Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, MizBrown said:

 

Just occurred to me that the thing I want in an agent is that he or she protects my interests and isn't working for the buyer.  If the relationship with the buyer (the newspapers who have stock in PA) is more significant than the relationship with the seller, then the agent isn't likely to protect the seller's interests.

 

PA/Alamy is the buyers running the agency at the expense of the sellers.

 

 

 

What I have always argued is that phtographers need true agents, akin to theatrical, sports or writer's agents who actually act for their client, and usually take 15-20% commission for doing so. They often help shape. the client's career/ business direction. They do exist but they would not want to be working on small sales, that should be viable at scale and at similar margins; but the library wolves have cornered that market.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Has anybody thought about what is going on by Alamy in a psychological sense?

”We are taking this away from you. We are changing this clause, and several more, which will effect you negatively but maximize the company’s gains. We have added clauses that will open you up to legal ramifications.

 

Then they sit back and watch the firestorm in this forum.

Tomorrow, they might say...we have considered your concerns and have decided not to implement the clause opening you up to legal ramifications. Aren’t we special? We value you! We bowed to your wishes!

 

They expect we’ll jump for joy and grumble a bit, but accept all the other rotten changes including our percentages. After all, the benevolent company listened to us.

 

I quickly take the view in such circumstances that I need to take control of the situation, as far as I can, and especially my emotions. Act rather than React;; that is exactly what I am doing. Do what is best for me rather than waste energy on what I cannot control, or probably even influence.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Has anybody thought about what is going on by Alamy in a psychological sense?

”We are taking this away from you. We are changing this clause, and several more, which will effect you negatively but maximize the company’s gains. We have added clauses that will open you up to legal ramifications.

 

Then they sit back and watch the firestorm in this forum.

Tomorrow, they might say...we have considered your concerns and have decided not to implement the clause opening you up to legal ramifications. Aren’t we special? We value you! We bowed to your wishes!

 

They expect we’ll jump for joy and grumble a bit, but accept all the other rotten changes including our percentages. After all, the benevolent company listened to us.

I think you have hit the nail on the head Betty. It will not be long before we find out.

 

Shergar

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

This statement is included in the link to the new contract changes:

 

"The key changes under this amendment are outlined below."

 

So Alamy has only listed what they consider to be key changes.  It doesn't mean there aren't others that they don't consider key.  I think giving away images is a key change.

 

Jill

While this is correct, it links to something labelled as

 

"

Record of contract changes

Listed in chronoligical (sic!) order on the left are the dates on which alterations were made to the Contributor contract. Detailed explanations of the amendments made, as well as the previous contract, are available by clicking the required date."

 

 

 

This does should be Complete.  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

You are clearly an idealist with socialist tendencies. I got called a socialist by someone here last year as if it was an insult. 😀

 

How is you removing your images going to hurt Alamy. For a strike to work you have got to get the whole workforce striking. I admire your idealism but I will be living on the moon before that happens. Try something realistic.

 

Basically, PA/Alamy represents more the interests of the newspapers that own PA than it does photographers.  This may be completely sensible, but the conflict of interest was noted by several at the time of the sale.  The newspapers want to buy cheap.  Understandable.    The forum  has been a venue for creating a sense of corporate community, but it's been basically saving Alamy and PA from having to present that information more officially, which would mean paying someone on staff to write it and keep it current. 

 

As for the accuracy of tags and captions, there's zero oversight, because that would also cost money.

 

I'm  under no illusion that Alamy will miss me or fail to have replaced me several times over by tonight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all giving me a headache or it could be the wine - I find the tier system very unappealing as well as what others have already mentioned.  Most of my images are exclusive, however that is easily rectified if I choose to do so.   Act in haste, repent at leisure, so it's more wine for me - onwards & upwards.....

 

Carol

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Broad Norfolk said:

A thought for all Contributors. In terms of Contract Law what if it happens that the contract is declared illegal in any circumstance or becomes void and you have agreed to it? To Alamy also in this context be sure of what your intent was in drawing up this New Contract. Could be interesting in a court of law. 

I'm no expert, but I'm a firm believer in Common Law in the UK.

 

As an add-on, if the intent was to produce a draconian New Contract in order to reduce Contributor numbers then this is starting to take effect!!

I do not like this whole business - it stinks!! Sorry about that, but after 15+ years of hard work and in in the last 5 just starting to get somewhere it really hurts to even think about finishing. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

back from walk.  

 

my main concerns so far

 

1.I need clarification of the use of "anywhere in the world" in subsection 4.1.6.  Does it apply to only publicity rights are to all the elements.  If all, how it applies to editorial news- if i upload images of someone/something with content deemed "offensive anywhere in the world" (and let's be honest, this would apply at most protest) what is My exposure. 

 

2.I know you think the unilateral infringement pursuit is an exclusivity issue, i don't, so if i leave an image as exclusive which is a Punctual thing, nowhere do i warrant it was always exclusive, why am i on the hook for potential action against Alamy's decision to start procedures without checking with me.

 

2a. The Infringement team implementation. Two weeks ago we were asked to make an election, that was reversible with an email, now this election is nul and void?  What changed in these two weeks?

 

3. The lack of commission maximum that may be charged by a distributor.  The distributor contribution was part of our agreement before, it no longer is. Nothing would stop it from being 100% under current terms.

 

4. The reason presented in the blog for the change regarding the mislabelling  of exclusive, and how it was found as part of the infringement team work.  I quote an e-mail from Alamy 2 weeks ago "we now have a dedicated Infringements Team in place who will shortly start working with multiple Partners".  So the new commission was developed in less than 2 weeks.  This does not really seem possible.  

 

Could Clause 4.1.6 be the perfect straw man - in other words it is something that can be held up and then knocked down to show that Alamy is really listening to its contributor? Probably not.  It seems so ridiculous to me that I can't imagine it will remain in the contract. How could any contributor possibly warrant that "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 just can't see this being a problem but I would like to see it modified. Also I can see how the actual punctuation could be subject to intrepretation. Does the anywhere in the world apply to the publicity rights or the entire sentence? Perhaps it should be brought to the attention of the relevant media. 

 

2 and 4 Unless I am misreading something, the infringement team will only look for infringements that have been declared exclusive so again the simple answer is to make all your images non-exclusive. I can't see how this is a wider issue than exclusivity so a separate and important issue.

 

3. I doubt this is a deal breaker to make anyone resign. I haven't read that section.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Silver commission rate of 20% if you do not have $250 of sales in a year is extremely unfair for smaller contributors.  The amount you get for sales now is so small that $250 is not easily attainable.  In effect, smaller contributors are now being expected to subsidise larger ones.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyanU said:

See my posts above, the metadata and  moral rights clauses already existed, they've just been shifted. 4.1.6 is a bit silly as our contract specifies they will not be able to manipulate the image to become defamatory or unlawful.

 

Manipulating an image to create support for a political side or the other is completely okay, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

It's all giving me a headache or it could be the wine - I find the tier system very unappealing as well as what others have already mentioned.  Most of my images are exclusive, however that is easily rectified if I choose to do so.   Act in haste, repent at leisure, so it's more wine for me - onwards & upwards.....

 

Carol

 

If it goes the way of the last Tier system.....Reading what Doc  said, if he is not in the Platinum bracket, then who will be? Another straw man?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The level of confusion and frustration is now awful and will be difficult to clear up.We can only hope Alamy steps back a bit and makes it easier for contributors to stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MDM said:

 

Could Clause 4.1.6 be the perfect straw man - in other words it is something that can be held up and then knocked down to show that Alamy is really listening to its contributor? Probably not.  It seems so ridiculous to me that I can't imagine it will remain in the contract. How could any contributor possibly warrant that "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 just can't see this being a problem but I would like to see it modified. Also I can see how the actual punctuation could be subject to intrepretation. Does the anywhere in the world apply to the publicity rights or the entire sentence? Perhaps it should be brought to the attention of the relevant media. 

 

2 and 4 Unless I am misreading something, the infringement team will only look for infringements that have been declared exclusive so again the simple answer is to make all your images non-exclusive. I can't see how this is a wider issue than exclusivity so a separate and important issue.

 

3. I doubt this is a deal breaker to make anyone resign. I haven't read that section.

 

 

 

One thing to remember, many of us are international contributors, pursuing legal actions against a miswritten contract clause in a jurisdiction we have no foothold is not as simple as you make it sound.  

 

 

where did i say i was resigning,   And sorry 2 is a big issue.  Why if my images are exclusive do i need to change a label, which I spent lots of times on,  because of some impact on something totally different, which has nothing to do with exclusivity.  You ask what the big issues about the change, to me this is a big issue about the change.  In fact I am supposed to make sure all the information i enter is correct, but now if i do so i am exposed.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, griangraf said:

The level of confusion and frustration is now awful and will be difficult to clear up.We can only hope Alamy steps back a bit and makes it easier for contributors to stay.

By their response to our concerns, we'll find out if they want contributors to stay.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I've mentioned the ones I've noticed already:

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

Inter alia, this gives them the right to license images I designated RM as RF, which would break my contract with my other place (where I earn much more)

It gives them the right to sell editorial files for commerical uses, and not to charge any money for licences.

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.”

Probably an illegal clause, but I'm concerned that Alamy is even trying to grant itself a 'get out of jail card'. But I'd rather they educate the buyers on proper use, and leave the burden of correct use with them. Even if exonerated, I'm not willing to find myself possibily having to spend a lot of time, money and nervous energy in the process.

"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; "

I do due diligence in researching my photos for accuracy, but I can't possibly know whether things have changed. If I find out something has changed I amend the caption appropriately, e.g. uses of buildings, species names/classifications: but beyond that I cannot commit. It's very unlikely I'd find out about e.g. changes of uses of a building in a country I'm not likely to visit again in the foreseeable future.

“4.1.11. the author of the Content has waived all moral rights in respect of the Content”

What concerns me most about that is that again it shows Alamy seems to think it can write clauses into contracts which undermine national/international Laws. They should be at the forefront of upholding photographers' rights.

 

At the moment, these are the ones which concern me most, but I'm still going over them.

Some other people may be more upset by e.g. Alamy having first dibs on chasing up infringements, especially people who already subscribe to an infringement-chasing service.

"16.2. Each party shall promptly inform the other of any actual or suspected infringement of copyright, loss of Images, breach of moral rights or other matter giving rise to threat of proceedings or claims or demands in respect of any of the Images. In the event of any alleged breach of any licence by a Customer or any Infringement of intellectual property or other rights in an Image by a third party, Alamy may either take action itself against the Customer or third party or alternatively inform you that it will not be taking action and you may then do so at your option."

 

As I said already, if you're not concerned about any of the new clauses, that's fine, as you were.

 

I really think that if you read through the old and new contracts, you will find that a lot of what is in the new one (Apart from the stuff around exclusivity and Clause 4.1.6) was  there already, a lot of it for years. Part of the confusion is the way the changes are labelled. I got fooled by that yesterday and made an idiot of myself by posting false assertions that I had to retract. 

 

However, the fact that a lot of stuff is not new does not mean it is not a matter of concern if one is not abiding by the contract. I have tended to be more cautious in general than a lot of people I know who submit stock and I am being extra cautious now by marking a lot of images as Editorial Only to be on the safer side, even if there is no need to do so. The amount I make from it is not worth the hassle or stress of worrying about to in any case. However, I would be very reluctant to cancel the contract having put the work into it that I already have but I would do it if I felt I had to do so. Perhaps it Is a good time to go through one's port and see what is worth keeping or should be restricted. That is what I am intending in the first place.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

One thing to remember, many of us are international contributors, pursuing legal actions against a miswritten contract clause in a jurisdiction we have no foothold is not as simple as you make it sound.  

 

 

where did i say i was resigning,   And sorry 2 is a big issue.  Why if my images are exclusive do i need to change a label, which I spent lots of times on,  because of some impact on something totally different, which has nothing to do with exclusivity.  You ask what the big issues about the change, to me this is a big issue about the change.  In fact I am supposed to make sure all the information i enter is correct, but now if i do so i am exposed.  

 

I wasn't suggesting you were resigning. My original question asked for reasons why people were leaving many with haste and I was specifically excluding exclusivity, I know that is a big issue but it was not what I was asking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

By their response to our concerns, we'll find out if they want contributors to stay.

 

I don't think they care if Silver level contributors stay or go. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MDM said:

 

I really think that if you read through the old and new contracts, you will find that a lot of what is in the new one (Apart from the stuff around exclusivity and Clause 4.1.6) was  there already, a lot of it for years. Part of the confusion is the way the changes are labelled. I got fooled by that yesterday and made an idiot of myself by posting false assertions that I had to retract. 

 

However, the fact that a lot of stuff is not new does not mean it is not a matter of concern if one is not abiding by the contract. I have tended to be more cautious in general than a lot of people I know who submit stock and I am being extra cautious now by marking a lot of images as Editorial Only to be on the safer side, even if there is no need to do so. The amount I make from it is not worth the hassle or stress of worrying about to in any case. However, I would be very reluctant to cancel the contract having put the work into it that I already have but I would do it if I felt I had to do so. Perhaps it Is a good time to go through one's port and see what is worth keeping or should be restricted. That is what I am intending in the first place.

I've always erred very much on the cautious side with indicating files which have no releases, even when there is no need for them, and even though if you don't say you have releases, the selling page says that there are none, even if they don't need any.

I do note that they have reserved the right to sell images any way they want, which potentially would include selling editorials as commercial, while trying to hold themselves not to have liability.

Anyway, I'll see what they have to say when they get back to us, and meanwhile make sure my ducks are in a row for if I have to jump ship.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I don't think they care if Silver level contributors stay or go. 

Quite probably.

I'd be Gold and I don't imagine they care for one moment if I stay or go either.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tomtomtom said:

Long story, short: 


Dear, 

I would like to advise you that the new contract terms are not accepted, I do not accept that they apply to any of my images and all of my images must be made non saleable by the start of the new contract date, 1st July 2021. I  expressly do not agree nor will be bound by this contract as I have given you reasonable notice of my objection.

Could you please confirm?

Thanks a lot!”


Hi Thomas

 

Sorry to hear you want to leave us. We’ll get the process started and your account will be closed on the 30th June. 

 

Thanks”

 

 

but one thing: if a lot of us leave Alamy, it could get better for the ones who stay. Less competition. I hope this works for you! 

 

 

 

Just an observation but all of the images in your port that I have looked at contain your email details asking buyers to contact you directly. That is not exactly what one would call being bound to the contract as it is a direct breach and has been for years since I joined.   How has that worked for you? Just saying'. 😀😇

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I don't think they care if Silver level contributors stay or go. 

 

I think they want their silver contibutors.  There are thousands of contributors who would fall in that category, and with the falling of prices, a lot more will join them.  This gives Alamy twice the income from those images.  Remember on S******* the rate (except for grandfathered in contributors)  has always been 80/20.  I think they are hoping the vast majority of the contributors will end up there eventually.  If they didn't, your category should be based on number of sales, not gross income from sales.

 

This allows them to drop their prices further and still make more money as more and more contributors would end up in silver due to low gross sales.

 

Jill

Edited by Jill Morgan
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I've always erred very much on the cautious side with indicating files which have no releases, even when there is no need for them, and even though if you don't say you have releases, the selling page says that there are none, even if they don't need any.

I do note that they have reserved the right to sell images any way they want, which potentially would include selling editorials as commercial, while trying to hold themselves not to have liability.

Anyway, I'll see what they have to say when they get back to us, and meanwhile make sure my ducks are in a row for if I have to jump ship.

 

I think that was there in the previous contract as well. If so, we should be equally worried now. But I have had enough of this for now. Need to clear my brain of legalese. Best of luck. 😀

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MDM said:

You are clearly an idealist with socialist tendencies.

 

God forbid that photographers work together for a common purpose. 😂

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
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.