pictures and make them available for sale when you were not, then you are in breach and potentially liable.

 

So to summarise, not a lot has changed but it is a wakeup call to make sure one is not in breach of one's warranties. I do think that Alamy are making sure that they are legally watertight because of this drive to chase infringements which may well cause a backlash.

 

 

2010 5.1 You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers’ fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this Contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

June 2020 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 just read James's post after I posted this and it seems to say pretty much the same thing. 

Edited by MDM
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

if @Alamy could confirm for certain whether this is an accurate "plain English translation" that would be great.

confirm what?  even if they say no they won't the contract is still the contract.  remember they said they wouldn't reduce our share 6 months ago. 

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

The big Plain English message in my opinion is to make sure that whatever assertions you make are true. If you are taking pictures in museums, galleries or zoos for example, then read and abide by the terms and conditions. If you are taking pictures of strangers in public in other countries, then familiarise yourself with the laws of that country.

 

Me, I am erring on the side of caution even more than ever before, as the returns I get are just not worth the trouble, but I am not going to run away in panic mode either, having spent so much time building a smallish collection on here (which would have been a lot larger if I had not been so cautious and the returns for me not diminished so much in the last 5 years or so). My approach now and from here on is to delete anything that causes me any concern, even if it is only a very minor concern and to only upload material that causes me no concern whatsoever. I have marked everything as editorial only and contains property for now and am intending to work back in due course and remove any unnecessary restrictions. 

Edited by MDM
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MDM said:

The big Plain English message in my opinion is to make sure that whatever assertions you make are true. If you are taking pictures in museums, galleries or zoos for example, then read and abide by the terms and conditions. If you are taking pictures of strangers in public in other countries, then familiarise yourself with the laws of that country.

 

Me, I am erring on the side of caution even more than ever before, as the returns I get are just not worth the trouble, but I am not going to run away in panic mode either, having spent so much time building a smallish collection on here (which would have been a lot larger if I had not been so cautious and the returns foe me not diminished so much in the last 5 years or so). My approach now and from here on is to delete anything that causes me any concern, even if it is only a very minor concern and to only upload material that causes me no concern whatsoever. I have marked everything as editorial only and contains property for now and am intending to work back in due course and remove any unnecessary restrictions. 

 

Nice to hear a voice of reason....!

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

 

 

 

It means you are liable if you infringe a copyright (e.g by uploading content that is copyright protected or you don't have the rights to) and/or any breach of the contract itself (e.g, incorrectly marking an image as having a model release when it in fact doesn't).

 

This has always been part of the Alamy contract.

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

 

 

This is another example of where the contract is unclear.  You interpret it's stating "Having a release when we didn't have one"....  It could as easily mean "Not stating NOT having one when we didn't".    These are two different interpretations, and since the optional part of AIM is Not contractual this is a fair reading,  If yours is correct why not having written That in the contract instead of the more wide clause you just wrote?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread in the background which has proved to be disturbing and informative at the same time.

Business relationships have to be built on trust and that appears to have gone.

I have also added restrictions to all images and will be non-exclusive once the new contract comes into force.

Something which has been asked already and would help me and I guess plenty of others would be a window of opportunity to delete images which concern us immediately instead of having to wait 6 months.

It's clear to me that some images are a risk and it would seem reasonable with the contract change to allow those continuing with Alamy to review and cull portfolios before the changes come into force.

I will email Alamy regarding this and post any response I get.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MDM said:

The big Plain English message in my opinion is to make sure that whatever assertions you make are true. If you are taking pictures in museums, galleries or zoos for example, then read and abide by the terms and conditions. If you are taking pictures of strangers in public in other countries, then familiarise yourself with the laws of that country.

 

Me, I am erring on the side of caution even more than ever before, as the returns I get are just not worth the trouble, but I am not going to run away in panic mode either, having spent so much time building a smallish collection on here (which would have been a lot larger if I had not been so cautious and the returns foe me not diminished so much in the last 5 years or so). My approach now and from here on is to delete anything that causes me any concern, even if it is only a very minor concern and to only upload material that causes me no concern whatsoever. I have marked everything as editorial only and contains property for now and am intending to work back in due course and remove any unnecessary restrictions. 

 

 

and i agree with this.  But this to me highlights the lost trust most of us have felt.  I have now realised i have 5-7% of my images for some reason i trusted Alamy that AIM was "Optional", and i didn't say there was property, nor that i had a release.  Before i always assumed that was fine, it was Optional, and Alamy was in partnership with us,  I don't feel this way anymore.

add fact this is not even searchable, even the excel download shows them wrong,  it meant again regoing through all files one by one.  They should never have claimed it was Optional. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Nice to hear a voice of reason....!

 

It's OK for you. I live with it all the time. Sometimes I wish it would just shut up. 🤣🤣

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

Final point on this, but it is optional.

 

The liability / contract breach problem arises in this example if you enter false information. If you mark the image as released and it isn't, that's a breach. If you don't answer either way then that is not a breach because the information shown to us is not saying there is a release when their isn't - and this is where a problem would arise

 

If you enter "yes" and a customer plans out a usage that requires that release and it subsequently doesn't exist, you can see how that would be a problem, hence a breach of the contract.

 

Previously you asked "why could this just not be written in the contract like that" - contracts are legal documents written by lawyers. The language has to be so and our contract is not unique in that respect. 

 

Ultimately, if you are uploading material that you have the right to, essentially not breaking any laws in producing/uploading the images, not breaching other clauses in the contract and including accurate information then you have nothing to worry about regarding the liability clauses here that have essentially been there forever.

 

James A

 

thanks James.  My issue is when downloaded in Excel, blanks show as No Property, therefore would never trigger "i don't have a waiver", since it makes it claim i said there was no property.  I think this is something that need to be looked into.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Tony ALS said:

I have been following this thread in the background which has proved to be disturbing and informative at the same time.

Business relationships have to be built on trust and that appears to have gone.

I have also added restrictions to all images and will be non-exclusive once the new contract comes into force.

Something which has been asked already and would help me and I guess plenty of others would be a window of opportunity to delete images which concern us immediately instead of having to wait 6 months.

It's clear to me that some images are a risk and it would seem reasonable with the contract change to allow those continuing with Alamy to review and cull portfolios before the changes come into force.

I will email Alamy regarding this and post any response I get.

 

 

I am also concerned that the images in 6 months waiting cannot be modified.  So i have images in there that i would now put as Editorial Only, No personal Usage which i can't.  I have now changed my deletion process, but this is a worry with the new contract, 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the light of this welcome clarification, and in a similar vein to meanderingemu above, I too would appreciate guidance on whether the defaults that exist in AIM for both models and property leave us covered for RM images or whether, as MDM has done, we need to do more, given that both these criteria are in the 'Optional' tab. 

 

So the defaults are:

Models - 0

Model release - N/A

 

Property - N

Property release - N/A

 

Are we covered by the fact that it clearly states that we have neither model or property releases or for each and every image do we have to agonise over whether there are people or property, how many models etc. when we don't have releases anyway?

 

If so then, like meanderingemu, I feel the defaults need looking into and perhaps these parameters should be moved from the 'Optional' tab in AIM and the fields for Models and Property should be blank until something is selected.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

thanks James.  My issue is when downloaded in Excel, blanks show as No Property, therefore would never trigger "i don't have a waiver", since it makes it claim i said there was no property.  I think this is something that need to be looked into.

 

Ok thanks - we will look at that and try to get the info listed there updated to show "No info" rather than "No" - in any case, you would not be bound to a Yes / No answer if you haven't provided either.

 

I've updated the earlier reply to reflect that.

 

James A

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

In the light of this welcome clarification, and in a similar vein to meanderingemu above, I too would appreciate guidance on whether the defaults that exist in AIM for both models and property leave us covered for RM images or whether, as MDM has done, we need to do more, given that both these criteria are in the 'Optional' tab. 

 

So the defaults are:

Models - 0

Model release - N/A

 

Property - N

Property release - N/A

 

Are we covered by the fact that it clearly states that we have neither model or property releases or for each and every image do we have to agonise over whether there are people or property, how many models etc. when we don't have releases anyway?

 

If so then, like meanderingemu, I feel the defaults need looking into and perhaps these parameters should be moved from the 'Optional' tab in AIM and the fields for Models and Property should be blank until something is selected.

 

 

 

The people / property questions will remain optional. A problem for you would only arise if you say there is a release for either, and there isn't one. If you haven't told us either way then you would not be in breach of contract as a contributor supplying false/incorrect information. 

 

Of course there can still be liability issues for you if you've broken laws by taking / supplying the image or you've breached copyright etc. But for the release information example, the clause is concerned with false information, not lack of information on a field that is optional.

 

And as a final point, again this is not a new part of the contract. It's essentially been there forever in one form or another.

 

James A

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 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.