Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Cryptoprocta]

4 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I've never been that good at maths.   How so?

Think of two £40 sales instead of two £50 sales as being proporitionately the same as one sale for £80 instead of £100.

£80 is 80% of (or 20% less than) £100, and £40 is 80% of (or 20% less than) £50.

 

Alternately, 10% of £100 is £10; 10% of £50 is £5, so 20% of £50 is £10.

 

If all else fails, do what I do: https://www.percentage-calculator.uk/

Edited May 24, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[SeaKevin]

5 hours ago, Taina said:

Clauses 4.1.5, 5.1, and 7.1. would mean that for a contributor it will be safe to upload only images of flowers and bugs. (Maybe also sunsets, if they don't have any property or people visible.)

 

 

I'm not so sure flowers and bugs are even safe. A couple of months ago, a magazine licensed an image of mine showing a flock of shorebirds, mainly sandpipers. In print, their caption called the birds peregrine falcons.

 

I have no idea how that error happened. My caption and keywords are accurate. I assume the publishing team screwed up, but what if there was a glitch in Alamy's database that day and the wrong metadata was exported. Who knows... 

 

But what if they made a claim against Alamy to recover the cost of reprinting that spread? Under the old contract, I'm liable only if I misrepresented the photo. Under the new, I could be called to defend Alamy at my expense. I netted only $35 for that sale. I couldn't get a lawyer to answer the phone for that amount of money.

 

And while I doubt there's going to be a warranty claim over this mistake, it's never completely out of the question. A few years ago, I licensed an image for a consumer product where it was critical that the image was of what it said it was of. I licensed the image myself and the contract explicitly passed that part of the liability to me.

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I've never been that good at maths.   How so?

Take £1000 gross. 50% of £1000 is £500. 40% of £1000 is £400.

400/500=0.8 which is 80% of 1. Hence, a reduction of 20%.

EDIT: Crypto was quicker. And with appropriately smaller amounts🙁

Edited May 24, 2021 by spacecadet

[MizBrown]

Just now, BidC said:

 

Its the legalities (and what they mean as far as I'm concerned) that I'm trying to digest to be honest. 

 

Basically, it looks like if Alamy goes to court either over something you screw up on or something anyone else in the chain screwed up on, you will be liable for Alamy's defense costs if they lose (I understand that if they win, the losing side pays court and legal costs for both sides under English law).  

 

US attorneys in the US courts can take cases based on getting a high percentage of the final financial ruling, but defendants generally have to pay their own costs, but don't have to pay court costs and legal fees if they lose (nor does the plaintiff).  You guys have fewer nuisance lawsuits than the US because losing is very costly.  

[Ed Rooney]

I've spent over 60 years as a pro and now semi-pro photographer. In that long time, I've not been sued and I've never sued anyone. Twice I had a lawyer send a letter to a client, and that did the trick.

 

My father was a lawyer. He left his private practice to become a prosecutor for the DA Office in Brooklyn, NY. He worked on the Mafia Murder Inc. case and then became a US Congressman. I did not inherit any of his skills. 

 

If I leave Alamy, I leave stock and I leave photography. I have no intentions of beginning again. I will make my decision in June. 

 

Good luck, everyone.

 

Edo

[BidC]

6 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

Basically, it looks like if Alamy goes to court either over something you screw up on or something anyone else in the chain screwed up on, you will be liable for Alamy's defense costs if they lose (I understand that if they win, the losing side pays court and legal costs for both sides under English law).  

 

US attorneys in the US courts can take cases based on getting a high percentage of the final financial ruling, but defendants generally have to pay their own costs, but don't have to pay court costs and legal fees if they lose (nor does the plaintiff).  You guys have fewer nuisance lawsuits than the US because losing is very costly.  

 

Thank you for explaining the differences

[CarlMillerPhotos]

On 18/05/2021 at 16:32, villalobos said:

The announcement of the new contributor contract on Twitter includes some responses from the Alamy Content Team to a few questions made by some users.  Nothing terribly enlightening, but they are a bit more engaged on that platform than on this forum.

More engaged on Twitter than on this platform with their actual contributors. Ha. Tells the whole story right there, doesn't it?

[BidC]

6 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

I've spent over 60 years as a pro and now semi-pro photographer. In that long time, I've not been sued and I've never sued anyone. Twice I had a lawyer send a letter to a client, and that did the trick.

 

My father was a lawyer. He left his private practice to become a prosecutor for the DA Office in Brooklyn, NY. He worked on the Mafia Murder Inc. case and then became a US Congressman. I did not inherit any of his skills. 

 

If I leave Alamy, I leave stock and I leave photography. I have no intentions of beginning again. I will make my decision in June. 

 

Good luck, everyone.

 

Edo

 

That would be very sad ... (though with only a mere fraction of those years behind me in a serous sense, I have thought the same myself ..). 

[Bill Brooks]

Some wishful thinking around responsibility in this thread. In the end you may not be responsible, but any fool can sue. I think this contract says if a lawsuite happens for any reason, the photographer has to bear the legal burden.

 

I know of a wrong caption, many years ago before Alamy was even conceived, that caused an $80,000 shredding and reprint job.

 

Sensitive use. A nice family portrait used to illustrate an article on incest. A photograph of a group of college students in front of an identifiable college building for a story on professors demanding sex for grades. This is an internet age folks, where everyone is a publisher.

 

Any client with a credit card can can obtain your image, no questions asked, from Alamy. It doesn't matter how you designate the image. RM or RF, only editorial, release or no release, counts for almost nothing in a legal sense. So be careful with your trust

[MizBrown]

24 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Getting 40% instead of 50% is actually a 20% reduction.

I rather doubt the MD is suffering a 20% cut in salary on July 1st.

They were looking for an assistant news editor in April for short term contract.  Apparently, SA/Alamy wants to expand the news side.

[Vitor from Portugal]

6 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

Some wishful thinking around responsibility in this thread. In the end you may not be responsible, but any fool can sue. I think this contract says if a lawsuite happens for any reason, the photographer has to bear the legal burden.

 

I know of a wrong caption, many years ago before Alamy was even conceived, that caused an $80,000 shredding and reprint job.

 

Sensitive use. A nice family portrait used to illustrate an article on incest. A photograph of a group of college students in front of an identifiable college building for a story on professors demanding sex for grades. This is an internet age folks, where everyone is a publisher.

 

Any client with a credit card can can obtain your image, no questions asked, from Alamy. It doesn't matter how you designate the image. RM or RF, only editorial, release or no release, counts for almost nothing in a legal sense. So be careful with your trust

But if the story is offensive, using the "illustration" with no story related with the subject written on an article it means that the story  is the problem, no the illustration "photography" right? 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Vitor from Portugal

[Vitor from Portugal]

Some in the business told me, you can fill the "notes about the picture box" with the restrictions you apply to the picture if you want to defend your self About misuses. 

[Michael Photo]

1 hour 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.

I spent years in UK courts (nothing nefarious!); I believe any judge would laugh Alamy out of the room if they tried to pin the blame photographers with this contract.

I'd just rather not go there to begin with.

[Allan Bell]

7 hours ago, Colblimp said:

Ooh, Allan dressed in a skimpy outfit.  I'd pay to see that! 🤣

 

You would want your money back.🙄

 

Allan

 

[hotbrightsky]

7 hours ago, MDM said:

I was referring to anonymity on the internet

 

So was I. 

[hotbrightsky]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

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

 

That is truly extraordinary. My experience is that Pixsy etc. will only tackle especially lucrative, easy-to-win cases, in 'safe' territories. I am perfectly capable of handling those myself.

[Stokie]

Just got a quote for profession indemnity insurance for £1,000,000 cover but with no legal fees covered which came out at £87.

 

With £1,000,000 cover and up to £100,000 legal fees the quote came out at £160.

 

Think I might take them up on the offer for peace of mind

 

John.

[sb photos]

34 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

They were looking for an assistant news editor in April for short term contract.  Apparently, SA/Alamy wants to expand the news side.

I saw that too, first in the Press Gazette, then the same with Alamy. From what I remember of the applicants role, they would have a tough time now the s••t has hit the fan.

[Ollie]

Quoting Ed Rooney:  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 🤨

 

 

The answer is no.  No matter what boxes we check, para 4.1.5 gives Alamy the right to do anything with our images: “4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;"

 

Moreover, para 7.1 states: “…. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.”  I.e., Alamy will not be responsible for its own mistakes.

 

Alamy’s contract requires that We “warrant and represent that … (para 4.1.6.) any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world.”  It is asking quite a bit that we warrant that a customer, unknown to us, does nothing that might offend someone.

 

If someone sues because they find use of an image offensive, and even if they do not sue you (unlikely, since lawyers tend to sue everyone in the chain of production), we are obligated to pay Alamy’s legal costs: Para 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 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; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties;”

 

If Alamy in this Forum says “we do not intend to interpret it that way” the obvious reply is “Then why did you write it that way?”

 

No matter what Alamy posts in this Forum, the contract is what governs.  Read the last sentence of para 25.4: This Contract supersedes any previous contract between the parties relating to the Content and constitutes the entire understanding between the parties and is binding upon them, your executors, successors or assigns. Each party acknowledges that, in entering into this Contract, it has not relied on any representation made by the other party that has not been set out in the Contract.”

 

Lawyers are paid to protect their clients.  Alamy wants to minimize its risks.  It is easy to understand, but hard to justify, why Alamy would treat in this fashion the very people who create the product they sell.

[hotbrightsky]

51 minutes ago, CarlMillerPhotos said:

More engaged on Twitter than on this platform with their actual contributors

 

No company likes to be embarrassed on a public platform, that's why Alamy hides the links to this forum! 😄

[KevinS]

I've read and agree with what Ollie posted above. Why would anyone stay with Alamy (unless you plan to buy insurance)?

[BidC]

12 minutes ago, Stokie said:

Just got a quote for profession indemnity insurance for £1,000,000 cover but with no legal fees covered which came out at £87.

 

With £1,000,000 cover and up to £100,000 legal fees the quote came out at £160.

 

Think I might take them up on the offer for peace of mind

 

John.

 

Is this with PG ? Or can you name names ?

[Cryptoprocta]

16 minutes ago, Stokie said:

Just got a quote for profession indemnity insurance for £1,000,000 cover but with no legal fees covered which came out at £87.

 

With £1,000,000 cover and up to £100,000 legal fees the quote came out at £160.

 

Think I might take them up on the offer for peace of mind

 

John.

Is that an expense for tax purposes, do you know? I'd ask my accountant, but she's part-year and won't be working till late September.

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, Ollie said:

If Alamy in this Forum says “we do not intend to interpret it that way” the obvious reply is “Then why did you write it that way?”

Indeed. What I found particularly disappointing in their response, after 50 pages of posts, was that there was not even the slightest hint that, as a result of the feedback (which they asked for), that they will look at redrafting some of the contract clauses to remove confusion.

 

Alamy, some of your long term contributors appear to be leaving and others are going non-exclusive, due in part to this badly worded contract. You need to at least acknowledge there's an issue, or more will surely follow.

 

Mark

 

[Update - Alamy have now posted a further response later in this thread.]

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by M.Chapman
Update to reference new posting by Alamy

[M.Chapman]

18 minutes ago, Stokie said:

Just got a quote for profession indemnity insurance for £1,000,000 cover but with no legal fees covered which came out at £87.

 

With £1,000,000 cover and up to £100,000 legal fees the quote came out at £160.

 

Think I might take them up on the offer for peace of mind

 

John.

 

That's potentially a very interesting option. Any recommendations from forum members as to suitable insurers?

 

Mark