Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[BidC]

18 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Well they have deleted the separate thread I posted to make sure this got seen as it is actually really important and is causing a lot of confusion here. I do hope Alamy will clarify the situation in relation to restrictions and provide a proper and complete version of the contract. It is a remarkable omission in fact given its importance. 

 

I notice there is now a 'Live Chat' section at the top of he dashboard. Might be a good place to ask specific questions.

[Martin P Wilson]

12 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

it will be very difficult for Alamy to legally enforce any part of the contract with this degree of omissions from it

 

 

But it would still be expensive for any of us to challenge it though.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Martin P Wilson
typo

[MDM]

Deleted apologies for any confusion

Edited May 19, 2021 by MDM

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Personally, I don't want to base my next move on angry and disappointment . . . although I feel both. And I've always felt that if Alamy were to sell the agency, the 'party' would be over. I want to see what happens in June with all this.

 

I wouldn't base my next move only an anger and disappointment either. I've experienced both on my 'other place', from where I still earn considerably more than I do here, with 10% fewer files there.

However, unless the clauses I have already called out - in particular:

"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;"

and

"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."

... are amended in a very clear, unambiguous way, I'd base my next move on integrity and not wanting to be dragged through courts.

 

I'm glad to see that, at last, others are looking at the changed contract clauses, not only the commission reduction for most.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Stokie]

1 hour ago, imageplotter said:

I fully agree with previous comments.

 

The commission changes are a clear betrayal of last year's reassurances, but can at least be seen as perhaps a ruthless commercial decision to survive. Perhaps. But...

 

It's the changes and amendments to contract clauses that make me re-think my relationship with Alamy. If the risk - which will rise through Alamy possibly making images available for uses previously restricted by the photographer - is transferred to the photographer, then I'm out.

 

If images might suddenly be used commercially but were marked editorial, or be bought as personal use when personal use is restricted, and we are in very unpleasant territory. Most of my Alamy images are news of London events and culture, sports, Westminster politics, art exhibition openings, and travel images from around the world. (apart from the last 12 months, which are almost all boring wildlife, due to personal circumstances, but will revert back to news, events and travel from the summer). They contain people, property etc. and are therefore mostly marked editorial only, RM. Personal use is disabled on most. I specifically do not want to carry the risk regarding liability when it comes to commercial use. I do shoot commercial images, but only directly for clients.  

 

Plus if Alamy then states they will only go after all these newly arising infringements if images are exclusive, it gets ridiculous. If I decided to remain exclusive, I'd want to be consulted first if Alamy did indeed decide to chase uses found that were i.e. my own direct (non agency) sales, specifically allowed previously. I do not want any of my client relationships endangered by an Agency contacting them without my consent. End of.

 

The fact that this thread is now running 27 pages and counting, without comment from Alamy, shows a clear failure of management to communicate and build trust with its contributors. I can only conclude that management does not give a toss about contributors. Fine. It's one way to run a business. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think you missed an 'i' in run.

[Martin P Wilson]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt that is an issue. It is clearly a mistake as they refer to sections of the contract in the changes article that currently don't exist in the published version. I guess if somebody really wanted to get legally shirty, then the 45 days notice of a change of contract would start when the proper version is published. 

 

 

Perhaps but anything involving lawyers is always expensive, unless there is one in the forum prepared to work pro bono🤨

[MDM]

Deleted my mistake apologies for any confusion

Edited May 19, 2021 by MDM

[andremichel]

Alamy have always been the best of a bad bunch working in an exploitative industry. They get away with drops in commission because contributors don't have many options other than to give up completely that is. 

 

I expect over time, they will increase the threshold at which they pay 20% commission, catching more and more fish in the net. If it is done gradually, they will avoid having the whole of their contributor base in uproar all at the same time. 

 

For me personally, I decided to diversify as much as I could several year ago, as I didn't trust any one library not to let me down. These days, stock makes no financial sense. It is only worth doing if you enjoy making some pocket money from a hobby, or as a way to stay mentally and physically active on retirement.  

 

 

[MDM]

Actually I am just going to go back to bed. I think it is me that is misreading things. Oh well. Apologies for any confusion.  I am too tired to think. Reading that contract late last night kept me awake for hour

Edited May 19, 2021 by MDM

[Sally]

11 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I wouldn't base my next move only an anger and disappointment either. I've experienced both on my 'other place', from where I still earn considerably more than I do here, with 10% fewer files there.

However, unless the clauses I have already called out - in particular:

"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;"

and

"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."

I'd base my next move on integrety and not wanting to be dragged through courts.

 

I'm glad to see that, at last, others are looking at the changed contract clauses, not only the commission reduction for most.

 

I await any clarification from Alamy before making any decisions however I am not hopeful that we will be any clearer. It almost feels like we ought to crowdfund our own collective legal scrutiny so those of us who decide to continue with Alamy beyond June 30th fully understand the terms of any contract changes.

[Mr Standfast]

11 minutes ago, andremichel said:

Alamy have always been the best of a bad bunch working in an exploitative industry. They get away with drops in commission because contributors don't have many options other than to give up completely that is. 

 

I expect over time, they will increase the threshold at which they pay 20% commission, catching more and more fish in the net. If it is done gradually, they will avoid having the whole of their contributor base in uproar all at the same time. 

 

For me personally, I decided to diversify as much as I could several year ago, as I didn't trust any one library not to let me down. These days, stock makes no financial sense. It is only worth doing if you enjoy making some pocket money from a hobby, or as a way to stay mentally and physically active on retirement.  

 

 

+1. Strikes a chord too loudly for just a green arrow.

[imageplotter]

49 minutes ago, Stokie said:

 

Think you missed an 'i' in run.

😁

[Barry Hitchcox]

2 hours ago, Martin P Wilson said:

For me something good has come out of all of this.

 

It is  making me really think hard about what my photography is about and who it is for, who my customers or audience might be. Initially at least I will be putting my archive images on a platform that will enable me to promote and sell them directly from my own web site. I realise that doing it oneself is more work but the sales process itself I am handing off to the platform;I just (just, ha!) have to find the cusatomers. Thinking about it I realised my photographic purpose was far too diffuse and unclear so rtestarting my photography as it was would have simply compounded my existing problem. I am actually going to have to do some serious market analysios, and ask myself some hard questions about what I want from my photography.

 

Actually my PhD work is helping because I am currently working through published interviews with successful photographers, autobiographies and asking whay, what, how, where etc questions about their work. As my main resdearch question I am taking a close look at how they are responding to the Internet and WWW; it is all looking rather interesting.

 

What is clear is that a generic stock approach is not going to work; as I have argued for several years. Going forward my photography will have to be clearly focussed, with real purpose and a strong USP based on real expertise or access.

 

Then I can ask the question how I reach those customers, and where, if at atl, Alamy or any library fits into those plans—commission apart the contract terms make it very difficult. I do not think any stock library is going to work for me (and most of us) going forward. A completely different approach is called for, fortunately I have the time to manage it myself as I am not fitting my photography alongside another full time career.

 

Unfortunately we cannot talk about it here except in the most general terms.

My position entirely Martin. A complete rethink. It's just so good to read all these views and to realise that so many are thinking along the same lines. We almost have unison!! Or a TRADE UNION?

[wilkopix]

3 hours ago, Alex Ramsay said:

"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."

When I made my images exclusive to Alamy, it was on the understanding that it would not interfere with any sales I might make through my website or as direct requests from my clients. Has this now changed? Can they prevent me selling my own images directly?

 

Alex

Actually this is very worrying.

I have content with Alamy as exclusive that I might have also sold myself direct from my website to clients of mine, as was allowed under the current agreement. Firstly I don't want them chasing my direct clients, which is why I opted to be asked first before any action was taken and secondly does this new agreement stop me selling directly?

Clear as mud and yet another change of policy from Alamy.

[Martin P Wilson]

13 minutes ago, Barry Hitchcox said:

My position entirely Martin. A complete rethink. It's just so good to read all these views and to realise that so many are thinking along the same lines. We almost have unison!! Or a TRADE UNION?

 

There are several: NUJ, BAJ, BPPA, and they have not been able tyo prevent most of the current issues. They have stepped in with publishers who have tried to instigate 'rights grabs' but with mixed success. Busier with newspaper and magazine publishers doing the dirty on their journalists ((text and pics) . In fact the unions face their own challenges, financial and  otherwise at the moment. I am a member of the NUJ, as are a good few other Alamy contributors, but don't see unions able to provide much help in the current circumstances.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Martin P Wilson
typo

[Radim]

13 hours ago, John Richmond said:

Já taky, Rebecca a Betty. Vždy jsem své odborné znalosti volně zpřístupňoval novým přispěvatelům v naději, že by to prospělo Alamy jako zdroji pro přesně označené botanické a zahradnické snímky. Už ne. Často jsem strávil hodiny zkoumáním konkrétních ID - čas, který nyní lépe využiji k dokončení psaní dvou zahradnických knih, aktualizaci třetí a další plánování.

I fully understand your disillusionment, which is why I would like to thank you again for the help I received from you whenever I needed it.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I wouldn't base my next move only an anger and disappointment either. I've experienced both on my 'other place', from where I still earn considerably more than I do here, with 10% fewer files there.

However, unless the clauses I have already called out - in particular:

"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;"

and

"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."

... are amended in a very clear, unambiguous way, I'd base my next move on integrity and not wanting to be dragged through courts.

 

I'm glad to see that, at last, others are looking at the changed contract clauses, not only the commission reduction for most.

 

Well said Cryptoprocta. Alamy must absolutely guarantee that if an image has been annotated for editorial use only, for example, that they will not sell that image for any other purpose including commercial/advertising use without the specific agreement of the contributor, both for images already on sale, and for those yet to be submitted after July. . Especially given that Alamy appears to be also putting responsibility on the contributor for legal problems arising from purchaser's usage of the images. The contributor remains the copyright holder of the image, and it is up to us to decide how our images are to be used. Unless this is made very clear, then this contributor will be carefully considering his position, after 17 years with Alamy, and I suspect many of the others here will be doing the same.

 

Kumar 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Doc

[Marcin Rogozinski]

Well I think that silence from Alamy only means that they patiently waiting for account team to calculate how much they would actually loose because of new contract.

 

[sb photos]

34 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

Actually this is very worrying.

I have content with Alamy as exclusive that I might have also sold myself direct from my website to clients of mine, as was allowed under the current agreement. Firstly I don't want them chasing my direct clients, which is why I opted to be asked first before any action was taken and secondly does this new agreement stop me selling directly?

Clear as mud and yet another change of policy from Alamy.

The new contract downloadable from the contributor dashboard does state sales from your own website and POD are permitted, as before. What I read elsewhere contradicted that. All a bit messy.

[Richard Tadman]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I wouldn't base my next move only an anger and disappointment either. I've experienced both on my 'other place', from where I still earn considerably more than I do here, with 10% fewer files there.

However, unless the clauses I have already called out - in particular:

"4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;"

and

"4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world."

... are amended in a very clear, unambiguous way, I'd base my next move on integrity and not wanting to be dragged through courts.

 

I'm glad to see that, at last, others are looking at the changed contract clauses, not only the commission reduction for most.

 

 

I notice that at Clause 25.8 the agreement states: -
 

1. "This Contract will be governed by and interpreted in all respects in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and each of the parties hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales."
    

Consequently, irrespective of where the contributor lives the applicable law will be English Law (unless the contracts are geographically different) I suspect that many of the contract terms are unenforceable under the Unfair Contract terms Act due to the fact that Alamy will not be legally able to avoid their own obligations and limit their liability at the expense of contributors.

[Flash68]

Has anyone requested their data? I've just downloaded mine and the tags and supertags are blank. Is this usual or has it been removed?

[Martin P Wilson]

33 minutes ago, Doc said:

Well said Cryptoprocta. Alamy must absolutely guarantee that if an image has been annotated for editorial use only, for example, that they will not sell that image for any other purpose including commercial/advertising use without the specific agreement of the contributor, both for images already on sale, and for those yet to be submitted after July. . Especially given that Alamy appears to be also putting responsibility on the contributor for legal problems arising from purchaser's usage of the images. The contributor remains the copyright holder of the image, and it is up to us to decide how our images are to be used. Unless this is made very clear, then this contributor will be carefully considering his position, after 17 years with Alamy, and I suspect many of the others here will be doing the same.

 

Kumar 

 

Many of the images That I have marked as editorial I am CONTRACTUALLY BOUND to not use them for other than editoral. It formed part of the accreditation agreement, contract when I was given access. Often it is sports events and the competitors guard their image righst jealously asnd organisers protect their brand and publ;ication rights; think FIFA or the IOC—there h as been discussion on these forums.

[Martin P Wilson]

1 minute ago, Flash68 said:

Has anyone requested their data? I've just downloaded mine and the tags and supertags are blank. Is this usual or has it been removed?

 

My data included both tags and supertags.

[Flash68]

13 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

My data included both tags and supertags.

My fault - there were a few hundred rows at the start that were blank (probably old failed/deleted ones) - I'm becoming paranoid

Edited May 19, 2021 by Flash68

[Cryptoprocta]

20 minutes ago, Flash68 said:

Has anyone requested their data? I've just downloaded mine and the tags and supertags are blank. Is this usual or has it been removed?

I got mine yesterday and everything seemed to be OK

 

Sorry, didn't read Martin's post.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Cryptoprocta