Jump to content

Contract Change 2021 - Official thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Keith Douglas said:

I'm afraid it is different, and a change.

 

It's the way that Prior Rights and Restrictions are seperated. 

 

In 2010 Licence Restrictions and Prior Rights are called out seperately in 4.7. The onus is on the contributor to provide certain information. There is no onus on Alamy. In 4.4, Alamy is allowed to licence an image to the "fullest extent possible". But if you have placed a licence restriction then their "fullest extent" will be limited. 

 

In 2021, 4.1.10, it says that the contributor has "detailed in full in the relevant fields of the System any and all restrictions that you wish to apply to each item". So this is an onus on the contributor. But in 4.1.5 the only restriction on Alamy relates to "rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content". There is nothing that requires Alamy to take account of the restrictions that the contributor has specified as per 4.1.10. Your 'wish' can be ignored.

 

 

 

As has the RM lite licences for RM images that are essentialy RF by stealth.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Or perhaps a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of Alamy and what they bought into. The Alamy model,  a vast unedited collection managed by the contributors whose competence in photography is measured by an initial hard QC followed by occasional random sampling, is probably unique. The heavy handed way it was announced didn't help and the some of you have been misbehaving but you are all going to be punished approach really does not go down well at all.

 

But as for PR - PA is most of the British press media. Are they going to flog themselves?  I somehow doubt that this is in line with the ethos of the Guardian (minor shareholder I believe) and if they don't already know what is happening then perhaps someone should tell them. The Guardian is currently priding itself on 200 years of standing up for the little guy. This would make good reading. 

It would also be good to get a view from the NUJ (a lot of us are members), and others. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

I'm afraid it is different, and a change.

 

It's the way that Prior Rights and Restrictions are seperated. 

 

In 2010 Licence Restrictions and Prior Rights are called out seperately in 4.7. The onus is on the contributor to provide certain information. There is no onus on Alamy. In 4.4, Alamy is allowed to licence an image to the "fullest extent possible". But if you have placed a licence restriction then their "fullest extent" will be limited. 

 

In 2021, 4.1.10, it says that the contributor has "detailed in full in the relevant fields of the System any and all restrictions that you wish to apply to each item". So this is an onus on the contributor. But in 4.1.5 the only restriction on Alamy relates to "rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content". There is nothing that requires Alamy to take account of the restrictions that the contributor has specified as per 4.1.10. Your 'wish' can be ignored.

 

 

 

I agree that clarification is required. If Alamy can simply override our restrictions then the situation is untenable. I find it hard to believe that would be their intent but the loss of trust is a serious critical issue. They need to explain.

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

10 minutes ago, imageplotter said:

It would also be good to get a view from the NUJ (a lot of us are members), and others. 

 

Definitely. Phil Crean suggested that last night as well. Up to you? 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Definitely. Phil Crean suggested that last night as well. Up to you? 😀

 

Happy to contact them, but I'm a small fish. Perhaps a letter signed by lots of contributors who are NUJ members would work? They did take an interest last time Alamy changed the commission model.

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

3 minutes ago, imageplotter said:

 

Happy to contact them, but I'm a small fish. Perhaps a letter signed by lots of contributors who are NUJ members would work? They did take an interest last time Alamy changed the commission model.

I'll sign. Anyone else with NUJ Bham branch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I agree that clarification is required. If Alamy can simply override our restrictions then the situation is untenable. I find it hard to believe that would be their intent but the loss of trust is a serious issue. They need to explain.

I'm pleased that you now agree that there is clarification required and that there is more to worry about than there was in 2010.

 

Who knows what their intent was? It hasn't been explained. And with the clauses as they stand they could, no doubt, argue that the omission of any further qualification relating to contributor restrictions was deliberate because they needed additional flexibility following demands from their customers.

Edited by Keith Douglas
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, imageplotter said:

 

Happy to contact them, but I'm a small fish. Perhaps a letter signed by lots of contributors who are NUJ members would work? They did take an interest last time Alamy changed the commission model.

 

I'll sign as well

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

I'm pleased that you now agree that there is clarification required and that there is more to worry about than there was in 2010.

 

Who knows what their intent was? It hasn't been explained. And with the clauses as they stand they could, no doubt, argue that the omission of any further qualification relating to contributor restrictions was because they needed additional flexibility following demands from their customers.

 

Is that implying I said I didn't want clarification? That would be ridiculous. That is a misinterpretation of my intent here. I have just been pointing out that similar clauses have been in the contract all along as a lot of people have been effectively panicking thinking that all this is new. I am not a lawyer and I cannot dissect the detailed legal differences. Yes of course I want clarification. Otherwise I will be handing in my notice as well. 

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

For the sake of doubt please Alamy explain in plain English what Clause 4.1.5 really means.

 

2021: 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;

 

Does this mean that Alamy is asserting a right to override contributors' restrictions? 

 

In early incarnations this appeared to be related to previous licences presumably granted elsewhere (e.g. exclusivity with another agency). Has the meaning of this clause changed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Alamy promised us that they would explain all this at the end of the week.  It is now the end of the week and approaching the end of the business day in the UK.  If Alamy does finally come and explain all this today, are they waiting till the end of day and just look at our responses on Monday?  Are they not going to leave us some interactive time with them today?

 

Jill

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MDM said:

For the sake of doubt please Alamy explain in plain English what Clause 4.1.5 really means.

 

2021: 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;

 

Does this mean that Alamy is asserting a right to override contributors' restrictions? 

 

In early incarnations this appeared to be related to previous licences presumably granted elsewhere (e.g. exclusivity with another agency). Has the meaning of this clause changed? 

 

the clause clearly says exactly that - Alamy has the right to override- unless it has been licensed previously with different rights

 

maybe we've done these clauses to death now

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

I believe Alamy promised us that they would explain all this at the end of the week.  It is now the end of the week and approaching the end of the business day in the UK.  If Alamy does finally come and explain all this today, are they waiting till the end of day and just look at our responses on Monday?  Are they not going to leave us some interactive time with them today?

 

Jill

They'll probably submit their response last thing before the end of the working day. I believe that's what's called burying the news... Last thing on a Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MDM said:

For the sake of doubt please Alamy explain in plain English what Clause 4.1.5 really means.

 

2021: 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;

 

Does this mean that Alamy is asserting a right to override contributors' restrictions? 

 

In early incarnations this appeared to be related to previous licences presumably granted elsewhere (e.g. exclusivity with another agency). Has the meaning of this clause changed? 

 

That is what it says, whatever was originally intended. That is the interpretation I believe a court or arbitrator would apply. It is not about trsuting what Alamy say it means, it is what legal text says so that clause needs rewriting or our restrictions do not mean anything.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

the clause clearly says exactly that - Alamy has the right to override- unless it has been licensed previously with different rights

 

maybe we've done these clauses to death now

 

 

I don't agree. We need an explanation of what any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content  means. I can't believe that they would intend to override contributor restrictions and I think it relates to prior licensing elsewhere. But it is vital to get an explanation from Alamy. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

That is what it says, whatever was originally intended. That is the interpretation I believe a court or arbitrator would apply. It is not about trsuting what Alamy say it means, it is what legal text says so that clause needs rewriting or our restrictions do not mean anything.

 

I agree. Explain and rewrite Alamy. The deadline approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my current list of questions to Alamy.

 

I am NOT asking the forum to speculate about answers or explanations. Alamy's answers are the ones that count, and we don't need to help them write their script.

 

I AM asking forum members if they have any other specific, direct, dispassionate questions about the contract changes.

 

1.  New Commission Structure:  What is your rationale for changing to this structure? How did you come up with the sales thresholds for the tiers? How many contributors and images are currently in each of the three tiers? What are your expectations or goals for the three tiers?

 

2.  Clause 4.1.5:  The new clause states there will not "be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content." Does this use of the term "restriction" include usage restrictions that contributors have applied to images? The term is not covered in Definitions. If contributors' usage restrictions are not included here, that should be clarified in the contract.

 

3.  Clause 4.1.6: This clause seems broader than previous versions, and seems to require the contributor to certify that things beyond the contributor's control will not happen. Can this be clarified?

 

4.  Clause 8.3:  This clause was changed to permit Alamy to promote through discounted Content "or complimentary Content". This change should be included in the list of contract changes. How will promotion through complimentary Content be done? Will individual images be licensed to individual buyers/potential buyers? With standard license terms? Will contributors be notified if images are used as complimentary Content? Will this include RM and RF licenses? 

 

5.  Clause 12.7:  The new clause begins, "If any payment made to you by Alamy is not withdrawn from your Account within a period of two (2) years..."  What is the meaning of "withdrawn from your Account," in what context, after Alamy has already made payment?

 

6.  Current Clauses 14.1 and 14.2 (to be removed):  Why are you doing away with the annual independent audit? Will anything replace it?

 

7.  Clause 20: This is not a new contract concern but needs clarification. The contract says that termination of account by a contributor must be "written notice." The online FAQs say to email contributors@alamy.com. Does it satisfy the contract to terminate by email? Can that be specified in the contract?

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

That is what it says, whatever was originally intended. That is the interpretation I believe a court or arbitrator would apply. It is not about trsuting what Alamy say it means, it is what legal text says so that clause needs rewriting or our restrictions do not mean anything.

 

and as i have stated before, even more for international contributors where taking Alamy to court, where i could provide documents where they stated a different less negative meaning,  is not really a practical option except in extreme cases.  And as we have found out, even if current owner says one things, the contract goes on after a sale. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MDM said:

A very good reason for not taking down images is the amount of work it has taken to get them up for sale in the first place

 

So leave images in place and apply as many Restrictions as Alamy allows until they reverse their position (or not). Same effect with minimal effort. Took me 30 mins for 3K images.



51187088723_aab0d275ba_o.jpg

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

you have said I don't agree then said I agree

but Martin and I are saying the same thing !!

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

the clause clearly says exactly that - Alamy has the right to override- unless it has been licensed previously with different rights

 

maybe we've done these clauses to death now

 

 

 

 

How easy it is to be misinterpreted. I meant the clauses have not been done to death if we still don't understand them. It really is not clear what they mean .😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clause 4.1.9 " there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;"  (slight amendment of previous clause 4.9)

How can I guarantee that? If someone who happens to be in one of my editorial-only pics finds their image used in an inappropriate way, they have every right to sue the end user. In previous Live News submissions, the people are the main subject of the photo, so would be easily used and recogniseable.

Despite being in the old contract, that's another unreasonable clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MDM said:

So to reiterate this is not new and if you are worried about it now why have you not worried about it for the last 11 years at least?

 

 

Also the fact that Alamy actually contacted contributors to ask about removal of restrictions is surely a positive thing - they are actually asking and not riding roughshod over restrictions.

 

 

The thing is that if PA/Alamy would say that they weren't changing the compensation structure and then did within less than a month.   If there are companies out there that are looking for cheap ad material, what's to say PA/Alamy won't decide that if someone other than the photographer is claiming to be able to supply releases, then it's unreasonable to not remove the restrictions.

 

We know what they just did with people's incomes from photos after saying that wouldn't happen, what, two weeks earlier.

 

I'd also be concerned that there was no longer going to be an annual independent audit. 

 

I think for me, it's the little things that mounted up, particularly the mislabeled things in fields I know fair to very well, the tolerance of spamming keywords (a couple of searches for Nicaragua, the first photo was of a toucan taken in Costa Rica).   I'd take down all my cats if I had some sense that my unique and near unique photos weren't going to be drowned in a mess of someone's Mexican or Costa Rican vacation shots claiming to be Nicaraguan, or that someone didn't understand that "Nicaraguan Sign Language" wasn't a a search for Nicaraguan advertising signs in Spanish (the people making that search do know what they're looking for).

 

The company doesn't appear to be well managed at the curatorial level, of keeping the database clean, of actually punishing people who deliberately mislabel photos (and not all of us because some people, deliberately or not, mislabeled their photos as exclusive to Alamy).

 

Reducing the sub $250 a year people to 20% may not clean up the database because I suspect the people who spam keywords don't really care what they make since they don't try to have anything particularly unique on the site and they were on vacation anyway.  And PA/Alamy doesn't care if a search for cichlids gets parrot fish, tangs, and saltwater butterfly fish, or if a search for a rare parrot gets one a different parrot.  But I kinda do.  John Mitchell wants the plants to be accurate because if Alamy is known  for providing accurate botanical pictures, everyone who photographs plants for PA/Alamy will do better.  If the first page of a search for Nicaragua shows a couple of Mexican and Costa Rican shots, then how does that help? 

 

Cutting the minor photographers down to 20% isn't going to fix those problems.  The bad minors probably don't care or don't even know that there's a new contract in progress, or what's in it.   PA/Alamy doesn't care because the licenses for rare photos are probably themselves rare, even if they get higher fees. 

 

 

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

16 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

The thing is that if PA/Alamy would say that they weren't changing the compensation structure and then did within less than a month.   If there are companies out there that are looking for cheap ad material, what's to say PA/Alamy won't decide that if someone other than the photographer is claiming to be able to supply releases, then it's unreasonable to not remove the restrictions.

 

We know what they just did with people's incomes from photos after saying that wouldn't happen, what, two weeks earlier.

 

 

 

As we have been concluding, it all comes down to trust. If Alamy don't come back very soon, then that will be another nail in the coffin for trust. As Jill pointed out it is almost the end of the normal working week here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested to know if Alamy's previous charitable standing still exists under the PA takeover.

 

Allan

 

I know you are all going to ask what this has to do with our "new contract" concerns?  I don't know for definiteas I am not a lawyer but it could affect the contract terms in certain situations.

 

ITMA

  • Like 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.