Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Cryptoprocta]

16 minutes ago, Flash68 said:

I've found a plug-in to Lightroom and Bridge that will export your data from Alamy, match the images in Lightroom and update your keywords etc in Lightroom - it does this directly, you don't even need to download your data. Free to try and only £25.  lightroom-plugins.com

Sounds great. Even $25 could be worth it if it turns out I'm leaving (depending on Alamy's responses to our questions): maybe as much as half of my port wasn't keyworded before upload.

[Keith Douglas]

3 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I want it clearly set out in the contract, for example:

That files I designated as RM will not be sold as RF (that's a deal-breaker as I have an RF-exclusive contract elsewhere).

That files I indicated have no releases will not be sold commercially.

That Alamy will not use, and will educate buyers not to use, files in racist, defamatory etc etc ways.

It needs to be stronger than that. As contributors we have little control over what the end user uses our image for, and whether that use is within the agreement that they have with Alamy or whether they decide to just ignore it. Provided that we have been accurate about Releases etc. then any problems should be directed to the publisher of the image. Alamy, as middleman, just appears to be trying to pass the buck to the photographer if the shit hits the fan. If that is what they are trying to do then I don't think I want to take that risk myself for the decreasingly small fees that each image receives.

[Flash68]

1 minute ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Sounds great. Even $25 could be worth it if it turns out I'm leaving (depending on Alamy's responses to our questions): maybe as much as half of my port wasn't keyworded before upload.

None of mine is, I did it all through Alamy as they are the only agency I use. Regardless of my decision, its made me realise this is a risk so need to hold my data myself.

[OnlyFabrizio]

11 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

There's a big Spanish one that still offers 50%. It has been around for ages. Sorry, can't mention their name. I still have a few images with them via a German agency (which also offers 50% but is not recommendable).

 

Fortunately, I don't think I'll have any difficulty (touch wood) staying at the "Gold" level. However, if I were stuck at 20%, I'd be making plans to get out of Dodge as well. As it is, other agencies probably wouldn't be interested in most of the images I place on Alamy, so I'll be hanging around FBFW.

 
Thanks! I closed my account with them some months ago. Low amount of sales and, well, Alamy exclusivity. 
A mistake it seems.

Edited May 19, 2021 by OnlyFabrizio

[mickfly]

3 hours ago, Paul J said:

 

Any Plans to implement a ONE CLICK to remove all images from being exclusive? Or is it a case of going through them for hours?

 

 

You can do it fairly quickly by selecting multiple upload dates on the left in AIM, then ticking select all passed and removing the exclusive tick.
If it says select first 500, just deselect a few upload dates on the left until it drops below 500, then rinse and repeat further down your upload list.

[Sally]

7 minutes ago, mickfly said:

You can do it fairly quickly by selecting multiple upload dates on the left in AIM, then ticking select all passed and removing the exclusive tick.
If it says select first 500, just deselect a few upload dates on the left until it drops below 500, then rinse and repeat further down your upload list.

However, surely there is no point in doing this until June 30th? Anything licensed until then that is exclusive will earn 50%.

[Ed Rooney]

1 minute ago, Sally said:

However, surely there is no point in doing this until June 30th? Anything licensed until then that is exclusive will earn 50%.

 

Exactly as I was thinking, Sally. I want to see what happens in the next weeks.

 

The forum was crashed earlier for about two hours. 

 

How do you say 'yikes' in Spanish, MzBrown? 

[meanderingemu]

45 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That has been my thinking as well. However, with the new contract, I'm no sure what's going on. Best to be proactive and start checking the "editorial use only box"? I don't know. I'm admittedly pretty naive about legal matters. It would be helpful if Alamy could give us a bit more guidance.

 

 

went through all my files and turned about 80% of my "contains property" to editorial only yesterday

[mickfly]

8 minutes ago, Sally said:

However, surely there is no point in doing this until June 30th? Anything licensed until then that is exclusive will earn 50%.

No point keeping them all exclusive if they are going to be offered elsewhere, so, the sooner the better... in my opinion.

[MizBrown]

3 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Exactly as I was thinking, Sally. I want to see what happens in the next weeks.

 

The forum was crashed earlier for about two hours. 

 

How do you say 'yikes' in Spanish, MzBrown? 

"Oy" might work.   Or "hijo puta."

[Ed Rooney]

5 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

went through all my files and turned about 80% of my "contains property" to editorial only yesterday

 

Have I missed something? Isn't it enough to mark that you do NOT have a model release or a property release?

[John Mitchell]

8 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Exactly as I was thinking, Sally. I want to see what happens in the next weeks.

 

The forum was crashed earlier for about two hours. 

 

How do you say 'yikes' in Spanish, MzBrown? 

 

My probably-flawed thinking as well.

 

¡Ay, caramba! does the job in Mexico.

[MizBrown]

32 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

There's a big Spanish one that still offers 50%. It has been around for ages. Sorry, can't mention their name. I still have a few images with them via a German agency (which also offers 50% but is not recommendable).

 

Fortunately, I don't think I'll have any difficulty (touch wood) staying at the "Gold" level. However, if I were stuck at 20%, I'd be making plans to get out of Dodge as well. As it is, other agencies probably wouldn't be interested in most of the images I place on Alamy, so I'll be hanging around FBFW.

 

Spanish one might work for me since the Spanish do seem to have an interest in the former colonies and since a lot of what I photograph here is at least Hispanic.   I've seen the Nortrup video on stock photography where Chelsea passes for Turkish and was selling more in dark haired markets than in the blonde markets. 

[John Mitchell]

4 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

"Oy" might work.   Or "hijo puta."

 

I remember being stuck in a traffic jam in Managua during the 90's, and the sweating taxi (rusty Lada with no floor) driver yelled ¡Hijo Puta! out the window every five minutes.

[Ed Rooney]

Yeah, 'oy' looks more Yiddish.

[John Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Spanish one might work for me since the Spanish do seem to have an interest in the former colonies and since a lot of what I photograph here is at least Hispanic.   I've seen the Nortrup video on stock photography where Chelsea passes for Turkish and was selling more in dark haired markets than in the blonde markets. 

 

They're worth a try with your Nica, other CA, and Mexico images. They offer a non-exclusive contract @ 50%

[MizBrown]

2 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Have I missed something? Isn't it enough to mark that you do NOT have a model release or a property release?

 

This needs to be clarified -- Is PA/Alamy planning to change the not released to released if the client claims to have contracted with a service which claims it can get releases?

 

If PA/Alamy is planning to do this, they need to be the ones liable for overturning our designations. 

 

I just realized that I should change everything to Rights Managed from Royalty Free for the duration before Alamy closes my account.

[John Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Yeah, 'oy' looks more Yiddish.

 

oy vey

[Sultanpepa]

9 hours 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.

 

 

 

Just remember that by remaining after the 31st May you will have been deemed to be accepting of the new contract. There's not much time left and I had planned due to the percentage changes, to leave all existing images but refrain from uploading more. However the various other clause changes increase the risk of law suits which let's face it, most 'hobbyists' couldn't afford to challenge, I may be forced to remove all images from the 1st June. I'll just inform Alamy that I don't accept the contract changes and wish to stop all sales from that date. I'm being boxed into a corner and forced to leave. Maybe that's what they want. Alamy must know this would happen. Maybe they only want professional photographers and agencies submitting to them.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Sultanpepa

[Thyrsis]

I will so miss this forum...it goes from the serious issue of deleting our accounts to how to swear in Spanish in the blink of an eye!

ALAMY, will you miss us too??

[Betty LaRue]

10 hours ago, Foreign Export said:

 

Do you have. copy of the buyers contract? the current one as that may be changing to

Don't think correct annotation offers much risk management comfort to a claim, however spurious from anywhere on the planet - I wouldn't want to rely on that as a strategy

 

 

 

The problem is that even though you properly marked your images with no release available, that doesn’t matter if someone frivolously makes a claim against you. Even though it probably will be dismissed in a court of law, you still might have to spend some money for your attorney to file for dismissal and then attend the hearing. Anytime lawyers are involved, it cost a lot per billing hour.

 I can’t afford that. Can you?

 

[Shergar]

 Like many of you I have model releases from family members . Certainly not going to get them involved in any future legal ramifications so I guess those releases need to be removed? Not sure if Alamy have anything in the current contract preventing this? Any thoughts anyone?

 

Shergar 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Shergar

[meanderingemu]

13 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Have I missed something? Isn't it enough to mark that you do NOT have a model release or a property release?

 

 

more concerns about the wide open rights Alamy seems to have given themselves in 4.1.5

 

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;

 

 

 

as well as the whole we are liable for any claims defence, including administration fees of it.

 

 

So at this point i am being risk averse, and anything that could be misused. and adding "editorial only" doesn't change my intent. 

 

[Cryptoprocta]

So, they apparently penalised all exclusives because of the alleged misdemeanors of some. (I don't doubt it happened. I've seen the same photo being separately offered both RM and RF on Alamy).

What will they do about people who don't adhere to this clause?

"4.4. You will ensure that all Metadata including, without limitation, any and all other information pertaining to the Content: (i) is and will remain accurate and factually correct; (ii) does not infringe the copyright or any other third party right; and (iii) is not indecent, obscene, pornographic defamatory or otherwise unlawful."

... given the huge number of files which are not accurately labelled or tagged?

Edited May 19, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Sally]

42 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

It needs to be stronger than that. As contributors we have little control over what the end user uses our image for, and whether that use is within the agreement that they have with Alamy or whether they decide to just ignore it. Provided that we have been accurate about Releases etc. then any problems should be directed to the publisher of the image. Alamy, as middleman, just appears to be trying to pass the buck to the photographer if the shit hits the fan. If that is what they are trying to do then I don't think I want to take that risk myself for the decreasingly small fees that each image receives.

I await what Alamy will say about this. If the worst interpretation is correct, then it poses a significant problem for Live News photographers who gain access to places on the understanding that their images will only be used editorially. It would mean that news photos would have to be deleted on the last day in Live News before going into stock. Keeping track of that isn’t easy.