Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Martin P Wilson]

29 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

When I occasionally had lunch in the 1980's with other full time professional stock photographers there was always discussion about stock photographer A going to Antarctica, stock photographer B trekking around Everest, stock photographer C off to the Amazon. Photographers ABC all using their own financial resources from stock to shoot stock.

 

As we all burned with envy when we compared ABC with our own trips to Niagara Falls we would snap ourself back to reality with the question "is stock photography a photographic business, or a photographic lifestyle"?

 

We knew that ABC would never sell enough from those particular trips to even break even. No big budget major airlines or car rental companies or government tourist bureaus promoting those locations. So those trips were for a photographic lifestyle.

 

When I look at our Alamy portfolios, today's travel costs, and Alamy prices, I have to conclude that many of us are Alamy photographers for the photographic lifestyle.

 

What is the effect of the new Alamy contract on our photographic lifestyle? Given the contract's restrictive legal nature, 20% less money, and lower Alamy prices down to zero, I think some of us would be better off looking for other ways to support our photographic lifestyle.

 

Contra deals, that would be dangerous and maybe impossible under the new Alamy contract, could be possible. Free accommodation at a resort in return for free photographs taken around the resort. Travel expenses from a non profit in return for free photography telling the story of their work in the field. Free access to private places in return for free photography. Donate your stock collection to a museum or university in return for an income tax write off. Free photography of an author, who could introduce you to their publisher. Accommodations in country homes in return for photography lessons. Make your presence felt at gallery openings. Get a patron. A photo book on your favourite subject would open all sorts of contra deals. A second book even more.

 

The entry point for much of the above contra is to attract attention to yourself by giving away copyright images for free from your existing stock photo collection. If Alamy gives your images away for free or nearly free, you get no credit and thereby remain anonymous. Uncredited stock is anonymous for the photographer, but distributing free photographs through your website, blog, facebook page, Flickr, builds a reputation that leads to contra deals that support a photographic lifestyle.

 

Absolutely hits the nail on the head. But is about treating it as a business, at least as far as setting up the contra deals.

[MizBrown]

28 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

When I occasionally had lunch in the 1980's with other full time professional stock photographers there was always discussion about stock photographer A going to Antarctica, stock photographer B trekking around Everest, stock photographer C off to the Amazon. Photographers ABC all using their own financial resources from stock to shoot stock.

 

As we all burned with envy when we compared ABC with our own trips to Niagara Falls we would snap ourself back to reality with the question "is stock photography a photographic business, or a photographic lifestyle"?

 

We knew that ABC would never sell enough from those particular trips to even break even. No big budget major airlines or car rental companies or government tourist bureaus promoting those locations. So those trips were for a photographic lifestyle.

 

When I look at our Alamy portfolios, today's travel costs, and Alamy prices, I have to conclude that many of us are Alamy photographers for the photographic lifestyle.

 

What is the effect of the new Alamy contract on our photographic lifestyle? Given the contract's restrictive legal nature, 20% less money, and lower Alamy prices down to zero, I think some of us would be better off looking for other ways to support our photographic lifestyle.

 

Contra deals, that would be dangerous and maybe impossible under the new Alamy contract, could be possible. Free accommodation at a resort in return for free photographs taken around the resort. Travel expenses from a non profit in return for free photography telling the story of their work in the field. Free access to private places in return for free photography. Donate your stock collection to a museum or university in return for an income tax write off. Free photography of an author, who could introduce you to their publisher. Accommodations in country homes in return for photography lessons. Make your presence felt at gallery openings. Get a patron. A photo book on your favourite subject would open all sorts of contra deals. A second book even more.

 

The entry point for much of the above contra is to attract attention to yourself by giving away copyright images for free from your existing stock photo collection. If Alamy gives your images away for free or nearly free, you get no credit and thereby remain anonymous. Uncredited stock is anonymous for the photographer, but distributing free photographs through your website, blog, facebook page, Flickr, builds a reputation that leads to contra deals that support a photographic lifestyle.

 

Does this work?   A lot of people have pushed self-publishing as a way to build an audience, but a lot of this is selling editing and book design services. 

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, MDM said:

Clause 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.

 

Looking at this again, I have come to the opinion (which can easily be proved correct or incorrect by some input from Alamy) that what is meant is: 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 or vulgar. Also any use will not violate publicity rights anywhere in the world.

 

In other words it's an Eat Shoots and Leaves job. Or not. Now my knowledge of law is strictly layman and  I would rather be studying the laws which govern plate tectonics and volcanism any day. However, the contract is governed by the laws of England and Wales which probably places a high bar on the interpretation of what is obscene and indecent (probably not so much on defamatory I believe). The anywhere in the world but refers only to violating publicity rights. 

 

OK that is my interpretation. I await enlightenment.

But clause 4.1.6 is the section which starts with

 

Contributor warranties, representations & obligations

You warrant and represent that:

 

i.e. 4.1.6 is an obligation on the contributor.... 

 

So, unfortunately Clause 4.1.6 still makes no sense to me however I try to read it, irrespective of whether "worldwide" applies to the whole clause or just part. But, like you I'm no lawyer. However, given this is a contract that Alamy want photographers (not lawyers) to agree to, it needs to worded in way that we can actually understand. Otherwise, how are we supposed to agree or abide with it?

 

Mark

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by M.Chapman
Corrected 4.1.3 to 4.1.6

[Bill Kuta]

43 minutes ago, MDM said:

Clause 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.

 

Looking at this again, I have come to the opinion (which can easily be proved correct or incorrect by some input from Alamy) that what is meant is: 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 or vulgar. Also any use will not violate publicity rights anywhere in the world.

 

In other words it's an Eat Shoots and Leaves job. Or not. Now my knowledge of law is strictly layman and  I would rather be studying the laws which govern plate tectonics and volcanism any day. However, the contract is governed by the laws of England and Wales which probably places a high bar on the interpretation of what is obscene and indecent (probably not so much on defamatory I believe). The anywhere in the world but refers only to violating publicity rights. 

 

OK that is my interpretation. I await enlightenment.

 

Well, whichever way you want to parse it, to me the main thing is that the clause is part of:   4. Contributor warranties, representations & obligations

 

So can you certify those things that are out of your control?

 

edit: Mark beat me to it

Edited May 20, 2021 by Bill Kuta

[AlbertSnapper]

I wouldn't be surprised if the forum here was dropped too.

I don't think Alamy is interested in (us) helping newbies get along. Doesn't even want to pay them as much as the majority (presuming a newbie takes a while to get over the lower sales limit of course).

 

Also, we have the newspaper scheme, whereby there was an opt-out option if so desired. That option was taken away from us recently. 

I wonder if in future distribution will also be for everyone ?  Without us choosing the option/territories ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Autumn Sky]

12 hours ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

 

 

 

The company I work for in my 9-5 is undergoing a massive transformation including a more horizontal structure, flexible working, permanent working from home arrangements and potentially a 4 day work week. It's the first time I have worked for a company that listens and supports its employees, there is a sense of trust and eagerness to contribute and I can tell you it feels great to be part of that.

I am with you;  I also worked for major int'l company where main motto was "our biggest asset are our employees".   Flex hrs, facilities, open door management and interesting assignments - going to work was chosen lifestyle, not a chore.   Too many companies even today don't understand this.  Stock is difficult because industry is oversaturated and overall on downward trend, but core principle should still apply.  Alamy is IMHO still better than others;  look at how some MS agencies treat their contributors,  senseless AI reviews, hard reset on Jan 1 to level 0 for everyone, downloads for fraction of a penny, etc etc.  But Alamy is feeling pinch largely created by microstock large subscriptions model that gives content almost for free;  and is trying to cope as best as it can.  At least this is how I am reading all this.

[MDM]

22 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

 

Well, whichever way you want to parse it, to me the main thing is that the clause is part of:   4. Contributor warranties, representations & obligations

 

So can you certify those things that are out of your control?

 

edit: Mark beat me to it

 

23 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

But clause 4.1.6 is the section which starts with

 

Contributor warranties, representations & obligations

You warrant and represent that:

 

i.e. 4.1.3 is an obligation on the contributor.... 

 

So, unfortunately Clause 4.1.6 still makes no sense to me however I try to read it, irrespective of whether "worldwide" applies to the whole clause or just part. But, like you I'm no lawyer. However, given this is a contract that Alamy want photographers (not lawyers) to agree to, it needs to worded in way that we can actually understand. Otherwise, how are we supposed to agree or abide with it?

 

Mark

 

 

 

I know but those obligation clauses have been there all along in one form or another and very similar to the present contract. Even parts of 4.1.6 have been there in previous contracts. I am just trying to make sense of what appears to be a really nonsensical clause. How hard would it be to produce an image that would be deemed indecent in some part of the world. Vulgar. I can be. OK I haven't a clue. They are going to have to edit it anyway as the word indecent occurs twice. 

 

Please Alamy explain what is really meant and rephrase. If this is taken literally and we are expected to warrant it then I guess it might be time to hand in notice. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by MDM

[Cryptoprocta]

17 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

I wonder if in future distribution will also be for everyone ?  Without us choosing the option/territories ?

They have it in the contract that they can do so, even if they were to claim they have 'no plans' for doing it.

"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"

[MDM]

1 minute ago, Cryptoprocta said:

They have it in the contract that they can do so, even if they were to claim they have 'no plans' for doing it.

"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"

 

That is something that goes way back although perhaps the wording has changed a bit. I think what it means is that, if you have licensed an image elsewhere, it doesn't prevent Alamy from licensing it now. I don't think it is referring to the type of licence or saying that you can't put restrictions (e.g Editorial Only) as there's another clause further down about that "4.1.10 you have detailed in full in the relevant fields of the System any and all restrictions that you wish to apply to each item Content, such restrictions to include all rights that have previously been licensed or granted in respect of the Content. You acknowledge and agree that Alamy may set additional restrictions in relation to the Content."

 

I agree this is confusing but it is not new to this contract (except perhaps in detail but not in intent I guess).

[Richard Tadman]

3 hours ago, imageplotter said:

🤢

Hang on! If Alamy wishes to offer images at no charge then that is a strategic marketing decision on their behalf to generate additional sales for them. Please explain why I am party to your largesse? My images are submitted to secure a financial return. Alamy by all means can offer their services FOC but I still expect to receive an adequate compensation for my work.
I am not a registered charity

[meanderingemu]

42 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

 

 

Also, we have the newspaper scheme, whereby there was an opt-out option if so desired. That option was taken away from us recently. 

I wonder if in future distribution will also be for everyone ?  Without us choosing the option/territories ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

They have it in the contract that they can do so, even if they were to claim they have 'no plans' for doing it.

"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"

 

They still must respect the agree and  it would require another amendment since the contract still states that it is optional. (section 11)

 

[Cryptoprocta]

12 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

That is something that goes way back although perhaps the wording has changed a bit. I think what it means is that, if you have licensed an image elsewhere, it doesn't prevent Alamy from licensing it now. I don't think it is referring to the type of licence or saying that you can't put restrictions (e.g Editorial Only) as there's another clause further down about that "4.1.10 you have detailed in full in the relevant fields of the System any and all restrictions that you wish to apply to each item Content, such restrictions to include all rights that have previously been licensed or granted in respect of the Content. You acknowledge and agree that Alamy may set additional restrictions in relation to the Content."

 

I agree this is confusing but it is not new to this contract (except perhaps in detail but not in intent I guess).

This is the whole problem.

We shouldn't have a contract in which we are each interpreting the clauses in our own interests.

There really shouldn't be any room for one person saying, "It surely means this ..." and someone else saying, "But it could also mean that ..." - and maybe we have all missed what they really meant, or what their intentions really are.

All ambiguity does is sow mistrust and keep lawyers in clover.

If they mean something, make it clear in the contract, even if it means going back to basics and rewriting the whole thing. Then things would only appear in one place.

(And, en passant, formatting it in a way that makes it far more easily readable online. Just a thought.).

[Cryptoprocta]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

They still must respect the agree and  it would require another amendment since the contract still states that it is optional. (section 11)

 

There are a few areas where one part of the contract seems to conflict with, or even contradict another.

It's just not good enough.

Must. Try. Harder.

[MDM]

I agree it is not simple and appears ambiguous in places  but a lot of it has been there for several previous versions. I think there is a Chicken Little effect going on here but, as I said before, that doesn't mean the sky is not falling on you head. It's just you never noticed it before because you probably did not attempt to dissect the contract before. Neither did I for a long time. And a lot of the problem now is the lack of trust with Alamy because of what they have done with exclusivity and payment. Now people don't trust the motives and that is very understandable. Shame. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by MDM

[Richard Tadman]

Since this contact amendment was announced, i.e. within the last few days, the reaction on the forum has been disappointment, hostile, incredulous and vitriolic.
Given that each page averages 25 posts, that equates to 44 x 25 = (1,100 heart felt objections at the time of writing) not to mention all the silent majority,  to the proposed changes.
Now either PA/ Alamy are pursuing a vendetta against well-meaning and bloody hardworking contributors or they have joined the ill-informed clan of the 6 premier league football teams who disregarded those who financed them in the belief that they knew better, subsequently at their peril
I hope that the outcome will be less detrimental than the football fiasco, but the principle remains the same.
We the photographers are the sole generators of all Alamy income and "be you ever so high" - the contributors are above you! Ignore this at your peril.
 

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

I agree it is not simple and appears ambiguous in places  but a lot of it has been there for several previous versions. I think there is a Chicken Little effect going on here but, as I said before, that doesn't mean the sky is not falling on you head. It's just you never noticed it before because you probably did not attempt to dissect the contract before. Neither did I for a long time. And a lot of the problem now is the lack of trust with Alamy because of what they have done with exclusivity and payment. Now people don't trust the motives and that is very understandable. Shame. 

 

i agree with you that many are discovering things that were always there. 

 

i would add communication also as a reason to distrust.  The literally blaming contributors for the change (exclusivity setting) and the here is the document with not one attempt to interact with the contributors does seem to imply the lack of the partnership many felt they had with Alamy. 

[meanderingemu]

19 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

There are a few areas where one part of the contract seems to conflict with, or even contradict another.

It's just not good enough.

Must. Try. Harder.

 

the presentation is bad, i agree

 

but from a contract stand-point they still have to abide by the most beneficial clause towards the contributor.  They are the ones who wrote it

[Cryptoprocta]

3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

... The literally blaming contributors for the change (exclusivity setting) and the here is the document with not one attempt to interact with the contributors does seem to imply the lack of the partnership many felt they had with Alamy. 

And yet:

"Why did Alamy choose to sell to the PA Media Group?

It was important to Alamy to choose a business that shared its ethos of integrity and quality, but also shared its vision for continuing to connect a community of content creators and content users."

https://pamediagroup.com/faqs-pa-media-group-acquires-alamy

[Foreign Export]

It was important to Alamy to choose a business that shared its ethos of integrity and quality, but also shared its vision for continuing to connect a community of content creators and content users."

https://pamediagroup.com/faqs-pa-media-group-acquires-alamy

 

 

thats what every firm who sells trots out 

[MDM]

2 minutes ago, Richard Tadman said:

Since this contact amendment was announced, i.e. within the last few days, the reaction on the forum has been disappointment, hostile, incredulous and vitriolic.
Given that each page averages 25 posts, that equates to 44 x 25 = (1,100 heart felt objections at the time of writing) not to mention all the silent majority,  to the proposed changes.
Now either PA/ Alamy are pursuing a vendetta against well-meaning and bloody hardworking contributors or they have joined the ill-informed clan of the 6 premier league football teams who disregarded those who financed them in the belief that they knew better, subsequently at their peril
I hope that the outcome will be less detrimental than the football fiasco, but the principle remains the same.
We the photographers are the sole generators of all Alamy income and "be you ever so high" - the contributors are above you! Ignore this at your peril.
 

 

In that case the entire British media came out venomously and with full force against it, not least because they stood to lose out massively. A great big army of football fans as well was mobilised. This is entirely different, not least because Alamy is owned by a lot of the media that came out against the Super League. A strike would be totally ineffective and simplistic. What Alamy has lost is trust and goodwill. That may well hurt in the longer term but in the short term it has almost zero effect. 

[Richard Tadman]

6 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

In that case the entire British media came out venomously and with full force against it, not least because they stood to lose out massively. A great big army of football fans as well was mobilised. This is entirely different, not least because Alamy is owned by a lot of the media that came out against the Super League. A strike would be totally ineffective and simplistic. What Alamy has lost is trust and goodwill. That may well hurt in the longer term but in the short term it has almost zero effect. 

You've completely missed the point. It's not an issue of volume or absolute numbers, but an attempt by an ill-informed business group, thinking it has carte-blanche to ride roughshod over the very people that generate its income. Who mentioned anything about a strike?
 

[MDM]

22 minutes ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

"We the photographers are the sole generators of all Alamy income and "be you ever so high" - the contributors are above you! Ignore this at your peril."

 

You've completely missed the point. It's not an issue of volume or absolute numbers, but an attempt by an ill-informed business group, thinking it has carte-blanche to ride roughshod over the very people that generate its income. Who mentioned anything about a strike?

 

 

Perhaps I might have understood if you had been clear in what you meant by ignore this at your peril.

 

What do you think is going to happen. Let me guess since I still don't get your point as quoted. Some people leave and loads more will arrive to fill the gap. Unless you are producing very unique work, who is going to care if you (or I ) leave. It's the way of the world. Ultimately it will come down to like it or lump it. 
 
 

Edited May 20, 2021 by MDM

[Richard Tadman]

I cant be anymore specific than if Alamy intends to ride roughshod over existing contributors - I’m out.  I’ve no interest in future contributors.  

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

This is the whole problem.

We shouldn't have a contract in which we are each interpreting the clauses in our own interests.

There really shouldn't be any room for one person saying, "It surely means this ..." and someone else saying, "But it could also mean that ..." - and maybe we have all missed what they really meant, or what their intentions really are.

All ambiguity does is sow mistrust and keep lawyers in clover.

If they mean something, make it clear in the contract, even if it means going back to basics and rewriting the whole thing. Then things would only appear in one place.

(And, en passant, formatting it in a way that makes it far more easily readable online. Just a thought.).

 

I don't think that I've ever read a "clear' contract -- i.e. one that I could easily understand.

 

Isn't the purpose of legalese to obscure, confuse, and confound?

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I don't think that I've ever read a "clear' contract -- i.e. one that I could easily understand.

 

Isn't the purpose of legalese to obscure, confuse, and confound?

 

technically the purpose is to hold up in court.  

 

i remember business projects to make contracts in plain language, and legal reviews coming back with a bunch of legalese mumbo jumbo because they were afraid of the impact if we got sued.