Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[M.Chapman]

6 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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.

IMHO - Yes

 

Mark

[MizBrown]

50 minutes ago, Vitor from Portugal said:

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? 

 

The honorable way, and I've seen this done in news stories on line, is to put a notice on the photograph that this is a stock photo from such and such agency, and directly below the photo say that the person or people in the photograph are models, not individuals mentioned in the story.   If that's not done, the reader is likely to believe the photo illustrates the article and is of a person or people mentioned in the article.   This is what the various political ads try strongly to imply, that someone interviewed a housewife in Idaho, and photographed her and took down her words, so they're not going to give notice that they're using a stock photo and having a hired ad writer come up with copy based on specs given by the client.    One politician who claimed he rode bulls used stock film footage for his "bull ride."  

[spacecadet]

10 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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.

 You only have it because you're in business, so of course it's a business expense.

[Stokie]

14 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

Is this with PG ? Or can you name names ?

 

That's with Simply Business. If you mean Photoguard, i've checked with them and they don't do professional indemnity as an add on to the insurance policy i've got with them for equipment and public liability.

 

5 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

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

 

Mark

 

That's with Simply Business

 

2 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

IMHO - Yes

 

Mark

 

Yes, insurance is tax deductible.

[meanderingemu]

9 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 You only have it because you're in business, so of course it's a business expense.

 

i was starting to question UK tax laws if business expenses are not deductible.  

[sb photos]

8 minutes ago, Stokie said:

 

That's with Simply Business. If you mean Photoguard, i've checked with them and they don't do professional indemnity as an add on to the insurance policy i've got with them for equipment and public liability.

 

 

That's with Simply Business

 

 

Yes, insurance is tax deductible.

My public liability insurance is with Simply Business, I like them.

[Ed Rooney]

 

deleted

Edited May 24, 2021 by Ed Rooney

[Ed Rooney]

1 hour 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

 

Bill, do I understand you to be saying that there is no safe way to be involved as a contributor in the digital stock photography business?

[meanderingemu]

9 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Bill, do I understand you to be saying that there is no safe way to be involved as a contributor in the digital stock photography business?

 

 

i think it's more that their never was anything risk free, people are finally taking conscience of some these risks.

 

Many of these clauses are in the contract today.  What is changing for many of us, is our perception of how less paternalistic towards contributor Alamy is becoming. 

 

People have been submitting and licencing images for years with much more risk on other platforms, and not getting any financial repercussions. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Cryptoprocta]

Wouldn't you think Alamy should take out relevant insurance out of their 20% clawback? That would be much more sensible and a bit more fair.

And not hold customers harmless of misusing files.

[imageplotter]

50 minutes ago, Stokie said:

 

That's with Simply Business. If you mean Photoguard, i've checked with them and they don't do professional indemnity as an add on to the insurance policy i've got with them for equipment and public liability.

 

 

Thanks for the info re. Simply Business. I'm with Photoguard also, but was also looking to tag on PI with them and couldn't get an all-in quote. May go to SB then for it. 

[John Mitchell]

14 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Bill, do I understand you to be saying that there is no safe way to be involved as a contributor in the digital stock photography business?

 

I think that Bill might have found a way. However, it wouldn't work for everyone.

[formerly snappyoncalifornia]

2 hours 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

Hey Ed,  I'm EHHS class of 68. Remember Rep Manny Cellars? Small world!

[John Mitchell]

1 hour 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.

 

Thanks for this. We shouldn't have to go to these lengths. However, given the current situation, I'm going to look into this possibility here in Canada. It sounds like a wise idea at this point, and my Alamy income is currently high enough to justify the extra cost as long as it's within reason.

 

Do any Canadian contributors on the forum have indemnity insurance?

[CarlMillerPhotos]

On 19/05/2021 at 12:31, Thyrsis said:

 

We should set up a 'Retired from Alamy' forum somewhere.....

"Retired" isn't quite the right word, but yes...

[Mr Standfast]

1 minute ago, CarlMillerPhotos said:

"Retired" isn't quite the right word, but yes...

I dunno, have you seen Blade Runner?

[BidC]

1 hour ago, Stokie said:

 

That's with Simply Business. If you mean Photoguard, i've checked with them and they don't do professional indemnity as an add on to the insurance policy i've got with them for equipment and public liability.

 

 

That's with Simply Business

 

 

Yes, insurance is tax deductible.

 

Thank you very much

[AlbertSnapper]

Don't forget folks, if any of you are terminating your contract here and you allow Alamy to claim from DACS on your behalf....

....then you'll have to sort that out for yourself in the future.

 

Don't want them getting your whole slice of pie ! !

[BidC]

2 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

Don't forget folks, if any of you are terminating your contract here and you allow Alamy to claim from DACS on your behalf....

....then you'll have to sort that out for yourself in the future.

 

Don't want them getting your whole slice of pie ! !

 

Please excuse my ignorance but what is DACS ?

[Alamy]

Just a quick update for you here to confirm that we are reading all responses and it's clear to us that there is confusion around the wording of some of the specific clauses in the new contract. 

 

We're sorry for the confusion these have caused. More details to follow soon, but we are looking at the possibility of rewording some clauses to make them clearer as well as providing further info here as to how the clauses could be used.

 

Best regards

 

Alamy

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Stokie said:

 

That's with Simply Business. If you mean Photoguard, i've checked with them and they don't do professional indemnity as an add on to the insurance policy i've got with them for equipment and public liability.

 

 

That's with Simply Business

 

 

Yes, insurance is tax deductible.

I just hopped onto Simply Business and their Professional Indemnity Insurance is specifically "For if you make mistakes that cost a client money." That's possible I guess if we mis-label an image, but it's not most of what the worry Alamy is currently causing us is about. It's mostly not about us making mistakes, it's about "Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns" doing something wrong. That wouldn't even cover us for the well-rehearsed blip in Alamy search which can link any word in the caption or caption with any other word to make an irrelevant phrase.

Further into the getting a quote process, it says "Cover if a customer claims compensation for something that's gone wrong, for example if you make a mistake that means you fail to provide their photos." I'm still not sure this is the right product, but I guess I could contact them to find out. Except there seems not to be an email address on their site* and a phone assurance has even less relevance in court than James telling us in a forum post what 'they' did or didn't intend.

*I've found their contact page.

 

Oh, that was lucky. I had drafted a query on Simply Business's contact page, sending a linkto the new contract and highlighting the worrying clauses. I hadn't hit 'send' before coming back here and seeing Alamy's response, which must have crossed as I was writing the above so I didn't see it. I'll wait until we get the new contract draft.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[M.Chapman]

12 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Just a quick update for you here to confirm that we are reading all responses and it's clear to us that there is confusion around the wording of some of the specific clauses in the new contract. 

 

We're sorry for the confusion these have caused. More details to follow soon, but we are looking at the possibility of rewording some clauses to make them clearer as well as providing further info here as to how the clauses could be used.

 

Best regards

 

Alamy

At last - many thanks - the sooner the better. You may want to add this to your first update in this thread so it's not buried.

 

Mark

Edited May 24, 2021 by M.Chapman

[AlbertSnapper]

4 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

Please excuse my ignorance but what is DACS ?

 

DACS (Design & Artist Copyright Society) ....... https://www.dacs.org.uk/

 

In a simple nutshell, your photographs that are published in UK books, magazines, and online editions I think now (?), that have ISBN/ISSN numbers (not newspapers or their supplements) and TV uses, are eligible for additional royalty payments each year.

 

Places like libraries & universities pay for a licence that allows their copies of books etc to be used.

I think it's a bit like the way in which business premises pay via a licence for playing recorded music in a place where the public can go (and the licence monies get distributed to the artists).

 

DACS stands up morally and financially for visual artists.

 

I'm sure someone can explain better than me if need be, but this isn't the thread topic here.

 

 

 

[BidC]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

i think it's more that their never was anything risk free, people are finally taking conscience of some these risks.

 

Many of these clauses are in the contract today.  What is changing for many of us, is our perception of how less paternalistic towards contributor Alamy is becoming. 

 

People have been submitting and licencing images for years with much more risk on other platforms, and not getting any financial repercussions. 

 

I submitted to an agency a while back where it came to light that employees were selling images 'abroad'( this was not a UK company - if there are any others). The company was sued, and the claimants won. However that whole issue put me off completely and I left. I believe it had happened a few years before I began submitting, but nonetheless I felt uneasy. Again, maybe naive, but I have much preferred Alamy's approach. Will probably continue (with some insurance) and see how things go.

[BidC]

4 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

 

DACS (Design & Artist Copyright Society) ....... https://www.dacs.org.uk/

 

In a simple nutshell, your photographs that are published in UK books, magazines, and online editions I think now (?), that have ISBN/ISSN numbers (not newspapers or their supplements) and TV uses, are eligible for additional royalty payments each year.

 

Places like libraries & universities pay for a licence that allows their copies of books etc to be used.

I think it's a bit like the way in which business premises pay via a licence for playing recorded music in a place where the public can go (and the licence monies get distributed to the artists).

 

DACS stands up morally and financially for visual artists.

 

I'm sure someone can explain better than me if need be, but this isn't the thread topic here.

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much. Thats very clear.