Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[NYCat]

5 minutes ago, MDM said:

All very well Edo but it is also wise to avoid places where one might walk or run into trouble. Did you know that photography for monetary gain is not permitted in Chester Zoo - it’s in their contract when you buy a ticket. Just sayin. 

 

I guess it's a good thing Edo saw no animals. No reason to delete loved images. I am going to delete all zoo and museum images and have been deleting from Stockimo too.

 

Paulette

[MDM]

9 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Hopefully James you can see what a positive effect some clarifying answers from Alamy have on the discussion here. It would also seem to be a more efficient way to answer some of the concerns raised rather than relying on lots of individual emails going back and forth and allow misunderstandings to be corrected swiftly before they spread. The lack of answers in the forum may have caused some contributors to leave and others to place restrictions on images that Alamy would rather they didn't

Mark

This is definitely true. There is a palpable sense of relief from some people who have been asking the same questions over and over. No matter what I might say to point out that people are misinterpreting the contract and that many of the things that are causing distress and anxiety have always been in the contract, it is far more effective when James comes out and answers concerns directly. That said it is clear that he can’t continue to repeat the same thing over and over. There comes a point where one feels like one is banging head on wall. I have spent 2 or 3 hours today on here. I am going to do something else with my time now. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by MDM

[Ed Rooney]

16 hours ago, MDM said:

All very well Edo but it is also wise to avoid places where one might walk or run into trouble. Did you know that photography for monetary gain is not permitted in Chester Zoo - it’s in their contract when you buy a ticket. Just sayin. 

 

Thanks for the advice, Michael. I've deleted the half dozen zoo image I got in Chester. They were nothing to get excited about. I like the Roman Wall and garden and amphitheatre stuff I got, and I enjoyed my time at the zoo and in Chester. I hope the ghost of the Roman Legion does not decide to march on me with their shields and short swords in their snappy formation. 

 

I don't cover wars or riots anymore -- that's for the young and foolish, God bless them. 

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Ed Rooney

[ChrisR Photo]

11 minutes ago, Paul J said:

Over the coming days this thread will be locked.

One way to avoid the questions - close the thread, not very professional. 

 

To be fair, Alamy have make it very clear several times, that any questions queries should be directly emailed to them, they will address any concerns forthwith, it couldn't

have been made any clearer really.

[Bill Kuta]

What if some of the emailed Q&A's would be helpful to other contributors? Are we supposed to be posting our correspondence here?

[ChrisR Photo]

1 minute ago, Paul J said:

Discussions here have found problems with the contract, which they addressed in part. We are adults, allowed to discuss things. Closing the thread and discussions before the new contact is in force is poor. 
 

 

 

Of which have been discussed over and over, Alamy have come back and addressed the concerns quite clearly over the last few pages or so, If you are still unsure about anything else in the contract, then email them directly, that's all they are saying. 

[spacecadet]

11 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

What if some of the emailed Q&A's would be helpful to other contributors? Are we supposed to be posting our correspondence here?

I don't see why not, unless it's the sort of thing that should stay confidential. But then you wouldn't be suggesting it.

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

 

 

We understand the strength of feeling regarding the commission structure. We've been clear as to why that decision has been made via the statement Emily put out on the 17th of May regarding this. Our commission structure as outlined in the new contract will remain. 

 

 

 

 

 I never doubted that the commission cut would not be re-considered. ( I prefer 'cut' that to 'structure'). 

 

But to say that the reasons have been actually explained I would dispute. There was some vague comment about 'sustainability' wasn't there - always a nice fuzzy soft word.

 

Trouble is that what seems 'sustainable' for Alamy seems much less so to those paying for it. 

 

Especially given the clear statement that no commission cuts were planned as recent as December 2020. We were told that sales are doing well so what has changed?

 

Is this nothing more than a cash grab? 

 

This as far as I am ware has not been answered though a lot of red herrings are being checked around about the wording of the contract.

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by geogphotos

[formerly snappyoncalifornia]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

 

This clause talks about liability on you, if you breach the contract. It is not talking about a breach that is not caused by you because that would not make it a breach.

 

Thank you for your kind response. I have kept a copy for my records.

[meanderingemu]

20 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

 I never doubted that the commission cut would not be re-considered. ( I prefer that to 'structure'). 

 

But to say that the reasons have been actually explained I would dispute. There was some vague comment about 'sustainability' wasn't there - always a nice fuzzy soft word.

 

Trouble is that what seems 'sustainable' for Alamy seems much less so to those paying for it. 

 

Especially given the clear statement that no commission cuts were planned as recent as December 2020. We were told that sales are doing well so what has changed

 

Is this nothing more than a cash grab? 

 

This as far as I am ware has not been answered though a lot of red herrings are being checked around about the wording of the contract.

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.  To me the reasoning explained why current management considered the "Exclusive" portfolio to have been not well developed by the predecessors, not why this lead to a reduction in commission for those who provided the exclusive content.  Also never addressed if "Exclusive" was such a wrong idea, why it is still the foundation of one of 2021 big initiative. 

 

 

 

Note: Typo corrected in quoted text

Edited June 16, 2021 by meanderingemu

[geogphotos]

13 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Exactly.  To me the reasoning explained why current management considered the "Exclusive" portfolio to have been not well developed by the predecessors, not why this lead to a reduction in commission for those who provided the exclusive content.  Also never addressed if "Exclusive" was such a wrong idea, why it is still the foundation of one of 2021 big initiative. 

 

Apologies for my typo in what you quoted. This is what I meant to write:

 

"Especially given the clear statement that no commission cuts were planned as recently as December 2020. We were told that sales are doing well so what has changed?"

Edited June 16, 2021 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

Anyhow, surely we all have more than enough information by now to make up our bloomin' minds! 😀

[Avpics]

21 hours ago, Sally said:

What I am annoyed about are ......unreported licenses either for images I know have already been used or unreported news licenses that ought to have been reported by now that may or may not be reported before the contract change.

I haven't uploaded a great deal of live news of late so I've taken my eye off the ball. After some surfing and checking files I've found ten unreported from December to April. TEN! With barely trying. Laughable, and sad.

Instead of tapping me for another 20%, consider stopping customers walking out the door with the goods!

Edited June 16, 2021 by Avpics

[Jan]

On 15/06/2021 at 21:08, 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?

that means I change from the old model Alamy blue to the new model Alamy silver. The juridical part is a very grey one and when this will be a risky one for the photographer they will leave at once. Is there no obligation for Alamy to tell which images are at risk? 

[MDM]

3 minutes ago, Jan said:

that means I change from the old model Alamy blue to the new model Alamy silver. The juridical part is a very grey one and when this will be a risky one for the photographer they will leave at once. Is there no obligation for Alamy to tell which images are at risk? 

 

Read the posts from other contributors and not just formerly snappyoncalifornia. There are other opinions which are not as concerned as he is about the risk of legal action. You have to make your own judgement on what is legal in Holland, France or wherever else you take pictures. It would be unreasonable to expect Alamy to go through all of your images and make sure your warranties are accurate. That is for you to decide. 

 

However, if you are going to struggle to make $250 a year in sales from almost 12,000 images as you seem to be saying, then perhaps you should be thinking of placing them elsewhere and/or removing any that are concerning you. Is that tiny amount of money really worth the anxiety and worry?

[meanderingemu]

4 hours ago, Tony ALS said:

As I am in Spain I'm subject to Spanish law, which begs the question how do the contract terms affect someone who isn't in the UK and therefore not subject to English law, as are so many contributors. 

 

but in fairness the new contract does not change any of contributors requirement when taking images in Spain, or anywhere.  

  

We are all subject to contract we accept, so yes indirectly we are bound by English contract laws by doing business with Alamy.    The main issue is more on them on how to get a UK judgement enforceable on a non resident if it gets to this, depends on the treaty between your country and the UK. 

[KFisher]

13 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Read the posts from other contributors and not just formerly snappyoncalifornia. There are other opinions which are not as concerned as he is about the risk of legal action. You have to make your own judgement on what is legal in Holland, France or wherever else you take pictures. It would be unreasonable to expect Alamy to go through all of your images and make sure your warranties are accurate. That is for you to decide. 

 

However, if you are going to struggle to make $250 a year in sales from almost 12,000 images as you seem to be saying, then perhaps you should be thinking of placing them elsewhere and/or removing any that are concerning you. Is that tiny amount of money really worth the anxiety and worry?

 

Looking at Jan's port, I'm sure it's making the $250 a year easily.

As far as legalities, both AS and SS have pretty good lists of known image restrictions which I find helpful. I'll try posting the links - not sure if they are allowed - but if you google "stock photo known image restrictions" (without the quotes), you'll find them both in the beginning of the results. 

 

https://helpx.adobe.com/cy_en/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

 

https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions?language=en_US

[MDM]

31 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

Looking at Jan's port, I'm sure it's making the $250 a year easily.

As far as legalities, both AS and SS have pretty good lists of known image restrictions which I find helpful. I'll try posting the links - not sure if they are allowed - but if you google "stock photo known image restrictions" (without the quotes), you'll find them both in the beginning of the results. 

 

 

Good links. I don't know if they are allowed but the info is very interesting so I have bookmarked them.  I've read the Adobe one before come to think of it.

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, KFisher said:

 

Looking at Jan's port, I'm sure it's making the $250 a year easily.

As far as legalities, both AS and SS have pretty good lists of known image restrictions which I find helpful. I'll try posting the links - not sure if they are allowed - but if you google "stock photo known image restrictions" (without the quotes), you'll find them both in the beginning of the results. 

 

https://helpx.adobe.com/cy_en/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

 

https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions?language=en_US

 

 

These are two RF micro stock agencies.

 

They are outlining what they prepared to accept, or believe is acceptable within their own terms of reference.

 

It is the responsibility of the Alamy photographer to be sure that what they upload complies with the Alamy contract.

Edited June 16, 2021 by geogphotos

[meanderingemu]

56 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

Looking at Jan's port, I'm sure it's making the $250 a year easily.

As far as legalities, both AS and SS have pretty good lists of known image restrictions which I find helpful. I'll try posting the links - not sure if they are allowed - but if you google "stock photo known image restrictions" (without the quotes), you'll find them both in the beginning of the results. 

 

https://helpx.adobe.com/cy_en/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

 

https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Known-Image-Restrictions?language=en_US

 

note that some are corporate practices and not linked to laws and regulations.  

[AlbertSnapper]

Yes gotta be careful out there.

Had an email today from Alamy regarding two images of mine showing a war memorial on the promenade in Nice, France.

Alamy were contacted via an intermediary on behalf of the artist who had made the 

memorial.

 

Regarding photography and commercial gain... ...France has strict laws regarding freedom of panorama and showing artworks.

 

grief for peanuts.....that's what we do !

 

[KFisher]

13 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

These are two RF micro stock agencies.

 

They are outlining what they prepared to accept, or believe is acceptable within their own terms of reference.

 

It is the responsibility of the Alamy photographer to be sure that what they upload complies with the Alamy contract.

 

I didn't mean to imply that these two links were the definitive guide of what is and isn't allowed, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imply that. They are however, a helpful guide for photographers as quite a few of the landmarks, events, subject restrictions, etc. relate to laws or regulations governing what can be termed "commercial" and/or "editorial or neither. 

[KFisher]

13 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

Yes gotta be careful out there.

Had an email today from Alamy regarding two images of mine showing a war memorial on the promenade in Nice, France.

Alamy were contacted via an intermediary on behalf of the artist who had made the 

memorial.

 

Regarding photography and commercial gain... ...France has strict laws regarding freedom of panorama and showing artworks.

 

grief for peanuts.....that's what we do !

 

 

Wow! Those images are everywhere and on every stock site. I couldn't find any restrictions mentioned regarding photographing it either. I hope it was just a warning and you're allowed to just remove it as opposed to being sued.

[AlbertSnapper]

For those contributors that do not accept the new contract, I guess there will still be licences/sales coming in for several weeks/months after you have been deleted/cancelled. ....

....if your images are exclusive with Alamy, then I presume that as you haven't accepted the new contract then those remaining sales to come in will be split 50/50 ?

🤔

[AlbertSnapper]

2 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

Wow! Those images are everywhere and on every stock site. I couldn't find any restrictions mentioned regarding photographing it either. I hope it was just a warning and you're allowed to just remove it as opposed to being sued.

I think Alamy (and myself) are playing safe, and have removed them from being used (including for editorial purposes).

 

Alamy's copyright team said the French law is a little unclear when it comes to commercial gain (which I suppose editorial use is).

 

It's a jungle out there.