Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by geogphotos
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

🤔

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For James:  Thanks for your earlier clarification of paragraph 5.1 on page 112.  I can understand that replying to the many questions on this forum can be time-consuming.  But it is not right to ask that we submit our questions individually to Contributors in hope of a reply.  Everyone in this forum--and even those who don't regularly participate--has a right to receive good, authoritative clarifications.  Responding on this forum is the most efficient way of informing those who produce the product you sell. Not only should all contributors benefit from such clarifications, but posting them here adds credibility to the response, much more than a single one-to-one exchange of emails.  Now I request another much-needed clarification (preferably elimination) of para 4.1.12, which states "You warrant and represent that there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;".  This is not a simple reference to possible copyright violation, or misrepresentation concerning the existence of a model or property release.  The provision seems designed to protect Alamy from any expense incurred if someone, somewhere should find use of an image to be offensive.  Offense can be caused by a misleading or inaccurate caption placed on an image by an end-user over whom we have no control.  Please explain to us how you expect us to warrant, to guarantee, what you are requiring.  How can we warrant that no one will ever take offense to the use of an image which some end-user has misused in an improper or offensive way?

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ollie said:

For James:  Thanks for your earlier clarification of paragraph 5.1 on page 112.  I can understand that replying to the many questions on this forum can be time-consuming.  But it is not right to ask that we submit our questions individually to Contributors in hope of a reply.  Everyone in this forum--and even those who don't regularly participate--has a right to receive good, authoritative clarifications.  Responding on this forum is the most efficient way of informing those who produce the product you sell. Not only should all contributors benefit from such clarifications, but posting them here adds credibility to the response, much more than a single one-to-one exchange of emails.  Now I request another much-needed clarification (preferably elimination) of para 4.1.12, which states "You warrant and represent that there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;".  This is not a simple reference to possible copyright violation, or misrepresentation concerning the existence of a model or property release.  The provision seems designed to protect Alamy from any expense incurred if someone, somewhere should find use of an image to be offensive.  Offense can be caused by a misleading or inaccurate caption placed on an image by an end-user over whom we have no control.  Please explain to us how you expect us to warrant, to guarantee, what you are requiring.  How can we warrant that no one will ever take offense to the use of an image which some end-user has misused in an improper or offensive way?

I had a similar question which James answered in part as follows "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...." I think his response is an incorrect interpretation of the indemnification clause because it includes the phrase "any and all". Be that as it may, I am satisfied with his answer on the record because it creates sufficient ambiguity that would void the indemnification clause if you take the steps to mark your images correctly and have proper releases. In effect, he has given us a path to "cross indemnification". 

 

Edited by formerly snappyoncalifornia
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In February 2019 I was getting 60% on all direct sales.

 

From July 2021 I will be getting 40% on all direct sales.

 

What is the explanation for this? 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlbertSnapper said:

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

Quite understand if you don't want to elaborate but do you mean this one? If so then I'm just a bit confused at Alamy's request as there are 200+ images on Alamy currently.

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

Now I request another much-needed clarification (preferably elimination) of para 4.1.12, which states "You warrant and represent that there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;". 

Indeed. I feel the only way I could warrant this is if I delete all images featuring recognisabe people or property. Especially given clause 7.1 where Alamy attempts to absolve itself of any responsibility if an image is incorrectly licenced.

 

7.1 Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. 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

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AlbertSnapper said:

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 ?

🤔

That's a question to ask directly. Either way it's fast becoming a moot point as sales continue to fall and I am starting to wonder is there any reason to stay if the trend is towards low returns all the time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, griangraf said:

That's a question to ask directly. Either way it's fast becoming a moot point as sales continue to fall and I am starting to wonder is there any reason to stay if the trend is towards low returns all the time.

 

 

Exactly.

 

If the only way that Alamy is growing its profits is by taking more and more from contributors you really do have to wonder what is supposed to be 'sustainable' about the business. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

Indeed. I feel the only way I could warrant this is if I delete all images featuring recognisabe people or property. Especially given clause 7.1 where Alamy attempts to absolve itself of any responsibility if an image is incorrectly licenced.

 

7.1 Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. 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

 

You warrant and represent that there are not and will not beany claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;". 

 

Quite right Mark the only absolute way to warrant this - is to have nil images for sale

How on earth can a contributor control/manage the behaviour of every other person and organisation on the planet - its laughable

The central essence of any contract when considering risk- is to place risk where it can be best managed

 

Alamy might as well put in the contract- you warrant that the sun will shine every day in July

 

Martin

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Avpics said:

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!


It’s a crazy scheme that allows clients to download images and not declare them, everyone loses.  I was hoping that after the AP takeover this would have been tightened up. I doubt other agencies permit this to happen.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours 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.

 

 

Yes, you can take a photo of a building as there isn't any copyright in that building. The copyright is if you wanted to exactly recreate the building.

 

Buildings are protected by copyright under English law but there is a specific exception under section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which permits you to take a photograph or film of a building without infringing its copyright.

 

I had a calendar company contact me saying that one of the pictures of a historic hall I had provided breached the copyright of the hall according to the owners and they wanted £500 compensation for using the picture.

 

The hall was private property but used to have open days and there weren't any signs saying no photography. I replied to them saying this and also quoting the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and I didn't hear from them again.

 

John.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stokie said:

there isn't any copyright in that building.

This isn't correct. As you say later in your post.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit to making an error in stating in various threads that it looked as if I would have to leave PA/Alamy soon as I would not be able to reach the required sales level ($250/annum) when the new contract comes into force. After re-reading Emily Shelley's blog post of 17th May 2021, which is repeated below, I along with others who are struggling to reach the $250 breakpoint to stay in Gold band have 12 months till July 2022 before we are assessed as to whether we stay in Gold or drop to Silver. This gives us a chance to improve our sales by whatever means possible.

 

"Gold: All existing contributors start on Gold or above, on the core 40% commission rate. New contributors start on Gold too. If you sell more than $250 gross in 12 months with us, then you’ll stay on Gold.

 

Platinum: If you sell more than $25,000 gross with Alamy in a 12-month period then you’ll go straight on to the Platinum rate and earn 50% commission for images marked as exclusive to Alamy.

 

Silver: After 1 year selling with us – or from July 2022 for existing contributors – you’ll move to Silver and a 20% commission rate if you’ve sold less than $250 gross on Alamy in the previous 12 months. Hitting $250 gross sales immediately moves you back up to Gold."

 

From Blog post written by Emily Shelley. MD of Alamy. 17.05.21

 

Even though I will be losing 20% of my present income from PA/Alamy it is better than dropping to Silver straight away on start of new contract.

 

Hope this helps others.

 

Allan

 

Go - Stay - Go - Stay -   Hmmm!

 

ITMA

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

I have to admit to making an error in stating in various threads that it looked as if I would have to leave PA/Alamy soon as I would not be able to reach the required sales level ($250/annum) when the new contract comes into force.

 

 

 

I'd be very surprised if your current port were not easily exceeding $250 gross anyway. That would be 5c/image. Mine is nothing to shout about but it's many times that.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

I have to admit to making an error in stating in various threads that it looked as if I would have to leave PA/Alamy soon as I would not be able to reach the required sales level ($250/annum) when the new contract comes into force. After re-reading Emily Shelley's blog post of 17th May 2021, which is repeated below, I along with others who are struggling to reach the $250 breakpoint to stay in Gold band have 12 months till July 2022 before we are assessed as to whether we stay in Gold or drop to Silver. This gives us a chance to improve our sales by whatever means possible.

 

"Gold: All existing contributors start on Gold or above, on the core 40% commission rate. New contributors start on Gold too. If you sell more than $250 gross in 12 months with us, then you’ll stay on Gold.

 

Platinum: If you sell more than $25,000 gross with Alamy in a 12-month period then you’ll go straight on to the Platinum rate and earn 50% commission for images marked as exclusive to Alamy.

 

Silver: After 1 year selling with us – or from July 2022 for existing contributors – you’ll move to Silver and a 20% commission rate if you’ve sold less than $250 gross on Alamy in the previous 12 months. Hitting $250 gross sales immediately moves you back up to Gold."

 

From Blog post written by Emily Shelley. MD of Alamy. 17.05.21

 

Even though I will be losing 20% of my present income from PA/Alamy it is better than dropping to Silver straight away on start of new contract.

 

Hope this helps others.

 

Allan

 

Go - Stay - Go - Stay -   Hmmm!

 

ITMA

 

 

Stay Allan - you know you want to! 😁

 

John.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Indeed. I feel the only way I could warrant this is if I delete all images featuring recognisabe people or property. Especially given clause 7.1 where Alamy attempts to absolve itself of any responsibility if an image is incorrectly licenced.

 

7.1 Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. 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

 

An equally unjust and indefensible requirement by Alamy.  In other words, outrageous.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I'd be very surprised if your current port were not easily exceeding $250 gross anyway. That would be 5c/image. Mine is nothing to shout about but it's many times that.

 

Hi Mark and thanks for your vote of confidence. If only the buyers would learn to like my images too.

I do not know what the problem is but my port has never been a great seller. It was up and coming from 2013 to 2016 then it crashed through 17--18. since then it has made a feeble attempt at recovery but this year so far is dire with five sales to March then nothing since.

 

Allan

 

  • Sad 2
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.