Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[BobD]

For me to stay now, clause 5.1 has to remove all our liabilities for Alamy and its customers legal and compensation costs.

I don't make enough here to warrant insurance even if you could get it for other peoples mistakes.

 

I'm sure Alamy is competent enough to have its own liability insurance, so why this clause is even there in the first place doesn't make sense.  

 

If I make a mistake or lie about an image then I accept that I would bear responsibility for my actions, but I am surely not going to accept the responsibility for others I have no control over.

[hotbrightsky]

2 hours ago, Taina said:

I do not care about the payment cut at this point

 

I do! If I was making more money I could afford to employ legal advisers to mitigate the others contractual issues!

[hotbrightsky]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Alamy will make a slight amendment to the wording and everybody will be falling over themselves with whoops of gratitude [...] Some Psychology student ought to do a PhD on it

 

You think they'd get a research grant for that? 'Deal Negotiation For Dummies' must already cover it surely. 

[Jools Elliott]

@Alamy

 

May I ask if you actually taking any note at all of the sheer and utter discontent that contributors have right now?

 

There are pages and pages of it and you should be taking very close observations as to how people are feeling.

 

In the current climate where people are losing jobs; seeing hours cut etc you come along with this new contract. A contract which serves one purpose which is you.

 

People have long held Alamy in high regard because of your fairness in terms of royalties. But you've now come along and wrecked that for many people. So I think that you need to start listening to the very people who supply you with imagery and at the bottom line pay your wages.

[Foreign Export]

1 hour ago, BobD said:

For me to stay now, clause 5.1 has to remove all our liabilities for Alamy and its customers legal and compensation costs.

I don't make enough here to warrant insurance even if you could get it for other peoples mistakes.

 

I'm sure Alamy is competent enough to have its own liability insurance, so why this clause is even there in the first place doesn't make sense.  

 

If I make a mistake or lie about an image then I accept that I would bear responsibility for my actions, but I am surely not going to accept the responsibility for others I have no control over.

Alamy will have their own insurances - but their objective will be to not claim against it - far better for Alamy to pass that risk onto us - no matter how unreasonable that is - or how  impractical given we are not in a position to manage the risk

[Foreign Export]

1 hour ago, Sally R said:

 

I agree with you. I'm just trying to figure out their rationale. Certain things don't seem to make sense, such as positing the chasing of infringements for those who are exclusive as an incentive, while at the same time creating a massive disincentive for being exclusive. If the number of contributors who are exclusive is already about 6.5%, and that reduces to a much smaller number again because of the new contract, then they won't have that many cases to pursue infringement wise anyway. Maybe that is the plan.

 

I also think that if they were going to make a commission change, it would have been just better to straightforwardly state what that change will be. Introducing an incentive scheme where the top tier, platinum, is inaccessible to most, doesn't leave people feeling great. The terminologies are marketing jargon designed to make us feel like something good is happening for us when the opposite is the case. It is interesting they didn't use gold, silver and bronze, probably with the psychological intent of making people feel that if they are on the bottom of the wrung and only getting 20%, then at least they can feel they are silver (not bronze). I'd so prefer if they left out the marketing and just said what they were going to do with a clear rationale.

 

 

I agree Sally and in short it looks like;

 

nobody took the time to think this through

 

 

 

[KTC]

1 hour ago, gardenbush said:

My contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???

 

They should be removing all images when you're terminating the contract, until then you're just in the regular image deletion process where it's still available for months afterwards.

[Sally]

2 hours ago, Sally R said:

Another factor in all of this I have thought of, is the way QC works at Alamy. The microstock agency I was briefly with beforehand scrutinise every image uploaded and immediately reject anything that they consider any kind of liability risk. Also, anything not marked editorial can be rejected when it might not seem obvious at first why. I remember a contributor there posting his image on their forum that had been rejected wondering why it was considered to be a problem. It did seem a puzzle as there was no apparent property or subjects of concern in the image. The forum moderator responded with a close-up of part of the image showing that when really zoomed in, there was some tiny, tiny writing on something obscure in the image that meant there was in fact a need for it to be marked editorial.

 

Given that Alamy do not see all images that go through QC, they are probably trying to have measures in place to cover themselves should any issues arise with an image. I feel Alamy's QC approach has more flexibility and in many ways makes more sense, but then there is also easily room for images to go through that Alamy are not seeing that may not comply with the restrictions designated for the image or might be considered potentially problematic. As their QC process is less tightly controlled, perhaps they are trying to cover any risks they perceive associated with this. The RM/RF distinction also makes things a bit more complex, and then that distinction is becoming less clear now in the way images are licensed anyway.

 

 

Indeed, this was brought home to me recently when I uploaded a few images to S*******. A couple I thought didn’t have any property were rejected because it was deemed they did. One was a very old (hundreds of years) carved face in a public wall in Cuba which was an old postbox with the letters Buzon. Another was a ramshackle homemade fruit and vegetable stall with no lettering or people or any identifiable aspect in a street between two houses. If this is the  level at which we need to mark property then I will need to seriously revise my images here.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Sally

[sb photos]

53 minutes ago, gardenbush said:

My contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???

I suspect the 6 months delay before final deletion is to allow Alamy clients to later purchase an image that they may have already downloaded but not declared for a long term project.

[sb photos]

3 minutes ago, Sally said:

Indeed, this was brought home to me recently when I uploaded a few images to S*******. A couple I thought didn’t have any property were rejected because it was deemed they did. One was a very old (hundreds of years) carved face in a public wall in Cuba which was an old postbox with the letters Buzon. Another was a ramshackle homemade fruit and vegetable stall with no lettering or people or any identifiable aspect in a street between two houses. If this is the  level at which we need to mark property then I will need to seriously revise my images here.

Whenever in doubt I always mark as people/number no release and property no release + editorial.

[spacecadet]

6 minutes ago, Sally said:

 If this is the  level at which we need to mark property then I will need to seriously revise my images here.

If you don't annotate, the image shows as unreleased anyway. You wouldn't have marked the image as released, so that should suffice.

My default is that every image contains property- even a landscape "belongs" to the National Park or whatever. But I don't tick the boxes anymore. Am I going to go back and check? Am I coco.

Edited May 25, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cryptoprocta]

14 hours 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

Remember, you need to give us 45 days notice after you change the wording, as that will be a new contract.

[Russell Watkins]

4 minutes ago, sb photos said:

I suspect the 6 months delay before final deletion is to allow Alamy clients to later purchase an image that they may have already downloaded but not declared for a long term project.

 

Or allow Alamy to debit you any refunds. 

[Thyrsis]

3 minutes ago, sb photos said:

I suspect the 6 months delay before final deletion is to allow Alamy clients to later purchase an image that they may have already downloaded but not declared for a long term project.

I’m pretty sure if you terminate your contract because of the changes your images are taken down with immediate effect. How can Alamy sell your images after the termination date as they would then be subject to the new terms? 

[Russell Watkins]

Just now, Thyrsis said:

I’m pretty sure if you terminate your contract because of the changes your images are taken down with immediate effect. How can Alamy sell your images after the termination date as they would then be subject to the new terms? 

 

I think they're talking about the situation when you manually delete images - they stay "available" for 6 months after the deletion.

[Sally]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

If you don't annotate, the image shows as unreleased anyway. You wouldn't have marked the image as released, so that should suffice.

My default is that every image contains property- even a landscape "belongs" to the National Park or whatever. But I don't tick the boxes anymore. Am I going to go back and check? Am I coco.

Oh well, it’s easy enough to change everything to editorial only using Alamy Lightroom Bridge. Then, if I can be bothered change individual photos back.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Sally

[Sultanpepa]

14 hours 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

 

If they need clarified or reworded they were no good in the first place. Will you also have a rethink on the commission changes as they're wrong too.

[Thyrsis]

10 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

I think they're talking about the situation when you manually delete images - they stay "available" for 6 months after the deletion.

Nope!

The original question was ‘my contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???’

As far as I am aware the deleted images will only be available until the 30th June....

[Sultanpepa]

2 hours ago, Bryan said:

Late to the party as usual, but I have just read the new clause 5.1 in the contract and am horrified.  It seems like contributors are to be held responsible for the unlawful acts of others.

 

Where appropriate, I clearly mark  my photos as needing a release whether for property or persons.  Surely it is the publisher, ignoring that instruction, who should be called to account? 

 

In any event I can't afford to take the risk and, with my limited photo income, comprehensive liability insurance is unlikely to be financially viable. Unless this is resolved I will, very reluctantly, opt out.  Years of work down the pan........

 

I wonder if there's a possibility for an Alamy wide indemnity insurance for a small annual fee collected by Alamy each year. There are supposed to be 180,000 contributors after all?

[Phil Crean]

7 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

I wonder if there's a possibility for an Alamy wide indemnity insurance for a small annual fee collected by Alamy each year. There are supposed to be 180,000 contributors after all?

It should be paid for from their commission....

 

[Russell Watkins]

23 minutes ago, Thyrsis said:

Nope!

The original question was ‘my contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???’

As far as I am aware the deleted images will only be available until the 30th June....

 

I agree that they will be deleted on the 30th June in actuality, but I was highlighting where the confusion came from. Under normal circumstances, a deletion means they're still available on Alamy for 6 months and you're told this when you delete them (I think). 

 

The problems of talking at cross-purposes on an internet forum.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Russell Watkins

[imageplotter]

8 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

It should be paid for from their commission....

 

Absolutely. I am not prepared to pay an additional fee to make Alamy more revenue, that way, it would simply turn into a money spinning exercise. 

[Cryptoprocta]

43 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

I wonder if there's a possibility for an Alamy wide indemnity insurance for a small annual fee collected by Alamy each year. There are supposed to be 180,000 contributors after all?

Or just take it out of their 20%/60% clawback.

If we were to individually 'share', what would stop them making that another cash cow, which they could keep milking for more each year?

Them doing it would make it more likely they'd hold the other parties responsible for their actions, not harmless, to prevent their premiums going up too steeply.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Thomas Smith]

26 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

I wonder if there's a possibility for an Alamy wide indemnity insurance for a small annual fee collected by Alamy each year. There are supposed to be 180,000 contributors after all?

From past experience, I'm pretty sure that PI Insurance only covers mistakes the "Insured" makes and not the mistakes of a third party.

[griangraf]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

This raises a specific legal question. If I accept the new contract, will I be deemed to accepting these broader indemnity terms can be applied to any new claims, damages, liabilities, losses and costs arising after 30th June 2021 but which relate to use of an image which Alamy licenced on or before 30th June 2021 ? My initial thought was that it wouldn't as this would be a retrospective change in liability. But if the claim arises after 30-06-2021 on an image licenced previously and I have left this image on Alamy, could I be deemed to be accepting this additional liability for that content?

 

Obviously the significance of this will depend on whether Alamy revise Clause 5 or not.

 

Mark

 

 

This is a very good point and one of many that needs clarification. If I understand you corrrectly it would also mean that any mistake by a distributor or by Alamy whereby an image that a contributor deleted was left on sale and caused an issue of some sort then that would be the contributor's responsibility and he or she might have to indemnify Alamy??? The very fact that contributors are having to grapple with such harsh clauses is  a real shock. This is particularly important in that one option contributors have now is to take down all photos they feel could in some way lead to an issue. But that would only be of help if clauses such as the one referred to above are rewritten or taken out. Although I have usually had good experiences with Alamy, and have wanted Alamy to thrive, one would be taking quite a risk in continuing under such terms and given the drop in sales that makes no sense. Let's hope there is a change of heart. The next move for me now seems to be to turn everything non-exclusive and editorial despite the fact that many of my photos can be safely sold commercially and even though a majority are exclusive to Alamy. That is what I will do soon unless Alamy can explain to me why I would be mistaken in doing so. I do think it's important to give them time to work on it and come up with some help as I have always found CR positive in their approach.