Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mr Standfast said:

As I wrote in Josephs where now thread..

 

As mentioned, I was contacting Indemnity providers try to get cover.

 

So far two companies have replied. Ripe and Directline. Both have discussed 5.1 with their underwriters who have declined to cover the clause.

 

I am awaiting a third reply.

 

 

making sure @Alamydoesn't miss this piece of Vital information.

 

Just WOW!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

As I wrote in Josephs where now thread..

 

As mentioned, I was contacting Indemnity providers try to get cover.

 

So far two companies have replied. Ripe and Directline. Both have discussed 5.1 with their underwriters who have declined to cover the clause.

 

I am awaiting a third reply.

Good grief.

Says it all.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Hodderauthor said:

But under this new contract, I'm not sure that's enough. Clause 4.1.5 gives Alamy the right to exploit any licence they see fit, effectively, which suggests they won't follow photographer-set restrictions such as Editorial Use Only. Indeed, if you go onto Alamy and select an image you've labelled as "Editorial Use Only" you'll see that Alamy put a banner above the prices saying "Available for Editorial and personal Use Only. Get in touch for commercial uses." To which I want to say, "Er, no! It's editorial use only!"

 

If Alamy can't be trusted to respect photographer-set restrictions, then it's not safe for me to continue with them (especially, if we're liable for everyone else's mistakes).

 

 

I suspect those of us who live in other countries, especially the EU, are, as another poster pointed out, are judgment proof, but that would probably have PA/Alamy simply fire them.   But those people could have problems if EU citizens or residents of their respective countries sued them. 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ReeRay said:

Like others have commented on, it's not so much the commission reduction but the onerous terms and clauses that potentially "throw us under the bus".

 

I can't risk losing my home via lawyers fees and unless Alamy puts my mind at ease in their promised response I will have no option but to bow out. Sad and angry after 13 years of effort, now looking likely to go down the drain.

 

Lots of folk may not bother about the commission increase and decide to stay with Alamy providing the contract clauses are fixed but that's not my thoughts on it. There is actually no point in staying for less that half. For news you may be in a better position but for stock you're loosing money and you'll lose more in the future. On principle alone I'd find a 20% decrease in revenue hard to swallow. Without photographers Alamy/PA have no business.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I suspect those of us who live in other countries, especially the EU, are, as another poster pointed out, are judgment proof, but that would probably have PA/Alamy simply fire them.   But those people could have problems if EU citizens or residents of their respective countries sued them. 

 

 

Can you expand a bit on "judgement proof" -- I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

Also, what do you mean by "fire them" -- fire who?

 

Sorry, I'm a dumb bunny when it comes to this stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Can you expand a bit on "judgement proof" -- I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

Also, what do you mean by "fire them" -- fire who?

 

Sorry, I'm a dumb bunny when it comes to this stuff.

 

I  doubt they're locked into contracts any more than we are.   Or perhaps they are.   Both sides of this should be able to cancel with 45 days notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

<snip>...Without photographers Alamy/PA have no business.

 

The problem is, they kinda do. They have bought up newspaper collections and other agencies. It might be that they see small fry photographers with small ports as a bit of a nuisance and would rather devote their efforts on the larger (i.e. massive) contributors that they have. And who are already likely on sweetheart deals.

Edited by Russell Watkins
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think that I kind of understand the concern about the new clauses but then again maybe there is a lot of over-reaction and I don't really understand it much at all.

 

On reflection, if a publisher does something stupid and outrageous with an image and it causes offence they risk getting sued. It will be them that gets sued not the photographer.

 

Not sure what grounds the publisher would then have of suing Alamy , and in turn Alamy expecting the photographer to take responsibility. Not sure I can imagine that sequence of events ever happening. 

 

There has always been the onus on the contributor to take responsibility for what they upload.  We can't dodge that. It is part of the job.  If a contributor writes a caption which is plain wrong, or uploads an image that they shouldn't have, then who do they expect to take responsibility?

 

Let's face it some contributors do have an attitude of 'what can I get away with' uploading as though it is clever to sneak in some things that shouldn't be there. eg) from a concert where you should not be taking photos, or inside museums that don't allow it. 'Can I get away with it'?

 

Maybe it is us contributors who need to carefully go through our images and make sure that what we are offering for sale is bullet proof? Perhaps the Alamy rewrite reflects the realisation that so many contributors are taking the p*ss.

 

I do think sometimes it helps a discussion to have a contrary view. So there you go.

 

 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I think that I kind of understand the concern about the new clauses but then again maybe there is a lot of over-reaction and I don't really understand it much at all.

 

On reflection, if a publisher does something stupid and outrageous with an image and it causes offence they risk getting sued. It will be them that gets sued not the photographer.

 

Not sure what grounds the publisher would then have of suing Alamy , and in turn Alamy expecting the photographer to take responsibility. Not sure I can imagine that sequence of events ever happening. 

 

There has always been the onus on the contributor to take responsibility for what they upload.  We can't dodge that. It is part of the job.  If a contributor writes a caption which is plain wrong, or uploads an image that they shouldn't have, then who do they expect to take responsibility?

 

Let's face it some contributors do have an attitude of 'what can I get away with' uploading as though it is clever to sneak in some things that shouldn't be there. eg) from a concert where you should not be taking photos, or inside museums that don't allow it. 'Can I get away with it'?

 

Maybe it is us contributors who need to carefully go through our images and make sure that what we are offering for sale is bullet proof? Perhaps the Alamy rewrite reflects the realisation that so many contributors are taking the p*ss.

 

I do think sometimes it helps a discussion to have a contrary view. So there you go.

 

 

 

 

The existing clause puts the onus on the contributor taking responsibility for what they upload. That's fair enough. Why change it to include things that the photographer has no control over, particularly if it is the publisher will get sued? Clearly Alamy think they need to be able to pass the buck to the contributor for legal claims. Whether they will or not and whether they will be successful or not can only be tested when a case comes up, but Alamy's intent in making the change is clear.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

The existing clause puts the onus on the contributor taking responsibility for what they upload. That's fair enough. Why change it to include things that the photographer has no control over, particularly if it is the publisher will get sued? Clearly Alamy think they need to be able to pass the buck to the contributor for legal claims. Whether they will or not and whether they will be successful or not can only be tested when a case comes up, but Alamy's intent in making the change is clear.

 

If I sell a faulty product on Ebay who takes responsibility?

 

Maybe Alamy are changing the existing clause because it is so blatant that a significant number of contributors are not taking responsibility.

 

On this forum right out in the open I have read about contributors talking about uploading pictures secretly taken against rules. So if a publisher uses one of those and gets sued who should take the blame?

 

The world is getting more and more litigious. Photographers can't have it all their own way - seeking big bucks from copyright infringements and themselves dodging responsibility for their work.

 

Isn't there some law of Physics about action and reaction?

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a reply to the letter I sent to Emily Shelley (https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14386-contract-change-2021-official-thread/?do=findComment&comment=287305

Sadly, I hadn't noticed Clause 5.1 when I wrote, but let's hope it will be redrafted for clarity.

A lot of what she says has been said already by Alamy, but I've highlighted what she said about Exclusive content, as that is new:

"

Dear Liz
Thank you for your email and I'm sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you.
 
This is not about punishing people, but a business decision based on the value of the 'exclusive' collection. Around 17 million of the 260 million images on Alamy are marked as exclusive to us and we do not see any particular commercial or marketing benefit from this collection, and it varies widely in genre and quality. Our aim is to establish which images are truly exclusive and at the same time unlock infringements revenue, we will then assess the value of this collection to customers. We are aware that this removes the commission incentive for contributors to be exclusive to us and that those who were previously exclusive will see the biggest impact from these changes.
 
Regarding 4.1.6, this change is to alter the wording that said 'UK, USA and elsewhere' to 'anywhere in the world'. Although this doesn't alter the legal meaning, it has caused confusion and concern and we are reviewing it internally to see if it needs redrafting to address this. Customers do pick up the liability for ensuring the images are fit for purpose in their country. 
 
4.1.5. is designed to make sure that Alamy could add restrictions such as 'editorial only' to content where photographers had neglected to mark it as such. We will not be altering any restrictions set by the contributor but ensuring we stick to them. It seems this is not clear enough, so we are reviewing the wording of this clause in response to feedback from contributors.
 
Clause 4.1.11 was already part of the contract under 4.8 previously but has been separated out. It has the same meaning. We require waiving of moral rights so that the contributor, or the copyright holder if different, can't claim against Alamy or the customer if the work is published without a credit or credited incorrectly and to allow the image to be modified from its original form. Without this we wouldn't be able to sell the content via the platform in the way that we do. 
 
We now work with 80 distributors, and have gained around 30 distributor contracts via our merger with PA Images which are usually on a 50/50 basis. It's in Alamy's interest to work to get the best deal but in some cases the distributor will take the majority share if we feel it's the only way we can truly access that market, choice is limited and volumes are high. We have no desire not to be transparent on this but simply can't detail every single arrangement. We are keeping the opt-out available for distribution during the notice period for these changes.
 
I apologise if you feel these changes have not been clear. They are drafted by in-house lawyers under English law. As mentioned, 4.1.5 is under review as is 4.1.6 following feedback.
 
With regards,
Emily
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I got a reply to the letter I sent to Emily Shelley (https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14386-contract-change-2021-official-thread/?do=findComment&comment=287305

Sadly, I hadn't noticed Clause 5.1 when I wrote, but let's hope it will be redrafted for clarity.

A lot of what she says has been said already by Alamy, but I've highlighted what she said about Exclusive content, as that is new:

"

Dear Liz
Thank you for your email and I'm sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you.
 
This is not about punishing people, but a business decision based on the value of the 'exclusive' collection. Around 17 million of the 260 million images on Alamy are marked as exclusive to us and we do not see any particular commercial or marketing benefit from this collection, and it varies widely in genre and quality. Our aim is to establish which images are truly exclusive and at the same time unlock infringements revenue, we will then assess the value of this collection to customers. We are aware that this removes the commission incentive for contributors to be exclusive to us and that those who were previously exclusive will see the biggest impact from these changes.
 
Regarding 4.1.6, this change is to alter the wording that said 'UK, USA and elsewhere' to 'anywhere in the world'. Although this doesn't alter the legal meaning, it has caused confusion and concern and we are reviewing it internally to see if it needs redrafting to address this. Customers do pick up the liability for ensuring the images are fit for purpose in their country. 
 
4.1.5. is designed to make sure that Alamy could add restrictions such as 'editorial only' to content where photographers had neglected to mark it as such. We will not be altering any restrictions set by the contributor but ensuring we stick to them. It seems this is not clear enough, so we are reviewing the wording of this clause in response to feedback from contributors.
 
Clause 4.1.11 was already part of the contract under 4.8 previously but has been separated out. It has the same meaning. We require waiving of moral rights so that the contributor, or the copyright holder if different, can't claim against Alamy or the customer if the work is published without a credit or credited incorrectly and to allow the image to be modified from its original form. Without this we wouldn't be able to sell the content via the platform in the way that we do. 
 
We now work with 80 distributors, and have gained around 30 distributor contracts via our merger with PA Images which are usually on a 50/50 basis. It's in Alamy's interest to work to get the best deal but in some cases the distributor will take the majority share if we feel it's the only way we can truly access that market, choice is limited and volumes are high. We have no desire not to be transparent on this but simply can't detail every single arrangement. We are keeping the opt-out available for distribution during the notice period for these changes.
 
I apologise if you feel these changes have not been clear. They are drafted by in-house lawyers under English law. As mentioned, 4.1.5 is under review as is 4.1.6 following feedback.
 
With regards,
Emily

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - this woman lied about no commission changes, how can she be trusted now?  I don't believe one word she says.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

If I sell a faulty product on Ebay who takes responsibility?

 

Maybe Alamy are changing the existing clause because it is so blatant that a significant number of contributors are not taking responsibility.

 

On this forum right out in the open I have read about contributors talking about uploading pictures secretly taken against rules. So if a publisher uses one of those and gets sued who should take the blame?

 

The world is getting more and more litigious. Photographers can't have it all their own way - seeking big bucks from copyright infringements and themselves dodging responsibility for their work.

 

Isn't there some law of Physics about action and reaction?

 

 

 

Pretty clear to me that both sides are true--some photographers (including me) perhaps could clean up their acts a bit, and also the new contract overreaches in many areas.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

If I sell a faulty product on Ebay who takes responsibility?

 

Maybe Alamy are changing the existing clause because it is so blatant that a significant number of contributors are not taking responsibility.

 

On this forum right out in the open I have read about contributors talking about uploading pictures secretly taken against rules. So if a publisher uses one of those and gets sued who should take the blame?

 

The world is getting more and more litigious. Photographers can't have it all their own way - seeking big bucks from copyright infringements and themselves dodging responsibility for their work.

 

Isn't there some law of Physics about action and reaction?

 

 

 

If you read the existing Clause 5.1 the sort of cases that you mention could be dealt with under that. If Alamy are ineffective at enforcing their own rules, why should all contributors be exposed to the risks that the new clause 5.1 brings?

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

 

Pretty clear to me that both sides are true--some photographers (including me) perhaps could clean up their acts a bit, and also the new contract overreaches in many areas.

 

Yes I agree. I have quite a few 'chancers' that I really and truly need to take responsibility for. So far so good and I haven't been burnt. 

 

I got a vicar from a Suffolk church moaning about copyright infringement for a 16th artwork. Clearly that was nonsense.

 

But what about the 20th stained glass windows? What about murals on the street?  The design of posters?  Adverts? 

 

For me this a wake up call. How long will it be before companies similar to Pixsy and Copytrack start chasing photographers on behalf of artists and copyright holders? 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

The world is getting more and more litigious.

 

Precisely why we shouldn't be agreeing to take on responsibilities over which we have no control, and providing an open door to a lawyer looking to go after as many parties as possible.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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

 

Isn't that the definition of a protection racket?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

If you read the existing Clause 5.1 the sort of cases that you mention could be dealt with under that. If Alamy are ineffective at enforcing their own rules, why should all contributors be exposed to the risks that the new clause 5.1 brings?

 

 

I honestly don't know why but suspect that there must be good reasons.

 

Ebay and Amazon don't check each item and product. They hold the seller responsible.  It doesn't make them ineffective because that is not something anybody expects them to do - it is not their job. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

Precisely why we shouldn't be agreeing to take on responsibilities over which we have no control, and providing an open door to a lawyer looking to go after as many parties as possible.

 

But precisely why we need to take more and more responsibility over what we can and should control - our own images. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, geogphotos said:

 

But precisely why we need to take more and more responsibility over what we can and should control - our own images. 

 

True enough, but Alamy purposely (it seems) has tried to be a "different" kind of stock agency. That's one of its main selling points. The fact that contributors are allowed to upload just about anything under the sun is what sets Alamy apart from the other guys. This laissez-faire philosophy was Alamy's idea, not ours, so shouldn't they be shouldering most of the liability?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I honestly don't know why but suspect that there must be good reasons.

 

Ebay and Amazon don't check each item and product. They hold the seller responsible.  It doesn't make them ineffective because that is not something anybody expects them to do - it is not their job. 

It's a very different situation from eBay and Amazon Marketplace. Perhaps Alamy are caught between being an Agent or just a selling platform and can't decide what they want to be.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Keith Douglas said:

It's a very different situation from eBay and Amazon Marketplace. Perhaps Alamy are caught between being an Agent or just a selling platform and can't decide what they want to be.

 

Alamy never has been an agency. It is an image portal, an intermediary between buyer and seller. It has never pretended to be anything else.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

But precisely why we need to take more and more responsibility over what we can and should control - our own images. 

I do take responsibility for mine. Why should I accept these additional risks because other contributors say they don't take responsibility? And even if they say they don't, they will actually have to take responsibility if push comes to shove under existing clause 5.1

  • Upvote 1
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.