Jump to content

Contract Change 2021 - Official thread


Recommended Posts

Keith Douglas wrote;

"And the agency is asking the contributor to shoulder risks that are outside their control and that could wipe out all their income and more in a single lawsuit."

 

For this reason, mainly, as well as the commission change, I won't be accepting the new contract. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KevinS said:

Keith Douglas wrote;

"And the agency is asking the contributor to shoulder risks that are outside their control and that could wipe out all their income and more in a single lawsuit."

 

For this reason, mainly, as well as the commission change, I won't be accepting the new contract. 

 

I thought that was more significant than the commission change.  And given the tendency of all factions here to abuse Photoshop and Sony copyrights (one campaign song here), nope, nope. 

 

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

1 minute ago, MizBrown said:

 

And given the tendency of all factions here to abuse Photoshop

 

 

What does this mean ???? Are you suggesting everyone here abuses Adobe licensing. I've had a legal licence for Photoshop since 1997. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

What does this mean ???? Are you suggesting everyone here abuses Adobe licensing. I've had a legal licence for Photoshop since 1997. 

I think MizBrown is talking about the political situation in their country of residence, not anyone on Alamy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent in my termination email, but got an "undeliverable" response.

 

Annddd...a Sunday sale just showed up, mid $$, an older "well this'll never sell but I'll submit it" image.

Edited by Bill Kuta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Nodvandigtid's recent post. It is indeed very well-written, not to mention worrisome. However, as someone who knows very little about legal matters, I can't help wondering how different and more onerous (legally speaking) is Alamy's new contract compared to those of other large stock photo agencies. Without mentioning the names of specific agencies, can anyone with experience comment on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

How much does it cost to form an agency in the UK?   Some of the people with the larger portfolios (over 10K) might want to consider doing that which might allow you collectively to get a better contract with Alamy or to be able to afford insurance against legal expenses, and I believe agencies are allowed to set minimum prices in the new contract.   It worked for a number of photographers from 1947 to the present.

 

Best wishes for the people who did put so much work into these portfolios and to the people with smaller specialized ports who seemed to be making repeat sales with them, whether it's with Alamy or not.

 

 

 

If memory serves, at one time, PhotoShelter used to allow individual subscribers with similar interests to join together to form "virtual stock agencies." I thought it was a very innovative idea and joined a couple myself. Unfortunately, it fizzled big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

What does this mean ???? Are you suggesting everyone here abuses Adobe licensing. I've had a legal licence for Photoshop since 1997. 

 

In Nicaragua.   We've got elections coming up and during the mess in 2018, we had people Photoshopping a tank in the streets of Leon, a video of a "murdered girl" who apparently answered her phone on the compete video.   One US political party also used stock photos and claimed they were various people who'd had objections to the other party's policy. 

 

I took photos of events in 2018 and was very careful to caption them neutrally.

 

Abusing Photoshop -- using it to make inflammatory composite photos. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

One US political party also used stock photos and claimed they were various people who'd had objections to the other party's policy. 

 

Miz, while this has happened in the USA, it first happened in Canada. Since then, political parties all over the world have used stock images to make their points. It's one of several reasons I no longer do lifestyle work. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I read Nodvandigtid's recent post. It is indeed very well-written, not to mention worrisome. However, as someone who knows very little about legal matters, I can't help wondering how different and more onerous (legally speaking) is Alamy's new contract compared to those of other large stock photo agencies. Without mentioning the names of specific agencies, can anyone with experience comment on this?

Hi John,

 

Unfortunately I cannot answer that because about 99% or more of my images here at Alamy are genuinely exclusive to it.

I suspect there will be equally onerous contract terms out there with some stock agencies  and less onerous contracts with some others. It is up to us all individually to decide what we can accept and the risk a contract poses. 

Just for clarity here is how clause 5.1 of the Alamy contract is changing - Alamy have made this clear but  I have reformatted the wording and spread it out over more lines simply to make each sub-point separate for comparison purposes.  

 

 

Existing contract up to and including 30/06/21

 

5.1 You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract.

 

 

New contract from 01/07/21

 

    1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to

 

: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity;

 

  1. any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties;

 

  1. any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and

 

  1. any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System.

 

This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

This really sums it up. Everyone should read it. I wish I had the same depth polish and breadth as this poster.  I would keyword it as enlightened,  informed, aware, educated, knowledgeable, learned, wise, literate, intellectual, tutored, illuminated, apprised; civilized, refined, cultured, cultivated, sophisticated, advanced, developed, liberal, open-minded, broad-minded. 

 

Thanks Nodvandigtid

Many thanks for your kind words Bill.

All the best going forward. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Miz, while this has happened in the USA, it first happened in Canada. Since then, political parties all over the world have used stock images to make their points. It's one of several reasons I no longer do lifestyle work. 

 

Yeah, I wonder if my released selfie that sold for a little over a dollar will show up in some way that I'm politically opposed to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Yeah, I wonder if my released selfie that sold for a little over a dollar will show up in some way that I'm politically opposed to. 

 

Back in the eighties, a whale shoot I did off Cape Cod was used to promote whaling in Japan. It happens.

Edited by Brian Yarvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Nodvandigtid said:

Hi John,

 

Unfortunately I cannot answer that because about 99% or more of my images here at Alamy are genuinely exclusive to it.

I suspect there will be equally onerous contract terms out there with some stock agencies  and less onerous contracts with some others. It is up to us all individually to decide what we can accept and the risk a contract poses. 

Just for clarity here is how clause 5.1 of the Alamy contract is changing - Alamy have made this clear but  I have reformatted the wording and spread it out over more lines simply to make each sub-point separate for comparison purposes.  

 

 

Existing contract up to and including 30/06/21

 

5.1 You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract.

 

 

New contract from 01/07/21

 

    1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to

 

: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity;

 

  1. any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties;

 

  1. any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and

 

  1. any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System.

 

This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply. I wish I were more literate in these matters. Even with my limited understanding, I can see that the new clause appears to take some quantum leaps when it comes to shifting liability to contributors.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andreas said:

My current plan: mail contributor service to set all pics to: exclusive to Alamy = N, editorial only.  I was carefully in assigning correct metadata, but have to limit the risk.

And collect my better future shots in order to have sufficient material to apply elsewhere, luckily still some options exist. If by whatever means (less sales or changed levels) my share is reduced to 20% I'll quit.

Send my mail, error:

"contributors@alamy.com
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Back in the eighties, a whale shoot I did off Cape Cod was used to promote whaling in Japan. It happens.

 

I wrote about Philadelphia male models being very upset about being used in local anti-AIDS/HIV ads which implied they were sex workers or needle drug users who had HIV.   But they'd signed releases.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

In Nicaragua.   We've got elections coming up and during the mess in 2018, we had people Photoshopping a tank in the streets of Leon, a video of a "murdered girl" who apparently answered her phone on the compete video.   One US political party also used stock photos and claimed they were various people who'd had objections to the other party's policy. 

 

I took photos of events in 2018 and was very careful to caption them neutrally.

 

Abusing Photoshop -- using it to make inflammatory composite photos. 

 

 

 

OK when you said here, I assumed you meant Alamy. What you are referring to is an abuse of the images or using them in a way that was not intended. That is quite different from abusing Photoshop. The meaning was obscure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Miz, while this has happened in the USA, it first happened in Canada. Since then, political parties all over the world have used stock images to make their points. It's one of several reasons I no longer do lifestyle work. 

 

Yeah i remember a Polish stock photographer finding with surprise his released image featuring his wife as model had been used in an anti-teacher attack campaign in Ontario. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

OK when you said here, I assumed you meant Alamy. What you are referring to is an abuse of the images or using them in a way that was not intended. That is quite different from abusing Photoshop. The meaning was obscure. 

 

Abusing Photoshop for me is using it to create fake pictures that some faction tries to pass as real.  I don't consider work-arounds to Adobe's political policies to be abuse.   I once reported myself to Adobe and they don't really care either as long as my US credit card is good.

 

 

 

Edited by MizBrown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of my 30,000+ images are Exclusive to Alamy, except for those few falling under Alamy’s artificial definition requiring art works to be designated as non-exclusive. (They are not offered anywhere else, but Alamy’s definition of “Exclusive”  prevents them from being designated Exclusive.)  Alamy now asserts the right to pursue suspected infringements of Exclusive images without asking me, even though such images may have been legally licensed through other channels before they were withdrawn from other agencies and submitted exclusively to Alamy.  Leaving them as Exclusive subjects me to the risk of being charged legal fees (para 5.1) if Alamy seeks to collect for a suspected infringement and then discovers that the image was properly licensed.  Since the new fee schedule will only pay 50% commission to contributors achieving more than $25,000 in annual sales (a level I’m not likely to reach), what reason is there for continuing to designate any images as Exclusive to Alamy?  

  • Like 6
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.