Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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??

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 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 by Shergar
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by MizBrown
unreleased, not released
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Thyrsis
  • Sad 4
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ...

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

2A7WD1B.jpg!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 😉 

 

 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked 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.