Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
27 minutes 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.

There's common sense, and there are 'unreasonable contracts'.

But Alamy has spelled out "5.1. 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".

I* think that's unreasonable, as we can't control what customers do, even if we have 'locked down' our images far more than legally necessary.

James' answer says they educate buyers, but even so, they still want US to be responsible if THEY misuse our images and have embedded that into our contract.

*IANAL

Caveat vendor.

The man in the Clapham omnibus might well decide to say, "It's in the contract, you agreed to it".

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

 

Quite simply, NO!

 

Definitely NO - there isn't anything anyone of us can do to prevent it - only sensible steps to minimise the risk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

I didn’t know, thanks for enlightening me. 

I'm glad it wasn't just me, and probably won't be the last time a comment totally flies over my head!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So much anger towards Alamy and justifiably so!

 

Seriously, what a carve up but then should we expect anything else in this industry?

 

Just skimmed through some of the comments about indemnity clauses etc. Interesting in that when I had a non-payer a while ago Alamy would not give me the customer's details so I could get the cash out them. Double standards on data?

 

Anyone contacted the NUJ etc?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

I still have considerable reservations about the legitimacy of what Alamy is attempting to do and doubt that it is enforceable in law.
Alamy is responsible for selling our images and contracting with the customer. We submit images that for the most part (indecency etc. aside) have no inherent existence until they are used and published. The image only becomes, racial/offensive or whatever when given a context and that is out of the control of the photographer. 
I'd be very surprised if a court reached any conclusion other than it was an "Unfair Contract terms" exclusion that was unenforceable.

 

In my opinion this all goes back (and probably originates from) the origins of the prevalent 'cancel' culture, and definitions of 'hate speech' 'free speech' etc which can support one (often minority) group over another. If an image is used in a defamatory way, then the photographer cannot possibly be made to pay for an arbitrary someone else's choice of usage. I saw a picture of a cross on social media yesterday that has been used to somehow draw a religious symbol (and possibly the religion itself) into a political conflict - if one had the mind to do so (and some groups would) that usage could be challenged, but one cannot blame the artist (unless s/he was the activist) for the offensive use of the symbolism. Maybe that's a poor example, but its the best I can do today ... Perhaps this clause is a 'box ticking' clause on the part of Alamy, but a similar clause needs to be (or perhaps has been) written into the purchaser's contract.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Vitor from Portugal
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :(

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by geogphotos
  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

I assume the photographer was using a tripod.

Kinda necessary for astrophotography!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by ReeRay
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Upvote 4
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.