Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ReeRay said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm of the opinion that the controversial (read potentially damaging) clauses that Alamy have chosen to insert/amend cannot legally be retrospectively applied. I believe both parties are bound by the TC's applicable at the time of supplying our images. If this is so, we need only to consider future submissions (if any) that may fall foul of legal eagles.

 

Hope I'm right and that the promised response from Alamy will pour some light on this.

 

Alamy responded upthread. 

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

 

Alamy responded upthread. 

Aargh - Thanks, hadn't seen that. Nevertheless I stand by my opinion relating to retrospective amendments. Hope I'm right!

 

As Jill Morgan pointed out, "Alamy has not covered the liability issues of the photographer in this statement.  So we can assume we are right in that we the contributor are supposedly liable for misuse of our images?"

 

Past images also?

 

 

Edited by ReeRay
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ReeRay said:

Aargh - Thanks, hadn't seen that. Nevertheless I stand by my opinion relating to retrospective amendments. Hope I'm right!

 

As Jill Morgan pointed out, "Alamy has not covered the liability issues of the photographer in this statement.  So we can assume we are right in that we the contributor are supposedly liable for misuse of our images?"

 

Past images also?

 

 

From an earlier contract: 

 

19. Amendment and variation

19.1. Alamy may vary this Contract by altering or deleting any of its provisions or adding any new provisions by giving you 45 days prior notice at any time. If You do not accept any of the variations You have the right to terminate this Contract by giving written notice to Alamy in accordance with the provisions of clause 20.1.2.5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ReeRay said:

Aargh - Thanks, hadn't seen that. Nevertheless I stand by my opinion relating to retrospective amendments. Hope I'm right!

 

As Jill Morgan pointed out, "Alamy has not covered the liability issues of the photographer in this statement.  So we can assume we are right in that we the contributor are supposedly liable for misuse of our images?"

 

Past images also?

 

 

 

Perhaps someone on the forum knows a friendly lawyer who can advise?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

From an earlier contract: 

 

19. Amendment and variation

19.1. Alamy may vary this Contract by altering or deleting any of its provisions or adding any new provisions by giving you 45 days prior notice at any time. If You do not accept any of the variations You have the right to terminate this Contract by giving written notice to Alamy in accordance with the provisions of clause 20.1.2.5.

 

Seems I may be wrong then - but I'd love to see it tested in a Court of Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MizBrown said:

<snip>

Looks to me that Alamy wants to outsource the stock photography to various agencies and collections and outsource sales staffing to various distributors, which makes some sense in terms of national connections.   Understand why they're doing it. 

 

But they're not making those changes for my benefit, not that they should, but my staying would just be frustrating to me.

 

 

I agree with you. Alamy's growth appears to be driven by submissions by other agencies. Individual contributors are of benefit, but don't appear to feature high up in their growth plans. As agencies place large amounts of stock with each other there will be no individuality to attract clients with specific needs. Is it viable for contributors, I would suggest not longer term, and for some not now, it's likely to be downhill for many. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ReeRay said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm of the opinion that the controversial (read potentially damaging) clauses that Alamy have chosen to insert/amend cannot legally be retrospectively applied. I believe both parties are bound by the TC's applicable at the time of supplying our images. If this is so, we need only to consider future submissions (if any) that may fall foul of legal eagles.

 

Hope I'm right and that the promised response from Alamy will pour some light on this.

I'm not a lawyer, but I expect the following logic would apply.

 

If a contributor chooses to leave their previously uploaded images on sale at Alamy (thereby accepting the terms of the new contract) then the new rules will apply to those images, from 1st July onwards.

The new rules will not apply to licences that were granted on those images before 1st July (they will be covered by whatever rules were in place when the licence was granted).

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I expect the following logic would apply.

 

If a contributor chooses to leave their previously uploaded images on sale at Alamy (thereby accepting the terms of the new contract) then the new rules will apply to those images, from 1st July onwards.

The new rules will not apply to licences that were granted on those images before 1st July (they will be covered by whatever rules were in place when the licence was granted).

 

Mark

That makes sense. Still an completely unsatisfactory state of affairs. Weighing up the possibility of cancelling and spending my time elsewhere.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Make a joke suggestion that Alamy has posted a red arrow on the forum and you get an almost immediate response and an offer of answers to more questions.... Seems more effective than 50 pages of ranting :wacko:

 

Mark


This isn’t really a statement that represents the reality, Mark!

 

To be clear, MDM hinted that Alamy were going through and downvoting posts in this thread. That’s not true, and something that would not be very helpful to be discussed upon within this thread so I asked him to clarify. I also offered to answer any other questions he may have.

 

Emailing us questions is open to all contributors as we have said throughout our communications on this. You can email contributors@alamy.com for general support and if you want to email the MD of Alamy, Emily Shelley, directly, you can also do that at md@alamy.com.

 

It’s not practical for us to get into a live Q+A here because if we answer one question as it’s written, another will follow and with the best will in the world we won’t be able to keep on top of it through the week in this way.

 

We will continue to post “round up” clarifications here as needed but for specific questions you would like quicker answers on, email is the way to go.

 

Best regards,

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I expect the following logic would apply.

 

If a contributor chooses to leave their previously uploaded images on sale at Alamy (thereby accepting the terms of the new contract) then the new rules will apply to those images, from 1st July onwards.

The new rules will not apply to licences that were granted on those images before 1st July (they will be covered by whatever rules were in place when the licence was granted).

 

Mark

I am also not a lawyer, but I think that if we accept a new contract, we will be bound by it. Forget what it was. Now follow the new contract. Dot

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Radim said:

I am also not a lawyer, but I think that if we accept a new contract, we will be bound by it. Forget what it was. Now follow the new contract. Dot

correct -we will

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

I agree with you. Alamy's growth appears to be driven by submissions by other agencies. Individual contributors are of benefit, but don't appear to feature high up in their growth plans. As agencies place large amounts of stock with each other there will be no individuality to attract clients with specific needs. Is it viable for contributors, I would suggest not longer term, and for some not now, it's likely to be downhill for many. 

 

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

 

 

from "Siphonaptera"  by Augustus De Morgan

 

The problem is the food chain, every one (many only taking, (not adding value) takes their cut before the photographer gets the little thaqqt is left. I saw the same problem in the freelance IT contractor's market.  Agencies working through other agencies, ad infinitum. But same here.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alamy said:


This isn’t really a statement that represents the reality, Mark!

 

To be clear, MDM hinted that Alamy were going through and downvoting posts in this thread. That’s not true, and something that would not be very helpful to be discussed upon within this thread so I asked him to clarify. I also offered to answer any other questions he may have.

 

Emailing us questions is open to all contributors as we have said throughout our communications on this. You can email contributors@alamy.com for general support and if you want to email the MD of Alamy, Emily Shelley, directly, you can also do that at md@alamy.com.

 

It’s not practical for us to get into a live Q+A here because if we answer one question as it’s written, another will follow and with the best will in the world we won’t be able to keep on top of it through the week in this way.

 

We will continue to post “round up” clarifications here as needed but for specific questions you would like quicker answers on, email is the way to go.

 

Best regards,

 

James Allsworth

Head of Content

 

 

 

How about clearing up in Plain English the extent of our legal liabilities if we honestly tag our images correctly.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Perhaps someone on the forum knows a friendly lawyer who can advise?

 

In terms of the English Law of Contract, for an agreement to be binding there has to be an 'offer' by one party and an unqualified "acceptance" by the other party to establish a contract or indeed to amend it.
In this case Alamy is making a "counter offer" and contributors have the right to accept it or reject it.
From a legal point of view if you accept either specifically or by your behaviour i.e. acquiesce (do nothing) you will be deemed to have agreed to the revised terms.
Unless the contract terms specifically state otherwise, the new terms agreed will apply to the contract going forward and supersede any previous terms.

in a nutshell, you can't rely on the terms applicable originally if you subsequently 'agree' to amend them. The previous terms will be replaced by the new ones.
 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sally R said:

Well I'm glad if 4.1.5 does not mean Alamy can override restrictions we place on images. As several posters in this thread were reporting recently being asked if restrictions could be removed along with that clause being separated off as a new clause in the contract, it was looking a bit ominous. So I feel better about that part.

 

As to 4.1.6, for me personally it is not likely an issue as nothing I've uploaded nor would plan to upload falls into one of those potentially offensive categories. But it does seem, if there is a grey area, that the liability could fall onto the contributor. This could be an issue where the end user uses the image in a manner never intended by the contributor, which I think is what Avpics is wanting to clarify above.

 

If 17 million out of 260 million images are exclusive that is just 6.5%. With many who are exclusive now likely to submit elsewhere, the percentage of exclusive images will be very small indeed. It seems that Alamy would need to keep reducing license fees in order to compete in a saturated market.

 

While my rate of sales is gradually improving, I will be getting less commission. I can then upload elsewhere to try and compensate, but it feels a bit like being a mouse on a wheel having to run faster but not actually gaining ground. So I will spend the next few weeks doing a cost/benefit analysis of various options and where I want to go with photography and from there will make a decision regarding whether to stay with Alamy.

 

But if you are based outside the UK (or even in it) can you afford the expense of arguing it in court. The big boys (they are mostly men although not in Alamy's case) use the threat of litigation knowing most cannot afford to defend it. There is a very asymetric access to the law as with many things. Look at the comments in the thread and elsewhere about copyright abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

how much infringement fees will be, whats their cut of the infringement (it should be zero if the are funding it through the commission reduction)

 

Yes, assuming it ain't zero Alamy have comprehensively undermined their own argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Martin P Wilson said:

The problem is the food chain, every one (many only taking, (not adding value) takes their cut before the photographer gets the little thaqqt is left. I saw the same problem in the freelance IT contractor's market.  Agencies working through other agencies, ad infinitum. But same here.

I have a lot of sympathy for dairy farmers supplying milk to the large supermarkets and the changes discussed here over the last 50+ pages highlight similar issues.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alamy said:

if you want to email the MD of Alamy, Emily Shelley, directly, you can also do that at md@alamy.com

 

I emailed Emily directly and got a reply from Ellie. So how does that work?

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sally R said:

That is a huge issue here in Australia. Farmers who have been in the dairy industry for several generations of their family have had to quit because of the duopoly of the two main supermarket chains putting dairy prices down so low. Some farmers have ended up dumping huge amounts of milk. I have actually thought of dairy farming and supermarkets as an analogy for microstock before.

 

I now buy from the milk supplier cutting out the supermarkets. Maybe there's a lesson there?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Legalised theft. Nothing else to say. 

 

Glad that I went non-exclusive years ago. Alamy speak with forked-tongue. 

 

I'm surprised that Alamy only has 17 million 'exclusive images' - all the rest are available, probably much more cheaply elsewhere. 

 

That is the fundamental reason that they are uncompetitive. And what do they do? Hit those who have been providing that exclusive material!

 

This is not sustainable, more cuts are inevitable. 

Why has this comment been given one of those pathetic red arrow things?  Own up you coward.  Nothing wrong with the comment.  It's absolutely spot on - so have a green to compensate!

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

I now buy from the milk supplier cutting out the supermarkets. Maybe there's a lesson there?

 

Similarly, we try to use the small local supplier for most things. Green grocery, butcher unfortunately no local dairy supplier or artisan baker, so we make our own bread.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • 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.