Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[geogphotos]

At one time I had a lot of my images used in a commercial  collection for schools. Somebody went through and edited them to suit certain audiences so as to avoid any offence etc.

For example, pictures of alcohol could cause offence in some countries. There are cultural difference all around the world.

 

Pictures of a hog roast and people eating pork could cause offence, people sunbathing in swimming costumes could offend some cultures.

 

And lets not forget that are bloggers, small publishers, political groups on the right and left that deliberately want to cause offence and create a stir. All this is beyond the control of the contributor.

Edited May 24, 2021 by geogphotos

[Vitor from Portugal]

2 hours ago, AndrewP said:

I’m trying to understand the practical realities of the indemnity clause.

As a fictitious example: I photograph a street scene of some houses in a quaint village and state that there is property in the image and that I don’t have a release. A mortgage company uses the photo in an advert and the owner of one of the houses claims for damages from the mortgage company, who then contact Alamy saying they’ve done nothing wrong (when they clearly have in publishing without a release).

Are Alamy really just going to pass on my details to the owner of the house and say “you’re on your own with this”? Surely a valid claim can only be made against the company that published the photo without a required property release in place? If I’ve annotated things correctly then I can’t be held responsible for the actions of others. Buyers also have a contract to agree to when purchasing.

If however I had stated there was no property in the photo and a release was not required then I can see I would be leaving myself open to claims and Alamy would pass responsibly on to me to sort out.

There have been previous instances were content has been in dispute with the property owners such as photographing on UK railway stations a few years back, photos of Haynes Manuals and also the Royal de Luxe giant puppets in Liverpool. Alamy have been the first line of defence to resolve the issue without the individual contributors getting directly involved.

If we’re not sensible about this then we could get to the point where the only thing that’s safe to photograph is the sky.

 

That the real point, nobody can blame the photographer about the use of someone will do with the picture. Alamy have to deal with this, you just can't blame the gun manufacturer if someone use the gun to commit a crime. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Vitor from Portugal

[wilkopix]

4 hours ago, Gary Cook said:

Can Alamy please reconsider, and maintain a minimum of 50% share for the photographer.

I wish they would too ...

 

I'll not hold my breath though.

 

 

 

 

 

[geogphotos]

Not impressed how Alamy has just closed the thread I started about details of the infringement team. Closing down discussion doesn't help or inspire confidence.

 

I note in their reply that they talk about what the Infringement Team 'will do' - future tense. Hardly vital then that contributors had to make a choice about a very short interim period until July 1. Many contributors, those who don't read the forum will no doubt think that they have made a choice already when, actually,  that choice is going to count for nothing. 

 

Last week I reported an infringement to one of the subscription services and the same day was informed of a payment of £250 coming to me - literally a few hours later. Now I know this is unusual but I can't see Alamy doing that.

 

Alamy appears to be deliberately overriding the concept and purpose of copyright by removing choice from us the copyright owners. I have the choice to pursue, send a take-down or ignore. That should be my choice not one taken by my agent based on their self-interest without any reference to me.

 

So, everything has to go non-exclusive. So be it. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by geogphotos

[Fungijus]

There has been a lot written here and I thank everyone who has contributed to try to make this situation clear for all. It seems that Alamy is not interested in clarifying things any further – contract terms will always trump well meaning words on an internet forum… 

 

I am only a small player and can see myself being demoted to ‘Silver’ within a year, due to the double whammy of slowing sales and reducing revenue per image. This is annoying of course, but I can see that I must cost Alamy more in terms of administration, so I should carry more of the burden, I guess.

 

The ultimate issue though is the potential for me to have to bear any legal costs, even when I have accurately marked all my images for editorial only. This is simply not worth the risk for me, so unless the contract changes, I will have no choice but to cancel my account.

 

Maybe this is what Alamy wants anyway…

[KevinS]

What puzzles me is why anyone would stay in a situation where they could be billed for legal work at any time, without notice. Or do I read the contract wrong?

[Foreign Export]

8 minutes ago, Sally R said:

 

Sadly this is almost a reality, and then even the sky might not be safe. In 2012 I was doing a photography course and the teacher was telling us he was at Kings Park, a large parkland next to the city here in Perth. He was photographing the moon because he had a good vantage point. Some night patrol guys came and asked him what he was doing and he said photographing the moon. They asked him was he going to the sell the pictures, because commercial photography is not allowed in the park without a permit. From memory I think he said he told them they were going to be used for educational purposes and I can't remember if he said whether they left him alone after that. But just the fact that you are pulled up for photographing the moon is quite unbelievable given that it still looks like the same moon wherever you photograph it from.

 

im more amazed that night patrol team knew about the restrictions on commercial photography!!

 

But then Australia is the nanny country!!

[geogphotos]

Okay I hear of people being banned, threads closed down without reason, posts being removed. 

 

We have moved into that next phase. 

 

I'm off. 

 

 

[KevinS]

13 minutes ago, Sally R said:

 

Sadly this is almost a reality, and then even the sky might not be safe. In 2012 I was doing a photography course and the teacher was telling us he was at Kings Park, a large parkland next to the city here in Perth. He was photographing the moon because he had a good vantage point. Some night patrol guys came and asked him what he was doing and he said photographing the moon. They asked him was he going to the sell the pictures, because commercial photography is not allowed in the park without a permit. From memory I think he said he told them they were going to be used for educational purposes and I can't remember if he said whether they left him alone after that. But just the fact that you are pulled up for photographing the moon is quite unbelievable given that it still looks like the same moon wherever you photograph it from.

This is something like what it is for drone photography. The take-off and landing spots have to be ok with commercial photography, but once airborne the drone can fly over the restricted area to shoot. In the US National Parks are  off-limits, but flyovers are ok.

[Foreign Export]

23 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Not impressed how Alamy has just closed the thread I started about details of the infringement team. Closing down discussion doesn't help or inspire confidence.

 

I note in their reply that they talk about what the Infringement Team 'will do' - future tense. Hardly vital then that contributors had to make a choice about a very short interim period until July 1. Many contributors, those who don't read the forum will no doubt think that they have made a choice already when, actually,  that choice is going to count for nothing. 

 

Last week I reported an infringement to one of the subscription services and the same day was informed of a payment of £250 coming to me - literally a few hours later. Now I know this is unusual but I can't see Alamy doing that.

 

Alamy appears to be deliberately overriding the concept and purpose of copyright by removing choice from us the copyright owners. I have the choice to pursue, send a take-down or ignore. That should be my choice not one taken by my agent based on their self-interest without any reference to me.

 

So, everything has to go non-exclusive. So be it. 

 

I was surprised and disappointed that the infringement thread was closed

Not at all convinced by their argument as to why it was necessary to give contributors the choice re pursuing infringements for a measly 45 days - something doesn't stack up 

I think they now know the confusion caused and are trying to find weasel words to defend it

 

 

 

[geogphotos]

1 minute ago, Foreign Export said:

 

I was surprised and disappointed that the infringement thread was closed

Not at all convinced by their argument as to why it was necessary to give contributors the choice re pursuing infringements for a measly 45 days - something doesn't stack up 

I think they now know the confusion caused and are trying to find weasel words to defend it

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, but we are in an extremely one-sided relationship aren't we. 

 

No point trying to discuss this any more so as I said above I feel that it is time to bow out.

 

ATB

[MizBrown]

4 hours ago, MDM said:

Extracting a sentence and quoting it out of context is a favoured tool of the propagandist. 

 

<raises eyebrows and shakes head>   Jumping to assumptions and stomping hard when asking more politely for clarification is also better.

[Bill Kuta]

12 minutes ago, Sally R said:

 

I think they were security employed by the park itself so would have known about the commercial photography restrictions, but yes, it is amazing they were bothered by him photographing the moon!

 

I assume the photographer was using a tripod. That's when security start talking about the commercial photography rules and the need for a permit. 

[Colblimp]

10 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I agree, but we are in an extremely one-sided relationship aren't we. 

 

No point trying to discuss this any more so as I said above I feel that it is time to bow out.

 

ATB

I won’t be far behind you. 

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

I assume the photographer was using a tripod.

Kinda necessary for astrophotography!

[Alan Gallery]

They gave up the duty of care to contributors when they stopped calling themselves an agency. 

[ReeRay]

13 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

I won’t be far behind you. 

Yep, I'm weighing up my options and they're definitely pointing to the exit door at present. When you're chasing $10 a pop and facing megabucks lawsuits it sure ain't pretty.

Edited May 24, 2021 by ReeRay

[Bill Kuta]

9 minutes ago, Alan Gallery said:

They gave up the duty of care to contributors when they stopped calling themselves an agency. 

 

Yes, I'm waiting for an Uber/Lyft-speak "We're just a software platform."

[wilkopix]

17 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

So, everything has to go non-exclusive. So be it. 

'Our initial work with this new team is for exclusive images only. Plans on how work may develop to include non-exclusive images and how permissions for that could work will be communicated to you once confirmed.'  Hmmmmm ...

 

I've just gone 100% non exclusive .. and very reluctantly uploading new material elsewhere.

 

Photography is my business and library sales are one of my revenue streams. I'd much rather have been able to stay exclusive with Alamy and have them as my main agent but the recent cut in royalties means that I've now got to find other agencies to make up that loss.

 

I hope Alamy actually read some of these posts and realise that this new contract has not just pushed the royalty split to a tipping point for many of us suppliers where we can't make it work financially but also the feeling that there is a loss of loyalty between Alamy and it's long term contributors.

I've promoted them on my website with the portfolio link and used Instagram/twitter to highlight new images with them from time to time. I've recommended them in the past to many photographers looking to find an agency plus editorial clients who where looking for images that weren't commissioned.

 

Maybe placing my images with multiple agencies will actually be a good thing ... but it really isn't something I want to do Alamy.

 

[BidC]

Twas a dumb question .... (on my part).

Edited May 24, 2021 by BidC

[MizBrown]

3 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Everything about this new contract has been discussed for 63 pages now. Still, there are one or two things I'm confused about. Okay, not 'one or two things' --many things. But here's the one that really bothers me:

 

If I changed from exclusive to non-exclusive and make sure all my images say Sell for Editorial Only, will that keep me safe from being sued for misuse by clients? 

 

Edo 🤨

 

Honestly, if a client buys as editorial only and uses the photo for advertising, and someone in the photograph sees it and is upset, anyone can get sued.   We've had the side discussion about Nicaraguans doing some creative photo composites for political purposes, and other people using stock photos in political ads that imply that the subject of the photograph said something about an opposition candidate that probably nobody said to any interviewer and which the model in the photo never said.   The models in Philadelphia probably would have sued except for the terms of their releases.   If your models (voluntary or commercial) sign a release, you have proof that you did not condone the misuse of the photo, and can sue someone else (if you can afford it) for breaching the "no defamatory use" clause of both your release and Alamy's contract.   Would a left leaning model consider it defamatory to be in an ad supporting a political opinion she opposed?   I've resigned Alamy for a couple of reasons.    One was that I don't want to be on the hook if Alamy sells something with a contract asking not to have it be used in anything defamatory, but a political ad isn't innately defamatory to the people putting it together, but is to the model.   I've got a released photo of someone in the FSLN in my portfolio.   Fortunately, it's too dark. :).

[BidC]

15 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Honestly, if a client buys as editorial only and uses the photo for advertising, and someone in the photograph sees it and is upset, anyone can get sued.   We've had the side discussion about Nicaraguans doing some creative photo composites for political purposes, and other people using stock photos in political ads that imply that the subject of the photograph said something about an opposition candidate that probably nobody said to any interviewer and which the model in the photo never said.   The models in Philadelphia probably would have sued except for the terms of their releases.   If your models (voluntary or commercial) sign a release, you have proof that you did not condone the misuse of the photo, and can sue someone else (if you can afford it) for breaching the "no defamatory use" clause of both your release and Alamy's contract.   Would a left leaning model consider it defamatory to be in an ad supporting a political opinion she opposed?   I've resigned Alamy for a couple of reasons.    One was that I don't want to be on the hook if Alamy sells something with a contract asking not to have it be used in anything defamatory, but a political ad isn't innately defamatory to the people putting it together, but is to the model.   I've got a released photo of someone in the FSLN in my portfolio.   Fortunately, it's too dark. :).

 

If a client *misuses a photo, are they not the ones who are making themselves liable? (Apologies for my poor editing skills ..)

Edited May 24, 2021 by BidC
word change by pred text

[Cryptoprocta]

15 minutes ago, Alan Gallery said:

They gave up the duty of care to contributors when they stopped calling themselves an agency. 

As the big G did before them.

[Foreign Export]

7 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

If a client misses a photo, are they not the ones who are making themselves liable? 

not according to the Alamy contract - no 

[MizBrown]

3 hours ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

It's looking more and more like constructive dismissal of us small fry.

 

Honestly, I'd have little problem with that in my case.  "We're eliminating under-performing contributors who can't bring sales up to $250 in the next year."   Or just eliminate them.   I've been culling the photos I've sent to Alamy and if I try another agency or agencies, those 250 to 300 will be what go up.  I'll try to do better with subsequent photos.

 

That's okay.  What's not okay is the sense that Alamy wants us to take all legal hits for not just our errors, but any errors they might make or that the client might make or that a distributor might make.