Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

At the moment I'm interpreting James' response to be that it doesn't matter since the default is 'N' anyway, the fact that the default is also 'No release' covers it. On a practical note I don't see how they can retrospectively fix those people and property fields so that they are  'null' unless you enter something because it's impossible to distinguish between those images where '0' people or 'N' for property have been entered intentionally.

 

but in that case i said there Was property, since to me someone owned those things.  So it was weird to have someone from Alamy used the terms "No Single Property".    I guess all it means is client has to come to a rep, to say let me check with contributor, but is this efficient?  Does that mean some clients just don't bother and go elsewhere where they can get a similar image already labelled "ready for commercial use"? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

If Alamy is serious about what James has stated then the contract should replace the indemnification clause with  the following:

 

Cross Indemnification. Each party to this Agreement agrees to indemnify and hold the other party (the “non-breaching party”) harmless against every loss, cost, damage or expense (including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses) incurred by the non-breaching party as a result of any breach by the other party of the terms of this Agreement or of any representation or warranty made by such party; provided the non-breaching party notifies the other party promptly after commencement of any action brought against it for which it may seek indemnity. This provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement.

That wouild be much more equitable. This part of Clause 7.1 would also need adjusting to bring it in line.

 

Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks, I was in the process of editing the question so it wasn't just about me, but you've answered it in the way that I had hoped, and I think you've answered my more general question as well, the rules of whichever country you are resident in would apply rather than the one where you took the picture. i hope so anyway because none of us can be expected to know the law in every different country at any one time.

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. 

 

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

If an image is used in a way that is a breach not caused by me "the non-breaching party" what is my liability.

 

Thank you.

 

 

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.

 

More generally to all - please take this in the right spirit - as a kind of fair warning! - but the purpose of this thread was/is to offer a place where you as a contributor can post your feedback on the contract changes. It can never be a live Q+A or discussion of very detailed legal eventualities. It's just not possible. 

 

We have read each response and have taken feedback on board. I hope the tweaks to some of the specific clauses have shown that we take your feedback seriously. 

 

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. 

 

Over the last pages over recent days there has been a lot of repeating of the same questions and concerns, even when they have been answered, heard, read and addressed either by us or by fellow forum members. 

 

Over the coming days this thread will be locked. The danger of going round in circles on the same issues is that it can cause confusion among those joining the thread late or not picking up on all the replies. This is in line with the general forum rules where threads are locked once they have run their course. 

 

A last reminder that for when you have specific questions for us on any issue regarding the contract, please drop the contributor relations team an email via contributors@alamy.com.

 

With best regards

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for your attention, James.

 

I don't know how the law works in every nation of the world, but I do know that I can't be sued by anyone in New York if they don't serve papers on me. And I know that people/companies in NY will not go to the expense and bother of trying to sue someone in another country. 

 

Do you want to be 100% safe from everything? Well, don't go outside. You might be hit by a car. And don't stay home. Your building might catch on fire. Mine did.

 

Edo

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

James, thank you for your clarification on these issues. I note that when a company is sold, the new owners make the rules even if the old owners remain to run it.

There are many reasons a company might decide to sell. It is not for us to stomp our feet over it. It is a business decision, and we contributors do not have a share in the business as much as some think we do or wish we did. 
Whom of us know the situations behind the scenes before the decision was made, and that we might not make the same decision if in their place.

Yes, Alamy was once different. When ownership changes, there are new sets of rules from people that see us as an asset or not, with no long-standing relationships. Business models are based on profit/loss.
That horse has left the barn, we either deal with it or leave the farm.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

We can chip a little bit off that for the UK and countries with freedom of panorama: yes.

A photograph of a building doesn't infringe on its copyright. CDPA s62.

Same as a photograph. From the moment of creation, for 70 years after the death of the architect. But see above.

 


Thanks for that. The problem in general is knowing where to look for this kind of information and it would be great to have a central authoritative resource so one could go to. There is lots of info out there if one knows where to find it but finding it easily is often the problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alamy said:

More generally to all - please take this in the right spirit - as a kind of fair warning! - but the purpose of this thread was/is to offer a place where you as a contributor can post your feedback on the contract changes. It can never be a live Q+A or discussion of very detailed legal eventualities. It's just not possible. 

 

I'm puzzled by Alamy's approach on this. 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 would 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.

 

27 minutes ago, Alamy said:

A last reminder that for when you have specific questions for us on any issue regarding the contract, please drop the contributor relations team an email via contributors@alamy.com.

 

I did sent an email question to Emily (as invited to do in her blog) on the 10th and am awaiting a reply.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Thanks for your attention, James.

 

I don't know how the law works in every nation of the world, but I do know that I can't be sued by anyone in New York if they don't serve papers on me. And I know that people/companies in NY will not go to the expense and bother of trying to sue someone in another country. 

 

Do you want to be 100% safe from everything? Well, don't go outside. You might be hit by a car. And don't stay home. Your building might catch on fire. Mine did.

 

Edo


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 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MDM
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ed Rooney
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by geogphotos
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by meanderingemu
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • 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.