Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. :).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by BidC
word change by pred text
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

not according to the Alamy contract - no 

 

But would that hold water in a court of law - you buy toothpaste to use as glue .. (?)  Not the toothpaste firm's problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

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

 

Tell me, if you were outraged to find yourself as a vegan promoting the pork industry, how much easier is it to find the photographer rather than the ad agency or the advertiser's main office.   Did the client ask about releases or trust that the ad agency had them.    Clients hire ad agencies who find photographs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Paul J said:

I had a reply to my exit email questions. 

 

- Customers can licence images 2 years after the deletion date. All of your images will be taken off sale on the 30th June and no new customers can download them. 

- Once your account has been closed, you will receive any cleared funds in the following payment run. 

 

Why does your mini-profile (to the left of the text) say -60 (in red ?) (Have you not been behaving ? ;) )

Edited by BidC
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BidC said:

 

But would that hold water in a court of law - you buy toothpaste to use as glue .. (?)  Not the toothpaste firm's problem.

 

 

no it won't, and nowhere does the contract say we would be liable.  What the contract says is we are responsible for Alamy's defence cost if they get named in the suit, and that they take no responsibility for selling to the client. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

But would that hold water in a court of law - you buy toothpaste to use as glue .. (?)  Not the toothpaste firm's problem.

 

Perhaps read this thread from the beginning - all of this has been covered

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Tell me, if you were outraged to find yourself as a vegan promoting the pork industry, how much easier is it to find the photographer rather than the ad agency or the advertiser's main office.   Did the client ask about releases or trust that the ad agency had them.    Clients hire ad agencies who find photographs.

 

I must be dumb. So the ad agency is at fault, and with the tightening of all legalities these days, would be foolish to use the picture without asking the photographer .. (?).Perhaps a model release should include what usage the model is and isn't happy about. It goes back to the statements about 'free speech', 'hate speech' etc - what is 'defamatory' (other than the obvious.) .. The cancel culture has hit hard it seems. (btw - I'm not disagreeing with you - just teasing out teh absurdities that are cropping up everywhere).

 

Someone mentioned that soon we will only be able to photograph the sky - maybe Luminar will come after you for a possible infringement of its rights to use the sky in a replacement tool (!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

no it won't, and nowhere does the contract say we would be liable.  What the contract says is we are responsible for Alamy's defence cost if they get named in the suit, and that they take no responsibility for selling to the client. 

 

Yeah - I take your point .... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

Perhaps read this thread from the beginning - all of this has been covered

 No thanks. But thanks for the offer ;)

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I believe that Alamy, has a seller of photography posted here, where they get directly the money from costumers have the legal accountability to check what they are selling and help the clients to found what they need... Otherwise, they will have to contact the photographer about every single sell and inform the use of the photography so the photographer can aprove it or not. That's the way to input the accountability on the photographer. The other way is Alamy only sell by request, and just ban hobby photographers. They just can't get rich and don't care about the "work force" this looks like a joke. Alamy needs to have an insurance for the protection of all the photographers who spend time and a lot of effort to give them photographs. 

Edited by Vitor from Portugal
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

...<snip> 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. 

 

I was including that as a reason for it feeling like constructive dismissal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

But would that hold water in a court of law - you buy toothpaste to use as glue .. (?)  Not the toothpaste firm's problem.

 Would you want to pay a lawyer to test it in court?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul J said:

 

I had the cheek to criticise Alamy in a post for slow payments and withholding money for too long, the day before they dropped the bomb. Some read into my post too much, it was nothing more than criticism of Alamy, completely justified. 

 

1 minute ago, BidC said:

 No thanks. But thanks for the offer ;)

 

 Oh dear ... this is all getting a bit too much isn't it ... sorry to hear that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BobD said:

 Would you want to pay a lawyer to test it in court?

 

I think I've already answered that question ... *next ;) [Really I am just starting to make my way through all the 'important amendments', so apologies - I have had other more important issues to deal with. Not being cross, just stating a fact ...  ]. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I totally agree, but I don't have the time, money or emotional energy to be the test case.

Interestingly, I wondered what Alamy's T&C's are for buyers.
I looked at the blurb relating to usage including RM v RF etc. and noted the following: -

"At this point, you might be wondering why it even matters. Surely, an image is an image. Yes, but you’re not buying the image, you’re buying a licence which serves as formal permission for you to use the image within the restrictions that are set by the licence."
 

This is interesting and relevant because it points out to the buyer that they are buying a licence that obligates them to "use the image within the restrictions that are set by the licence"

It follows therfore that if the buyer abuses the licence restrictions, then they are legally liable. In other words Alamy is holding both seller and buyer to account while simultaneously exempting themselves?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

Perhaps read this thread from the beginning - all of this has been covered

Punishment indeed. No thanks. But thanks for the offer ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The photographer here, he's the only one who don't have full responsibility for the use of the photography, if the photography is not legal by showing a brand with no release or a person, alamy needs to review and just delete those pictures. Or just add more options on the posting board like: Do you submit for political uses? For advertising?.... We can't even select the restrictions. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

I must be dumb. So the ad agency is at fault, and with the tightening of all legalities these days, would be foolish to use the picture without asking the photographer .. (?).Perhaps a model release should include what usage the model is and isn't happy about. It goes back to the statements about 'free speech', 'hate speech' etc - what is 'defamatory' (other than the obvious.) .. The cancel culture has hit hard it seems. (btw - I'm not disagreeing with you - just teasing out teh absurdities that are cropping up everywhere).

 

Someone mentioned that soon we will only be able to photograph the sky - maybe Luminar will come after you for a possible infringement of its rights to use the sky in a replacement tool (!)

 

A decent ad agency will only used released photos, but one of the posters on this giganormous thread said that there was a firm who would get releases.  That's just impossible for people, maybe possible for trade marks (product placement.

 

Basically, if I work with models who sign releases (amateur here), I'm going to explain that I have no control over how their photos will be used other than the release doesn't allow defamatory uses.   Tony and Chelsea Northrup did a video on how their photos of themselves were used.  They grinned and bore it.   What I thought was that released photos brought higher prices, but my released selfie brought my lowest price ever. 

 

You live in the US, don't you?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2021 at 13:32, Steve F said:

 

French fishmermen were blockading. Ours wrote a (strongly worded) letter to the government... But let's not go there! 🙃

Here in the US we just say #ThanksObama.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

A decent ad agency will only used released photos, but one of the posters on this giganormous thread said that there was a firm who would get releases.  That's just impossible for people, maybe possible for trade marks (product placement.

 

Basically, if I work with models who sign releases (amateur here), I'm going to explain that I have no control over how their photos will be used other than the release doesn't allow defamatory uses.   Tony and Chelsea Northrup did a video on how their photos of themselves were used.  They grinned and bore it.   What I thought was that released photos brought higher prices, but my released selfie brought my lowest price ever. 

 

You live in the US, don't you?   

 Hi there -

 

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm a rookie also. I live in the UK, and am not sure how things compare - I believe we are catching up with the US (if one can say that) as regards legalities and the tying of knots therein ... 

I have marked all my images as editorial from the word go. All exclusive to Alamy. I haven't made any decisions yet, but will probably go through my images and make further culls just in case.

I'm still going through and trying to digest the contract changes and what they may meant to me.

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.