Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

i would think images without right is more a civil offence than criminal. Not sure if that affects the ruling. 

 

note:  saw FSC addressed it above.  

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 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.

 

 

 

pretty sure even under current contract you were not allowed to upload images that were not obtained in a matter acceptable to the property owner when on private property.  

 

that said, there are plenty of such images in all stock agencies.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

 

That is one of the downsides of crowd - sourcing. 

 

Through the internet, I know two people who have small portfolios at Alamy who may simply not care about what they might get in the future since the works already done.  One was a professional wedding and bar mitzvah photographer before turning to computer work.   Other is an enthusiastic amateur.   Neither has as many as a thousand photos up.

 

I think most of what Alamy licenses are agency photos with releases.  That's the majority of what they post on their blog.   The individual photographers fill in the holes, and probably do things that wouldn't be commercially predictable for agency photographers to be doing, or where cost would be prohibitive if the photos were taken strictly for commercial gain. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Through the internet, I know two people who have small portfolios at Alamy who may simply not care about what they might get in the future since the works already done.  One was a professional wedding and bar mitzvah photographer before turning to computer work.   Other is an enthusiastic amateur.   Neither has as many as a thousand photos up.

 

I think most of what Alamy licenses are agency photos with releases.  That's the majority of what they post on their blog.   The individual photographers fill in the holes, and probably do things that wouldn't be commercially predictable for agency photographers to be doing, or where cost would be prohibitive if the photos were taken strictly for commercial gain. 

I worked for a business that had holding accounts for several hundred clients.The amount of interest income generated annually was enough to buy the top executives a new Mercedes every couple of years. Some clients went out of business and abandoned their accounts. It happens.

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

 

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
 

I'll be honest, I have zoo image ANIMALS for sale. I have been extremely careful to edit out any structure or landscaping that makes the location identifiable. I think it would be extraordinarily hard for someone to claim...that's my turtle!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul J said:

 

One problem with this new contract is the deletion of images, they will still be on sale for 180 days after deletion and when the new contract is in force. 

 

No, not the way I did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

 

This is true and whoever put the confused emoji on it needs to re-read and rethink. It does not breach the Alamy contract before that time. However, it fails to make an important if obvious  point. While it may not have been a breach of the Alamy contract specifically, it may well be in breach of laws related to entry to a property. 

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

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

 

This is true but irrelevant in answering Joe's post. Joe has not mentioned anything about this. He is only referring to commercial gain in the context of being paid for photography and he is correct in what he says. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

Yes, it probably does. Here's where it gets a bit murky though. I, together with many others (sometimes up to 40 press photographers, freelance, wire agency and the few remaining staffers, plus camera crews) often attend zoo press photo calls, at London Zoo, Whipsnade etc. ZSL want us to take those images (and whilst they also mail out freebies by their own tog to the editors, these are often not as nice and tend to be for online use or smaller publications who rely on freebies), and they keenly want to get coverage. So far so good. If we were to all have these images available for the live news period only (as used to be the case for a brief while with the Tate and their photo calls), far fewer photographers would attend. A few hastily edited pics from the better photo calls get usage on the day after/48hrs (not all of the pressers are visually that interesting), but quite a few more get usage in the weeks and months afterwards. And ZSL are generally quite happy about the extra PR they get. This year, I should think they'll be extra keen on any coverage they get (except for the odd negative headline), given that all zoos struggle during covid and really need to make up for lost revenue.

 

 After the presser, once I've filed, I tend to hang around for a bit (if there are no other news events or photo calls immediately afterwards) and do some add-on shots of other animals that might fit a news theme (hot or cold temperatures, seasons, zoo babies etc) and file a few more. A few times, these have then also been used by newspapers (occasionally with Alamy, more often when pinged out by another news pic agency) because they may just happen to have been visually more appealing, and the paper needed a vibrant 'happy' pic to fill a space somewhere. Again, the zoos tend to be quite happy about this (I often send them a quick mail that I've filed a few more, but not always), it rarely generates negative PR and may translate into ticket sales for them. 

 

My point is - there is a grey area in all this. I for one will be unlikely to still attend all of their photo calls if I had to delete the images after the news period, I suspect it could create friction with wires distributing via Alamy, too, if their images are deleted soon after submission, plus it creates additional work. 

 

 

 

Edited by imageplotter
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very few zoo images. I did email the zoo after visiting and they said that it was okay for me to send them to Alamy for editorial stock. This was some 15 years ago. No I didn't keep the email exchange. Will I be deleting them? No I won't. I reckon the chance of ending up facing a legal challenge over this is so close to zero to be safely ignored. 

 

A few times I have had emails from Alamy about permissions and when I was in the wrong I admitted it and the pics were taken down. Maybe the most 'risky' was a copy of an old Marloboro Man cigarette advert from the 1970s that was licensed a few times. In the end Philip Morris must have found out and requested that it be taken down. They did not want to sue me or bankrupt me. 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I have a very few zoo images. I did email the zoo after visiting and they said that it was okay for me to send them to Alamy for editorial stock. This was some 15 years ago. No I didn't keep the email exchange. Will I be deleting them? No I won't. I reckon the chance of ending up facing a legal challenge over this is so close to zero to be safely ignored. 

 

A few times I have had emails from Alamy about permissions and when I was in the wrong I admitted it and the pics were taken down. Maybe the most 'risky' was a copy of an old Marloboro Man cigarette advert from the 1970s that was licensed a few times. In the end Philip Morris must have found out and requested that it be taken down. They did not want to sue me or bankrupt me. 

 

 

 

Exactly. Companies generally don't sue people with no money (i.e. general members of the public). It's not worth it and bad publicity.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Exactly. Companies generally don't sue people with no money (i.e. general members of the public). It's not worth it and bad publicity.

 

 

And one thing that they make sure of is that stock photographers have no money!

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

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.

 

If we agree to the new contract, whats to stop Alamy just stopping any future income without the need to take us to court to recoup any fees, if we should find ourselves in this position?

 

Thanks

Cheers and gone

Shergar

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shergar said:

 

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.

 

If we agree to the new contract, whats to stop Alamy just stopping any future income without the need to take us to court to recoup any fees, if we should find ourselves in this position?

 

Thanks

Cheers and gone

Shergar

 

 

small victory but probably the contract, section 12.5.3  only allows them to recoup indemnity from Section 5, not 2.10.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shergar said:

 

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.

 

If we agree to the new contract, whats to stop Alamy just stopping any future income without the need to take us to court to recoup any fees, if we should find ourselves in this position?

 

Thanks

Cheers and gone

Shergar

 

Probably nothing. Just make sure you are accurate if marking content as exclusive or simply mark it as non-exclusive which avoids any problems in this respect. If there is any doubt (images that you may have had on other platforms in the past), then don't mark them as exclusive. There is no advantage to marking images as exclusive now anyway unless you want Alamy to chase infringements without notifying you. If you have made a false declaration of exclusivity, then it is Alamy's right to recoup any fees incurred in that process and that seems fair enough. But your question hinges on the assumption that you would be making enough money to cover Alamy's losses. That might not be the case if they are talking legal fees.

 

 

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

In researching indemnification insurance I came across a UK company called "AON"

(see https://www.aon.com/getmedia/90b4c09e-05cb-40c2-af7a-9f4876c278de/Aon-NL-IP-Liability_FAQ-Purchasing-Scenarios.aspx)

It looks like they offer Intellectual Property Liability Coverage. I wonder if our current scenario is applicable and they could offer individual or group coverage? Anyone in the UK want to look into this?

 

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.