Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[DDoug]

My gross has been above $250 since my first licenses were sold in 2015. That includes this year, but a couple of licenses were for $3. If that low amount were to become the average, it would take 83 sales to reach $250. I haven't had that many total sales in any year so far, so dropping down to silver looks like it would be quite possible based on declining license fees.

 

Lately my CTR has been fairly good and I wonder what happens if there are sales reported after my contract terminates at the end of this month. If I accept payment, am I by default also accepting the new contract terms, and along with them the increased liabilities?

[geogphotos]

Further to my post above. Alamy having created this mess over exclusives/non-exclusives/faux-exclusives can hardly expect to rely on the goodwill of contributors to sort it out when, yet again, there is only a vague threat of 'stick' and absolutely no hint of any 'carrot'.

 

My 'post above' has been removed by Alamy.

 

A sore point I suppose.

Edited June 18, 2021 by geogphotos

[gvallee]

Alamy just tweeted that there were pictures needed in the 'Animals and Wildlife' category of the images wanted list. I had a cursory look and one caught my attention. A dinosaur. Not just any dinosaur like the statue I legitimately sold (OK under Australian law), but one particular specie. Where else but in a museum could we see it? In fact I had some which I just deleted. I would not upload any image taken in museums anymore under the terms of the new contract. 

 

I just travelled through a town where the major attraction is dinosaur exhibits in the surrounding hills. Very well done and renowned. Guess what? No commercial photography. Some requests are impossible to fulfill. But as far as museums go, I'm done with it, even if it doesn't specify no commercial photography.

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by gvallee

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, NomisH said:

So, the Shutterstock journey will continue and, after that, Getty.

And all my Alamy photos will continue to be marked as exclusive because why would I bother going in & changing them all?

It wasn't me that reneged on our "exclusive" relationship.

Because that could be an expensive mistake. See clause 2.10 in the new contract.

 

2.10 By marking Content as Exclusive, you grant Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. Where pursuing such infringements if it is found that the Content has been licensed through another licensing platform, Alamy has the right to recoup any fees incurred in the pursuit of any action taken.

 

Mark

Edited June 18, 2021 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

8 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Because that could be an expensive mistake.... See clause 2.10 in the new contract.

 

2.10 By marking Content as Exclusive, you grant Alamy the right to chase third party infringements of the Content without Alamy having to consult you. Where pursuing such infringements if it is found that the Content has been licensed through another licensing platform, Alamy has the right to recoup any fees incurred in the pursuit of any action taken.

 

Mark

 

 

I really can't see this playing well for Alamy in the Small Claims Court because it is they who have suddenly changed the contract - and if a contributor walks away in disgust rather than spending weeks changing the status of each and every image who would blame them?

Edited June 18, 2021 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

46 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I really can't see this playing well for Alamy in the Small Claims Court because it is they who have suddenly changed the contract - and if a contributor walks away in disgust rather than spending weeks changing the status of each and every image who would blame them?

Alamy would say - They only had to request deletion of their portfolio if they don't wish to comply with the contract, or simply ask member services to switch all their images to non-exclusive (there's no benefit for a small contributor in being exclusive anyway). So hardly a viable defence.

 

Mark

Edited June 18, 2021 by M.Chapman

[NYCat]

57 minutes ago, gvallee said:

Alamy just tweeted that there were pictures needed in the 'Animals and Wildlife' category of the images wanted list. I had a cursory look and one caught my attention. A dinosaur. Not just any dinosaur like the statue I legitimately sold (OK under Australian law), but one particular specie. Where else but in a museum could we see it? In fact I had some which I just deleted. I would not upload any image taken in museums anymore under the terms of the new contract. 

 

I just travelled through a town where the major attraction is dinosaur exhibits in the surrounding hills. Very well done and renowned. Guess what? No commercial photography. Some requests are impossible to fulfill. But as far as museums go, I'm done with it, even if it doesn't specify no commercial photography.

 

 

I am in the process of making a list of images shot in museums and zoos so Alamy can delete them. I know people ask for these images. Years ago the Wildlife Conservation Society here in NYC (4 zoos) told me it was OK for me to sell my images. Had a nice chat with a woman about how their photographers don't have the time to do it all. Since I know the San Diego Zoo took a turn years ago and are very protective of their images I decided to check here in NY again. So they have changed too. "We charge for commercial photography". I can't blame them for finding every way to make money for the animals but it seems such a shame. I know people search on Alamy for zoo photos. I don't know if there is a better way but this is not great. Sad to say good-bye here to some of my favorite images (including the rhino behind).

 

Paulette

[Phil Crean]

6 minutes ago, NYCat said:

 

I am in the process of making a list of images shot in museums and zoos so Alamy can delete them. I know people ask for these images. Years ago the Wildlife Conservation Society here in NYC (4 zoos) told me it was OK for me to sell my images. Had a nice chat with a woman about how their photographers don't have the time to do it all. Since I know the San Diego Zoo took a turn years ago and are very protective of their images I decided to check here in NY again. So they have changed too. "We charge for commercial photography". I can't blame them for finding every way to make money for the animals but it seems such a shame. I know people search on Alamy for zoo photos. I don't know if there is a better way but this is not great. Sad to say good-bye here to some of my favorite images (including the rhino behind).

 

Paulette

Surely if the images were made before they changed their policy you should be ok??? EXIF data will show date the images were shot.

Phil

[geogphotos]

29 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Alamy would say - They only had to request deletion of their portfolio if they don't wish to comply with the contract, or simply ask member services to switch all their images to non-exclusive (there's no benefit for a small contributor in being exclusive anyway). So hardly a viable defence.

 

Mark

 

 

I gather from the person that posted that they weren't doing anything, just walking off feeling thorougly fed up with Alamy and having some of their images accepted elsewhere.

 

Whether Alamy have the appetite for taking such people through the Courts I doubt.

 

Anyway, an image being exclusive on Alamy doesn't mean that it hasn't previouly been licensed elsewhere so there are going to lots of problems enforcing this rule.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by geogphotos

[gvallee]

13 minutes ago, NYCat said:

 

I am in the process of making a list of images shot in museums and zoos so Alamy can delete them. I know people ask for these images. Years ago the Wildlife Conservation Society here in NYC (4 zoos) told me it was OK for me to sell my images. Had a nice chat with a woman about how their photographers don't have the time to do it all. Since I know the San Diego Zoo took a turn years ago and are very protective of their images I decided to check here in NY again. So they have changed too. "We charge for commercial photography". I can't blame them for finding every way to make money for the animals but it seems such a shame. I know people search on Alamy for zoo photos. I don't know if there is a better way but this is not great. Sad to say good-bye here to some of my favorite images (including the rhino behind).

 

Paulette

 

I'm wondering if the new zoo rule for no commercial photography applies to images taken prior to it. In any case I agree, I would not take the risk. Sad to see your rhino go. Fab behind!

 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by gvallee

[geogphotos]

I chatted to a long-time Alamy photographer last week who had no idea about the contract change. He stopped any active involvement years ago. Quite likely his email has changed, he doesn't actively check sales or his account.  Gave up a while back in frustration at QC.

 

Out of the 70,000 or so Alamy contributors I wonder how many are dormant, non-responsive, unaware, not interested.

 

That is one of the downsides of crowd - sourcing. 

[gardenbush]

I thought I would check my current contract - within my dashboard I can see that my current commission model is 'Alamy Blue' - I then clicked on 'your ciurrent Alamy contributor contract'  - this showed the new contract that does not come into play until 24 July 2021 - this document also states that 'Alamy Blue' was discontinued on the 17th May 2021 - rather confusing methinks...

 

[M.Chapman]

24 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I chatted to a long-time Alamy photographer last week who had no idea about the contract change. He stopped any active involvement years ago. Quite likely his email has changed, he doesn't actively check sales or his account.  Gave up a while back in frustration at QC.

 

Out of the 70,000 or so Alamy contributors I wonder how many are dormant, non-responsive, unaware, not interested.

I was wondering exactly the same thing. Chasing infringements without consulting the contributor is going to be fraught with problems.

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, gardenbush said:

I thought I would check my current contract - within my dashboard I can see that my current commission model is 'Alamy Blue' - I then clicked on 'your ciurrent Alamy contributor contract'  - this showed the new contract that does not come into play until 24 July 2021 - this document also states that 'Alamy Blue' was discontinued on the 17th May 2021 - rather confusing methinks...

 

 

It will stay confusing and confused because Alamy are not in a position to require us all to actively respond to the new contract. They can't insist on a Yes or No by a certain date because there would just be too many non-replies. It is contract change by default, by assumption, by passivity. 

[geogphotos]

8 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I was wondering exactly the same thing. Chasing infringements without consulting the contributor is going to be fraught with problems.

 

Mark

 

 

That's what I was driving at. Many, perhaps the majority, even overwhelming majority, of Alamy contributors are no longer engaged with Alamy. I'm not sure that contract conditions can be imposed on them without their actual agreement or knowledge just by sending out an email and a few online announcements and blog posts. 

 

A few years ago and a singificant contract change elsewhere - you had to send in acceptance by a certain date or your contract was terminated and images could rbe emoved. If you didn't accept you could no longer submit. Alamy can't do that.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by geogphotos

[wilkopix]

On 17/06/2021 at 07:35, geogphotos said:

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? 

 

 

 

Have you emailed for an explanation? I'm about to .. More of us should probably ask directly (or Alamy please feel free to give us an explanation on the forum). I very much doubt they will change their minds but it would be good to hear why especially as they claimed they had no plans to cut the commission to photographers.

 

I'll be concentrating on my commissioned photography rather than shooting for Alamy.

 

 

[geogphotos]

12 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

Have you emailed for an explanation? I'm about to .. More of us should probably ask directly (or Alamy please feel free to give us an explanation on the forum). I very much doubt they will change their minds but it would be good to hear why especially as they claimed they had no plans to cut the commission to photographers.

 

I'll be concentrating on my commissioned photography rather than shooting for Alamy.

 

 

 

No, it would just get a woffly reply about core commission and sustainability. 

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Phil Crean said:

Surely if the images were made before they changed their policy you should be ok??? EXIF data will show date the images were shot.

Phil

That's the case in e.g. Scotland (and also the rest of the UK)*, but other countries could be different.

"Article 7 of the Human Rights Act means you cannot be charged with a criminal offence for an action that was not a crime when you committed it.

This means that public authorities must explain clearly what counts as a criminal offence so you know when you are breaking the law.

It is also against the law for the courts to give you a heavier punishment than was available at the time you committed an offence."

This also seems to apply to the EU.

[NYCat]

2 hours ago, Phil Crean said:

Surely if the images were made before they changed their policy you should be ok??? EXIF data will show date the images were shot.

Phil

 

I have given that some thought but I don't really know when the policy changed. Since Alamy has 4,000 images from the Central Park Zoo (one of the three small zoos here) I can't imagine that they were all taken during a paid-for commercial shoot. I think I probably wouldn't run into a real problem but I don't need the worry. I only make a small amount of money a year here and although it is appreciated it is not desperately needed. Now that I am too old to feel strong enough for the wildlife trips I have been re-thinking my photography goals. One possibility is just to have fun "playing" with my wildlife photos. That idea is looking better and better. I can certainly leave my wildlife portfolio here and I may find some gems that I never uploaded.

 

Paulette

[Bill Kuta]

2 hours ago, NYCat said:

 

....So they have changed too. "We charge for commercial photography". ....

 

Paulette

 

In my experience, when an organization refers to "commercial photography", they often mean a planned shoot with models, lighting, tripods, carts of equipment, etc. 

 

OTOH, when I've asked such an organization for clarification about stock photography, they usually had no idea what I was talking about.

 

Overall, though, I think we are now in an era where it doesn't suffice to find there is an absence of rules about photography at a venue. We should probably try to get positive confirmation that what we want to do is OK, and also assume that some years hence it will no longer be OK at that venue.

[Joseph Clemson]

2 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

I'm wondering if the new zoo rule for no commercial photography applies to images taken prior to it. In any case I agree, I would not take the risk. Sad to see your rhino go. Fab behind!

 

 

 

I'm not a lawyer and this is not any kind of legal advice. However, it has guided me in what I have shot and submitted in recent years.

 

Alamy introduced a specific clause to the contributor contract 15th June 2016. 

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

This will include most zoos and wildlife parks as their terms and conditions for entry explititly forbid photography for commercial gain. This clause is renumbered 4.1.14 in the new contract. 

 

Prior to this clause being introduced I don't think uploading such images would be a breach of the Alamy contract, however if such an image (taken before June 2016) were licenced and published and the zoo or whoever took exception to it, I think they could take action against the photographer and possibly the agency, if they were of a mind to do so. I've not heard of it happening, in the UK at least.  A lot depends too on the tems and conditions of entry in force at the time. 

 

I've been well aware of this for years and on those rare occasions I have gone to a zoo or other place where commercial photography (without written permission) is forbidden, I have to grit my teeth and do the photography simply for my own pleasure.

 

[NYCat]

12 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

 

In my experience, when an organization refers to "commercial photography", they often mean a planned shoot with models, lighting, tripods, carts of equipment, etc. 

 

OTOH, when I've asked such an organization for clarification about stock photography, they usually had no idea what I was talking about.

 

Overall, though, I think we are now in an era where it doesn't suffice to find there is an absence of rules about photography at a venue. We should probably try to get positive confirmation that what we want to do is OK, and also assume that some years hence it will no longer be OK at that venue.

 

I had this in mind when I asked so this was the exchange...

 

"Do you have any objection to having photos taken during a zoo visit on a stock photography site to be sold for editorial use only?"

 

I got this response…

 

"We do, sorry.  

We charge for commercial photography.   

Photos are allowed at the zoo for personal use only. "

 

I wanted to be clear that I took the photos on a visit to the zoo and that they would be offered for editorial use only.

 

I suppose I could take this further because it is a shame that photo buyers can't go to Alamy for photos. Sometimes they specifically want zoo photos and I doubt they are contacting a bunch of zoos individually. Basically, I do this for fun and getting "into the weeds" , as they say, does not feel like fun.

 

Paulette
 

[spacecadet]

14 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

I'm not a lawyer and this is not any kind of legal advice. However, it has guided me in what I have shot and submitted in recent years.

 

Alamy introduced a specific clause to the contributor contract 15th June 2016. 

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

This will include most zoos and wildlife parks as their terms and conditions for entry explititly forbid photography for commercial gain. This clause is renumbered 4.1.14 in the new contract. 

 

Prior to this clause being introduced I don't think uploading such images would be a breach of the Alamy contract, however if such an image (taken before June 2016) were licenced and published and the zoo or whoever took exception to it, I think they could take action against the photographer and possibly the agency, if they were of a mind to do so. I've not heard of it happening, in the UK at least.  A lot depends too on the tems and conditions of entry in force at the time. 

 

I've been well aware of this for years and on those rare occasions I have gone to a zoo or other place where commercial photography (without written permission) is forbidden, I have to grit my teeth and do the photography simply for my own pleasure.

 

Some of us take our own view about this clause It cannot possibly apply retrospectively- as Crypto says, you can't be liable for something which was acceptable when you did it- and one cannot imagine damages beyond the venue's photography fee being awarded even if a case were lost.

[formerly snappyoncalifornia]

21 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

I'm not a lawyer and this is not any kind of legal advice. However, it has guided me in what I have shot and submitted in recent years.

 

Alamy introduced a specific clause to the contributor contract 15th June 2016. 

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

This will include most zoos and wildlife parks as their terms and conditions for entry explititly forbid photography for commercial gain. This clause is renumbered 4.1.14 in the new contract. 

 

Prior to this clause being introduced I don't think uploading such images would be a breach of the Alamy contract, however if such an image (taken before June 2016) were licenced and published and the zoo or whoever took exception to it, I think they could take action against the photographer and possibly the agency, if they were of a mind to do so. I've not heard of it happening, in the UK at least.  A lot depends too on the tems and conditions of entry in force at the time. 

 

I've been well aware of this for years and on those rare occasions I have gone to a zoo or other place where commercial photography (without written permission) is forbidden, I have to grit my teeth and do the photography simply for my own pleasure.

 

There is difference between commercial use and commercial gain. If someone pays me for an editorial image, that's commercial gain. 

[formerly snappyoncalifornia]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

That's the case in e.g. Scotland (and also the rest of the UK)*, but other countries could be different.

"Article 7 of the Human Rights Act means you cannot be charged with a criminal offence for an action that was not a crime when you committed it.

This means that public authorities must explain clearly what counts as a criminal offence so you know when you are breaking the law.

It is also against the law for the courts to give you a heavier punishment than was available at the time you committed an offence."

This also seems to apply to the EU.

That is about criminal law and has nothing to do with civil law or contracts.