Jump to content

Contract Change 2021 - Official thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BobD said:

I don't believe that the threshold was set to keep agencies happy. I think that agencies and large libraries would almost certainly have individual contracts.

In my opinion the threshold was set purely to exclude the vast majority on individual contributors.

It certainly isn't for the agencies as they won't be exclusive anyway. I'm guessing that agencies with large collections will have negotiated their own deals and contracts with Alamy.

I think you are right that the new contract and percentage split is to exclude the small to mid individual contributors. If it wasn't intentional it will certainly have that effect.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

So perhaps we should all contact some PA shareholders?

https://pamediagroup.com/about-us/

 

Some Alamy contributors might recognise a few customers! 

 

Must be grounds for an anti-competitive investigation surely?

Guardian, Sun and Telegraph... Aka, papers that get major discounts for online stock use...

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobD said:

You should remove your images first, wait 6 months for them to be taken down fully and then close your account. that way if any sell in the meantime you will still get what's due, otherwise any that sell Alamy will keep all the commission.

The risk then is any sales after 1st July will have the usage/indemnity issues under the new contract. To avoid that you need to close your account before 1st July.

I clicked the delete button on all my images (status said would be deleted in Nov), then I closed my account, and today my dashboard status is zero on sale, zero not on sale.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

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

 

Allan

 

I doubt  you could argue 'surely' in a court of law.

The new contract clause expressly says: "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; ", which implies that you need to keep going back to places to make sure your metadata is up to date. And in fact 'all other information' - does that imply that you shouldn't have something which doesn't look like it is nowadays? Can we get over that by putting expressly in our caption that it's as it was on X date? (not expecting a definitive answer from anyone on the forum - that's another way for the lawyers to make money. Maybe they have a percentage deal with their lawyers?!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

So perhaps we should all contact some PA shareholders?

https://pamediagroup.com/about-us/

 

Some Alamy contributors might recognise a few customers! 

 

Must be grounds for an anti-competitive investigation surely?

 

That would be the entire British Media then. Let's not go totally Chicken Little here. Yes the sky is falling but it's been falling all along people. These are the people who control the lives of most denizens of this country - right wing, very right wing, liberal, left wing - all are represented. Have you seen the make up of the Board. What's new? Nuff said.

Edited by MDM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Let's see: Alamy has turned against us. My rental agency has turned against me. The weather sucks. I've lost the pleasure of restaurant dinning. Maybe it's time to get into a fistfight with a stranger. I'm old and weak and slow but I'll show him. Or her.  🤨

Me: (frantically calculating the distance between here and Liverpool)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RyanU said:

Guardian, Sun and Telegraph... Aka, papers that get major discounts for online stock use...

 

Last year I discovered (Alamy shareholder) Reach plc. using my image on one of their regional news websites without a licence. The organisation which supplied them with that image claimed to have been granted permission by Alamy staff for additional publicity uses, but the written terms of the licence did not cover it and Alamy denied it. Unsurprisingly, given the conflict of interest as I now realise, Alamy were not especially pro-active in pursuing it! Alamy does not act in our best interests and cannot be trusted, as this latest episode further illustrates.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

If I stay put and accept these insulting contract changes, I will lose many of my chat pals here on the forum? That's not good. Like Allan, I went out for a walk, although I was not looking for a bus to solve things. It was pouring rain with a stiff wind. I was going to eat out for lunch, Indian maybe, but the blush is off the rose with that too.

 

Let's see: Alamy has turned against us. My rental agency has turned against me. The weather sucks. I've lost the pleasure of restaurant dinning. Maybe it's time to get into a fistfight with a stranger. I'm old and weak and slow but I'll show him. Or her.  🤨

 

Edo, I share your pain ... Well, some of it.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MDM said:

That would be the entire British Media then.

 

A media which relies heavily on a wide selection of cheaply sourced images for their continued survival. If images start disappearing however they might begin to re-evaluate Alamy's tactics. Withdraw the results of your photographic labour...



51187088723_aab0d275ba_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mickfly said:

All these unfamiliar names posting on the forum with many of them having up to 18 years supplying Alamy.

I'm certainly one of those :)

 

I'm going to wait to see how Alamy respond to the many points raised on this forum.

 

Mainly the rather worrying legal implications in the new contract especially for exclusive material which will almost certainly mean that those who choose to stay with Alamy will go totally non exclusive asap. There is no longer any royalty incentive to stay exclusive and with this cut to our earning potential there is every incentive to place our images with other agencies.

 

I'm sure many on here have either photographic insurance or business insurance, mine has a free legal advice line which in the blurb covers contracts. I'll wait to see if Alamy amend theirs and if/when they do I'll be seeking proper legal advice.

I think I know what the answer will be but always best to check. I'm sure my options will be to either pull eighteen years of images off Alamy for legal peace of mind or to go totally non exclusive and relegate Alamy for the occasional images that I don't place elsewhere rather than as my main outlet for stock.

 

I'm hoping that in the UK the likes of the AOP, NUJ, BPPA and the RPS will get their legal teams to look at the contract too and give their members advice.

 

I'm probably very naive in believing that Alamy felt a bit like family and looked after it's contributors, sadly I think those days may have just gone.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone commented on:

New Clause "4.1.11. the author of the Content has waived all moral rights in respect of the Content"

According to Wikipedia:

"Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions.

The moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation". Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play"

Again, that's Alamy putting clauses into the contract which contradict the laws of many countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

(I'm composing my email to Ms Shelley and looking over some more of the new clauses which may cause concern.)

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

 

Again, that's Alamy putting clauses into the contract which contradict the laws of many countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

(I'm composing my letter to Ms Shelley and looking over some more of the new clauses which may cause concern.)

 

 

That is all to common for the creative professions, I have seen it with publishers treying for rights grabs from both writeing and photogarphy, and giving little back in return.  It is up there with wanting stuff for free for 'exposure'.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the issues around Exclusivity which I get and can totally understand why people feel betrayed and let down and for which there is a simple solution ( make your images non-exclusive), I would love to see a simple list of the NEW or ALTERED sections of the new contract that were NOT IN PREVIOUS CONTRACTS that are causing people to panic and even delete their accounts so quickly without even waiting to see what Alamy has to say.

 

Again without doing a forensic analysis of the various contracts over the years, it seems to me that a lot of this liability and indemnity stuff has always been there and it is standard legal fare for stock. In other words, you are currently indemnifying Alamy if you are uploading images from places where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, for example. And there are numerous other areas where little or nothing has changed. Let's hear it for the real differences (ASIDE FROM EXCLUSIVITY) in a calm, simple and rational manner.

 

 

 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MDM said:

Aside from the issues around Exclusivity which I get and can totally understand why people feel betrayed and let down and for which there is a simple solution ( make your images non-exclusive), I would love to see a simple list of the NEW or ALTERED sections of the new contract that were NOT IN PREVIOUS CONTRACTS that are causing people to delete their accounts so quickly without even waiting to see what Alamy has to say.

 

Again without doing a forensic analysis of the various contracts over the years, it seems to me that a lot of this liability and indemnity stuff has always been there and it is standard legal fare for stock. In other words, you are currently indemnifying Alamy if you are uploading images from places where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, for example. And there are numerous other areas where little or nothing has changed. Let's hear it for the real differences (ASIDE FROM EXCLUSIVITY) in a calm, simple and rational manner.

It's easy enough to read here:

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.aspx

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

If I stay put and accept these insulting contract changes, I will lose many of my chat pals here on the forum? That's not good. Like Allan, I went out for a walk, although I was not looking for a bus to solve things. It was pouring rain with a stiff wind. I was going to eat out for lunch, Indian maybe, but the blush is off the rose with that too.

 

Let's see: Alamy has turned against us. My rental agency has turned against me. The weather sucks. I've lost the pleasure of restaurant dinning. Maybe it's time to get into a fistfight with a stranger. I'm old and weak and slow but I'll show him. Or her.  🤨

 

If I were closer I would offer myself to you Edo. At least we would be a bit more evenly matched.🙂

 

Allan

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

A media which relies heavily on a wide selection of cheaply sourced images for their continued survival. If images start disappearing however they might begin to re-evaluate Alamy's tactics. Withdraw the results of your photographic labour...



51187088723_aab0d275ba_o.jpg

 

That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Protest is only effective if it hurts financially. For every one of you there will be another ten ready to take your place. It's a market thing. I have  spent more than 40 years involved in photography and invested enormous amounts of time and energy perfecting my work but the fact is that is very easy (and cheap) to take a picture that is suitable for publication these days. You don't even need a computer and you don't need a degree in photography - a phone is enough for a lot of images that get published online now. It's sad for us but it is true. Fortunately it does not apply to all areas of photography including many areas of stock. But the market is totally saturated for most types of imagery.

Edited by MDM
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MDM said:

That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Protest is only effective if it hurts financially.

 

Anything which hurts Alamy financially will also hurt us financially in the short term. That's how a strike works. Short term pain for long term gain. The purpose is to irritate buyers in order to exert additional pressure.

Edited by hotbrightsky
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MDM said:

I asked what is causing the panic (ASIDE FROM EXCLUSIVITY)?

I've been listing the clauses which cause me concern throughout this thread.

One is a deal breaker for me and several others; others are of serious concern to me. None of them may be of concern to you. That's our respective prerogatives.

It's everyone's individual responsibility to check the new contract terms and decide if they are willing to continue under these terms - or at least to wait to see if there is a rewriting of the clauses to be clearer and less equivocal/obfuscatory.

As you've been aroud the block for a while, like me, you must have seen many times people asking questions on the forum which shows they didn't read the contract and/or contributor guidance.

In other places (I don't think in this thread here) contributors have not known that Alamy was sold to PA.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sally R said:

Tired now here is West Oz so off to bed shortly.

 

But just wanted to say, I think the great positive of Alamy has been the diversity of it's collection. Some stock agencies work at being really hip, especially the highly curated ones, with stylised lifestyle imagery. There is a lot of stereotypical repetition across the industry. Then there are vast quantities of images across microstock geared towards commercial uses but with some editorial.

 

But Alamy is hard to pigeon-hole, and that is a good thing. While Alamy may be looking more and more towards big agency contributors over the little guy, it is the small contributors who have made the collection so diverse and unique. If I look for country towns in my state, for example, I often find a range of interesting contributions - streetscapes,  archival images, botanical images, community events, local colourful characters etc etc. It is generally hard to find the same diversity on other stock sites. In my time looking for images for the "Have you Found Any Alamy Images" monthly thread, I am always amazed how widely Alamy images a distributed across publications of all sorts.

 

In a rush to make itself more corporate Alamy runs the risk of losing its heart and soul, the reason it is such a unique, varied and appealing collection. I can't think of or find any other agency quite like it, but I'm worried it is going to lose what makes it great. If Alamy loses a lot of contributors, which it now appears at risk of doing, that will erode some of what makes it an excellent stock agency.

 

In terms of the worrying clauses in the new contract that seem to place greater risk on contributors, I think Alamy really has to think about what it is doing and who and what it is valuing. Once it loses the trust and goodwill of its contributors, it will lose the very essence of what has made it such an interesting and varied agency. I also think that, really, it is the agency's responsibility to handle issues of liability and image use wisely, but it seems Alamy now wants to take greater risks while abdicating its responsibility in that area, relegating that risk to the most vulnerable party, the contributors, without whom they don't have a collection. It seems like it even wants to override the conditions stipulated by contributors on how images can be used. That makes things very tenuous and uncomfortable for us if we stick around.

 

I'm not sure I've expressed that very well as very tired. But Alamy, try to stay grounded and connected to what has made your collection what it is. This is probably a faceless plea in the face of a heartless, corporate machine, but at least I tried. 

 

Sally, you've put it brilliantly, this is exactly how I feel!  Alamy will no longer be the library for the weird and wonderful image, it will just be like all the rest.  Lose the  individual contributors and Alamy will lose its heart.

 

I'm not going yet, I'll wait and see what happens with the new contract, but I can't risk Alamy overiding my restrictions or being sued.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Not a woman to mince words!  My Spanish runs to that.

And to think I was going to go for "madre de Dios". No imagination.

Jinoteganos are kinda blunt.   Soy no Nicaraguenses, pero soy Jinotegana. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.