Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Keith Douglas]

8 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

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.

That's what I'm thinking as well. Keep existing images for an ever decreasing income stream and not invest any more time in uploading more. The other contract changes are a big concern though. They aren't putting them in for nothing. They must think there is some risk and they can pass some of it on to the photographers. If not, why do it?

 

[MizBrown]

10 minutes ago, Shergar said:

 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 

 

 

I've got some releases and will not change the status of those.  Just finished switching from RF to RM.   Editorial only is still ticked for the unreleased photos. 

 

My further problem is the risk that an unreleased photo from events of 2018 could be used by one political side or the other in the upcoming elections.   I tried to be even handed and not partisan in what I photographed.  The end game for me could involved getting sued for not having releases and getting expelled from Nicaragua for getting involved in politics (or even appearing to get involved in politics.  

Edited May 19, 2021 by MizBrown
unreleased, not released

[Thyrsis]

We’re out, I have sent the following:

Please can you terminate our contract before the new contract begins on 1st July. 

 

As someone who signed up to join Alamy in the year 2000 I say this with sadness. 

We never had a large portfolio but always felt as though we were part of the Alamy family. Unfortunately, due to the recent changes,  that is no longer the case.

 

Edit:On the left it says we joined in 2005 but that is when we merged our 2 accounts! 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Thyrsis

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

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?

 

 

my issue is more that Alamy is putting me on the hook for their defence and cost against any actions against them relating to any of my images, even on things i don't control- like automatic infringement pursuits. 

[MizBrown]

20 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

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

 

I'll go through everything and pick the best.  Would be nice if I could sell in Latin America and Spain. 

[Martyn]

4 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

"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."

 

 

So a building that I took a photo of twenty years ago in Indonesia that has since been demolished and I am unaware that it has been demolished would mean that I am liable for my image no longer being factually correct ?

As regards to, for example, indecent or unlawful ... who decides that ... an image that is perfectly decent and lawful in Western society may well be considered indecent and unlawful in the Muslim or Arab world ... another complete nonsense in reality ...

[Keith Douglas]

3 minutes ago, Martyn said:

 

So a building that I took a photo of twenty years ago in Indonesia that has since been demolished and I am unaware that it has been demolished would mean that I am liable for my image no longer being factually correct ?

As regards to, for example, indecent or unlawful ... who decides that ... an image that is perfectly decent and lawful in Western society may well be considered indecent and unlawful in the Muslim or Arab world ... another complete nonsense in reality ...

At the very least it should say factually correct at the date the photograph was taken. This photo was taken in September 2019:

 

The platform was washed away in 2020 when the river flooded

 

!

[Betty LaRue]

40 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

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??

All the things I loved here is forever being changed. Some of you, as I’ve stated before, feel like family. The kind of people who if I said I’m flying over, you’d be wanting to meet up with me to see if I’m really as dizzy as I appear sometimes. 
I absolutely hate what is happening here.

Before some of you are gone forever, please let me tell you how much you’ll be missed. ❤️ I love your warmth, your concern, your willingness to help.

What a Godawful shame this is.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Betty LaRue

[Betty LaRue]

28 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I'll go through everything and pick the best.  Would be nice if I could sell in Latin America and Spain. 

Thank you for your knowledge and willingness to share it, Rebecca.

[Bill Kuta]

Following Miz Brown's coding, I can be reached at kutaph0t0  @  veriz0n dot net  (replace 0's with the obvious).

[Bill Brooks]

The photographer obligations under the new contract read to me like we are back in 1990 when a top stock photographer at a top agency could sell $1 million dollars a year. 

 

In 1990 most people depicted in stock images were professional models who signed and understood model releases. Not real family and friends as Alamy has advised us to do. In 1990 all sales went through agency sales reps, who were trained to filter out sensitive uses. Today, in some sales, it is pure ecommerce with no filtering sales reps. 

 

In 1990 locations were all property released. The only exceptions in 1990 would be city skylines or scenes that did not significantly feature people or property. Alamy's position, until the new contract, was that if an image is shot in public, and sold for editorial, then releases not necessary. In 1990 every single image accepted was edited for content by the agency. In 1990 if an image needed releases, in the agency's expert opinion, then it was rejected until the photographer came up with a release. This way the agency took on much of the responsibility. In 1990 if you sometimes included family and friends in your images, you had to have a release signed at the time of photography, and a new release for every session. Very necessary if you went through a divorce.

 

On one occasion there was Alamy advice on this forum defining similarity in images in order to better declare an image exclusive to Alamy. Very bad advice in my opinion, as I think it was much too lenient to meet the photographer obligations in the new contract. Make an image exclusive to Alamy, but put it's sister image of the same person in the same location in the same clothing taken 2 minutes later from a slightly different perspective into another agency. OK by Alamy then, until this new contract.

 

Alamy has directed new photographers to seek advice on this forum. Where they received a lot of bad legal advice that Alamy did not correct.

 

Low prices have lead to higher risks and "we do not tell you what to shoot" advice on Alamy's part. The new contract transfers all of that risk over to the photographer.

 

In my opinion if a photographer has built a collection by following Alamy's advice and any legal advice on the forum where Alamy directed them, then the average photographer should think carefully about accepting the new photographer obligations.

[Robz]

58 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

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.

Yes, this is exactly how I feel. I think that might have been the plan all along

[imageplotter]

48 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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?

 

Well, given the frequency of changes within the current British government, I very much doubt that I'll bother trying to ensure that image captions for several thousand images from i.e. Downing Street remain 'accurate and factually correct'. I'd be making changes to job titles and positions on a daily basis! 😉 

 

 

[M.Chapman]

Clause 4.1.5

 

You warrant and represent that:

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;

 

Is concerning, but Clause 7 maybe offers some reassurance of Alamy's obligations

 

Clause 7.1

Alamy's obligations

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.

 

But... if Alamy screw up, it's apparently not their fault...

 

Then clause 4.1.6 just has to be a mistake.

 

Clause 4.1.6

Contributor warranties, representations & obligations

You warrant and represent that:

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.

 

How can the contributor possibly warrant that one of Alamy's customers is not going to use an image (for which Alamy granted the licence terms) in a way that won't be deemed indecent, obscene, defamatory etc. anywhere in the world? It's just ridiculous.

 

Alamy, please remove this nonsensical clause.

 

Mark

Edited May 20, 2021 by M.Chapman

[Allan Bell]

3 minutes ago, imageplotter said:

 

Well, given the frequency of changes within the current British government, I very much doubt that I'll bother trying to ensure that image captions for several thousand images from i.e. Downing Street remain 'accurate and factually correct'. I'd be making changes to job titles and positions on a daily basis! 😉 

 

 

 

Surely the information with the image is correct at the Date it was TAKEN.

 

Allan

 

[John Mitchell]

45 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I'll go through everything and pick the best.  Would be nice if I could sell in Latin America and Spain. 

 

Latin America images used to do well at that agency. I'm not sure what the situation is like now, though. Sub guidelines and contracts available on their website. Think you have to send 50 or so images to start. Best of luck.

[M.Chapman]

Another item that Alamy provide is a model release, which states

 

I hereby give the Photographer and Assigns my permission to license the Images and to use the Images in any Media for any purpose (except pornographic, defamatory, libellous or otherwise unlawful)

 

So, when a model signs an Alamy approved model release they are placing obligations on me and Alamy - so we must then include similar terms in any contract of sale / licence terms. This "flow of legal obligation" needs to be recognised in the Contributor Contract. Ideally Alamy's obligations section should state that Alamy will include suitable restrictions in the contract of sale / licence terms so that Alamy AND the contributor are protected.

 

Mark

[John Mitchell]

I can't help wondering that if Alamy had offered two separate contracts for us to choose from -- say a non-exclusive contract @ 40%, and another exclusive one @ 50% -- instead of a poorly defined and easily abused "exclusivity" option, some of these disturbing legal changes could have been avoided.

 

As it is, Alamy seems to be boxing both us and itself into a corner.

 

We badly need clarification from the top. 😱

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Martin P Wilson]

Just now, M.Chapman said:

Another item that Alamy provide is a model release, which states

 

I hereby give the Photographer and Assigns my permission to license the Images and to use the Images in any Media for any purpose (except pornographic, defamatory, libellous or otherwise unlawful)

 

So, when a model signs an Alamy approved model release they are placing obligations on me and Alamy - so we must then include similar terms in any contract of sale / licence terms. This "flow of legal obligation" needs to be recognised in the Contributor Contract. Ideally Alamy's obligations section should state that Alamy will include suitable restrictions in the contract of sale / licence terms so that Alamy AND the contributor are protected.

 

Mark

 

As noted earlier similar provisioon needs to recognise that accrteditation to events or other access also put legal constraints on the photographer.

[MDM]

Well at the risk of getting things wrong again, I have applied my weary mind to trying to understand Section 4 of the contract which is the main part related to licensing (not the exclusivity stuff which is a separate issue). The main conclusion I am coming to is that not a lot that is actually important has really changed from previous versions of the contract in relation to licensing (apart from exclusivity). The confusion arises from the splitting and renumbering of Clause 4.4 in the previous contract and the renumbering and rewording of Clause 4.7. Now I have not read each bit in forensic detail but there does not look to a major difference. The wording is very similar. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

Is there anything to worry about in relation to licensing? I don't know.

Is there anything to worry about that I should not have been worrying about last week? Possibly or even probably not.

Did I ever read the previous contracts in detail? Not for years I have to admit. 

Can we apply restrictions? It looks like that has not changed from previous versions. I am making a lot more of my images editorial only to be on the safe side. 

Am I leaving Alamy? Not just yet but I would really appreciate a simple explanation from Alamy of any significant changes to Section 4

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by MDM

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

Just remember that by remaining after the 31st May you will have been deemed to be accepting of the new contract. 

 Have I misread something. Don't we have 45 days until June 30th? 

[Nathaniel Noir]

So I've restricted sales of pretty much all my images on Alamy yesterday, and today they've sent me an e-mail asking if I could lift the restriction on an image because someone wants to buy it. That was fast. Unfortunately as a Gold contributor not worthy of the 50% commission 25k elite, I don't feel my consent is really valued by Alamy, sadly.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Nathaniel Noir

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, MDM said:

Well at the risk of getting things wrong again, I have applied my weary mind to trying to understand the section4 of the contract which is the main part related to licensing (not the exclusivity stuff which is separate. The main conclusion I am coming to is that not a lot that is actually important has really changed from previous versions of the contract in relation to licensing (apart from exclusivity). The confusion arises from the splitting and renumbering of Clause 4.4 in the previous contract and the renumbering and rewording of Clause 4.7. Now I have not read each bit in forensic detail but there does not look to a major difference. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

Is there anything to worry about in relation to licensing? I don't know.

Is there anything to worry about that I should not have been worrying about last week? Possibly or even probably not.

Did I ever read the previous contracts in detail? Not for years I have to admit. 

Can we apply restrictions? It looks like that has not changed from previous versions. I am making a lot more of my images editorial only to be on the safe side. 

Am I leaving Alamy? Not just yet but I would really appreciate a simple explanation from Alamy of any significant changes to Section 4

 

 

 

 

the other thing that has changed is the adding the "automatic infringement actions" by Alamy, and that if in these actions actions are taken against them we are responsible, with no check first. 

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, MDM said:

 Have I misread something. Don't we have 45 days until June 30th? 

yes we do.  

[MDM]

33 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Clause 4.1.5

 

Clause 4.1.6

Contributor warranties, representations & obligations

You warrant and represent that:

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.

 

How can the contributor possibly warrant that one of Alamy's customers is not going to use an image (for which Alamy granted the licence terms) in a way that won't be deemed indecent, obscene, defamatory etc. anywhere in the world. It's just ridiculous.

 

Alamy, please remove this nonsensical clause.

 

Mark

 

Clause 4.1.6 is ridiculous and completely unrealistic. If I say the Earth is 4.55 billion years old I will probably offend someone's religious beliefs. OMG. 😇