Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Keith Douglas]

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Surely the point is that we each need to cover ourselves and not worry about what others may or may not be doing.

Yes, that's what we need to do. It doesn't seem like you've actually read or understood the new clause 5.1 so there's little point in discussing it further. Just make sure that you're squeaky clean and everything will be OK for you I'm sure.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Keith Douglas

[geogphotos]

11 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

Yes, that's what we need to do. It doesn't seem like you've actually read or understood the new clause 5.1 so there's little point in discussing it further. Just make sure that you're squeaky clean and everything will be OK for you I'm sure.

 

 

Thanks for the discussion.

Edited May 25, 2021 by geogphotos

[Nathaniel Noir]

25 minutes 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.

 

If they just want to be a selling platform they should seriously reconsider their commission to something more in line with that, like eBays 10%.

[MizBrown]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

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

 

My only regular income is from US Social Security.  The only entity that can claw money from that is the IRS.   My other money is a small annuity from my university.   I'm in Nicaragua, and my money is in the US except for the small amount of money that comes in from PA/Alamy.

 

If your money isn't in a country whose banking system would cooperate with a judgment in Alamy's favor for not showing up, then you're judgment proof.

Edited May 25, 2021 by MizBrown

[Ollie]

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

 

A few years ago the General Counsel for a respected American photographers association told me that lawyers normally launch legal action against all members of the production chain--against the end-user, the agency, and the photographer.  They don't just target one.

[geogphotos]

6 minutes ago, Ollie said:

A few years ago the General Counsel for a respected American photographers association told me that lawyers normally launch legal action against all members of the production chain--against the end-user, the agency, and the photographer.  They don't just target one.

 

 

How many Alamy photographers have been sued?

[geogphotos]

56 minutes ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

 

If they just want to be a selling platform they should seriously reconsider their commission to something more in line with that, like eBays 10%.

 

 

That is what Alamy always has been. It has never been anything else. It is not our agent. It does not look after our interests as an agent would. It is a platform for selling image licences. 

 

What any of us think it 'should' be is irrelevant. We either sign up or we don't. That has always been the 'relationship'.

Edited May 25, 2021 by geogphotos

[Ed Rooney]

I've read through all 74 pages but I think I might have missed a point. I'm gonna have to go back and read it all again. I'm a slow reader so this might take awhile. I hope I can finish by the end of June. 

[John Mitchell]

When I started submitting images to a stock agency about 30 years ago, it was essentially a worry-free activity. After reading this thread as someone with very little knowledge of legal matters, I get the nagging feeling that placing unreleased editorial images with agencies is no longer safe (financially speaking) as society has become so litigious and privacy laws much more prevalent. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons why microstock has become so popular. The type of RF imagery -- much of it bland and boring -- that they accept tends to be virtually litigation-proof. The thought of tossing out all the work (not to mention the monthly income) that I've put into Alamy out the window is a daunting one. However, the thought is starting to cross my mind...

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by John Mitchell

[MizBrown]

22 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

How many Alamy photographers have been sued?

 

How would we find out?   Also, the US has lawyers who will represent people on contingency if the case looks good enough.  This is the best explanation I've seen of how contingency representation works:  https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-contingency-fee.html

 

If I understand correctly, the British system makes it less likely to have people filing frivolous lawsuits because if you lose, you pay the other sides legal costs.

[Richard Tadman]

On 24/05/2021 at 20:02, 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

 

I quote from Emily - The CEO

 

"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."

 

Well that is certainly true - you mean that we get screwed more royally than less loyal contributors.

I seriously can't believe the hypocrisy and utter disdain that Alamy is expecting us to swallow! This has to be the most ill thought out and inept attempt to bleed contributors in all the time that I have been with Alamy [in its current or previous existence]

 

If you want to reconfigure the contributors and commission models, then for goodness sake have the decency and gallantry to be straight forward about this and stop trying to insult our intelligence with pathetically transparent weasel words.

 

I think most of us would respect, if not appreciate a degree of honesty but insulting our intelligence is unforgiveable.

[K J Bennett]

6 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

you need to request to "terminate your account"

Thanks - that's what I meant. Also thanks to those who supplied the email address. I shall await the updated contract before I decide...

 

Kevin

[meanderingemu]

8 minutes ago, K J Bennett said:

Thanks - that's what I meant. Also thanks to those who supplied the email address. I shall await the updated contract before I decide...

 

Kevin

 

just wanted to make sure.  At this point terminology is important from a liability stand-point 

[MizBrown]

 

56 minutes ago, Ollie said:

A few years ago the General Counsel for a respected American photographers association told me that lawyers normally launch legal action against all members of the production chain--against the end-user, the agency, and the photographer.  They don't just target one.

 

This is in the US where losing a civil case is as expensive and no more expensive than winning one.  And if it looks good, a lawyer may take it on contingency.    Some famous French photos were taking by a photographer who got releases for photos of people, and could present them when challenged. 

 

Different countries have different rules for what one can and can't photograph.   Wiklmedia has a chart of laws in different countries:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

 

 

[Martyn]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

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? 

 

 

This is where it gets complicated ! I have never had much sympathy with artists who paint murals in public places and complain when people photograph it ... I had a couple of mural images taken down by Alamy and the artist was furious ... I could have got a release for him but not the building it was painted on.  Where does it stop though ... the keen gardener down the road has cut his hedge into an animal shape and is on full view to the road ... is that off limits as he designed and cut the hedge ... the beach hut on the seafront that has been painted with fish and shells ... off limits as well as the artist /  might complain his copyright has been infringed ... the car I saw in the USA parked at the roadside where the owner had installed a model train set on the roof ( seriously !! ) ... copyright violation again ?

My own personal view is that if it's in a public place and can be photographed without trespassing on private property, it should be fair game. Would it not be fair to say then that those people trying to sue the photographer are the real chancers ?

[Cryptoprocta]

21 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

How would we find out?   Also, the US has lawyers who will represent people on contingency if the case looks good enough.  This is the best explanation I've seen of how contingency representation works:  https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-contingency-fee.html

 

If I understand correctly, the British system makes it less likely to have people filing frivolous lawsuits because if you lose, you pay the other sides legal costs.

Just for clarity, there isn't really a British system. Scotland has its own legal system going back centuries. Northern Ireland has its own system going back to 1921. Wales shares most laws with England, but has some national laws also. Of course, many laws are in common, but it can be quite surprising how different Scots Law can be.

Though possibly not with regard to the Alamy contract, but IANAL.

Yes, I think it's possible that far fewer frivolous cases are brought here.

Though one time I was driving along an A road and a bloke came out of a side street and hit me. That being clear and undisputed at the scene by him, me and the witnesses, I was amazed to get a Lawyer's Letter instigated by him, because these are fairly pricey. General opinion was that he was possibly insured for only 3rd party, fire and theft, and the damage to his car was quite a bit worse than mine. I ignored it, and heard no more about it.

[MizBrown]

5 minutes ago, Martyn said:

 

This is where it gets complicated ! I have never had much sympathy with artists who paint murals in public places and complain when people photograph it ... I had a couple of mural images taken down by Alamy and the artist was furious ... I could have got a release for him but not the building it was painted on.  Where does it stop though ... the keen gardener down the road has cut his hedge into an animal shape and is on full view to the road ... is that off limits as he designed and cut the hedge ... the beach hut on the seafront that has been painted with fish and shells ... off limits as well as the artist /  might complain his copyright has been infringed ... the car I saw in the USA parked at the roadside where the owner had installed a model train set on the roof ( seriously !! ) ... copyright violation again ?

My own personal view is that if it's in a public place and can be photographed without trespassing on private property, it should be fair game. Would it not be fair to say then that those people trying to sue the photographer are the real chancers ?

 

For public art -- I agree with Alamy's stance that having all of the photo just be the art is problematic.  We have a lot of public art in Nicaragua ranging from done by kids to really good adult artists.  I think in the future, I'll look for releases or make sure the art isn't the majority of the photo.  Shrug.  If the artist releases something and the building is either part of a larger street scene or unidentifiable (brick wall), then no release.   A kid my helper knows painted a giant cat and mousetrap on his garage door and driveway and my helper wants me to photograph it.  I've got Spanish-language releases on my iPad. 

 

I told one of my editors that I had real people in some of my novels (or characters based on them).  I got a different sort of statement about no living characters than most books get -- "any living characters were used fictively."

 

Did the Nicaraguan kids who painted a birthday mural for a friend on his mother's office wall expect to make money from prints of the mural?  Probably not.   Do some artists in the US expect to?   Obviously yes.   Cops grabbed a Nicaraguan photographer who was photographing a bank building at 8 p.m. (dark here).  He wasn't breaking Nicaraguan law (similar to US and UK for anything in public), but arguing with cops can be problematic.

 

Average people's knowledge of copyright laws are very sketchy, along with what they think photographers get paid. 

[Nathaniel Noir]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

That is what Alamy always has been. It has never been anything else. It is not our agent. It does not look after our interests as an agent would. It is a platform for selling image licences. 

 

What any of us think it 'should' be is irrelevant. We either sign up or we don't. That has always been the 'relationship'.

 

If they were not acting as an 'agent-like entity' queries from customers about usage or lifting restrictions would be going directly to us and what Alamy would be providing is a website to host images, storage space and perhaps a customer service for contributors and such. But because they are acting as a middleman here they are more like an agent than anything else, but one that doesn't have a personal relationship with contributors.

 

If that's the case, it makes for an even stronger point - taking 60% commission for what exactly. 

[Rico]

3 hours ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

 

If they were not acting as an 'agent-like entity' queries from customers about usage or lifting restrictions would be going directly to us and what Alamy would be providing is a website to host images, storage space and perhaps a customer service for contributors and such. But because they are acting as a middleman here they are more like an agent than anything else, but one that doesn't have a personal relationship with contributors.

 

If that's the case, it makes for an even stronger point - taking 60% commission for what exactly. 

Good point. I have had sales@alamy contact me a number of times regarding the status of certain photographs, as in if it had been used as a book cover before, any sister images and to be sure if it is exclusive to Alamy. Also they inquired if I was OK with the price and terms they negotiated with the potential buyer.

So yes, they do act as agents.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Rico

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

If that's the case, it makes for an even stronger point - taking 60% commission for what exactly. 

It's a "business decision".

[sb photos]

6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

How many Alamy photographers have been sued?

A good question. If data was available, could it be compared to the risk of being run down while crossing the road. Even if minimal, a risk is a risk, and a personal judgement wether acceptable compared to income earned.

[geogphotos]

8 hours ago, Martyn said:

 

This is where it gets complicated ! I have never had much sympathy with artists who paint murals in public places and complain when people photograph it ... I had a couple of mural images taken down by Alamy and the artist was furious ... I could have got a release for him but not the building it was painted on.  Where does it stop though ... the keen gardener down the road has cut his hedge into an animal shape and is on full view to the road ... is that off limits as he designed and cut the hedge ... the beach hut on the seafront that has been painted with fish and shells ... off limits as well as the artist /  might complain his copyright has been infringed ... the car I saw in the USA parked at the roadside where the owner had installed a model train set on the roof ( seriously !! ) ... copyright violation again ?

My own personal view is that if it's in a public place and can be photographed without trespassing on private property, it should be fair game. Would it not be fair to say then that those people trying to sue the photographer are the real chancers ?

 

 

An Alamy photographer posted on the forum about being sued by the artist of the famous 'Welcome to Buffalo' mural, NY state, USA. The artist and his lawyer have a track record. 

 

As you say most times the artist would not mind or be pleased, but there is still a risk. I have on occasions asked the artist but equally other times I haven't. I really need to tighten up  my act in this respect.

Edited May 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

27 minutes ago, David Pimborough said:

 

Agent

 

An agent/agency, in legal terminology, is a person/entity who has been legally empowered to act on behalf of another person or an entity. An agent may be employed to represent a client in negotiations and other dealings with third parties. The agent may be given decision-making authority.

 

Alamy is an agency and in contract law an agency would be joint and severally liable in any action taken by a third party irrespective of any

weasel words they might try to put in a contract between themselves and a contributor.

 

So if an artist sues a contributor for selling a photo of their mural then Alamy are also liable for being the agent facillitating such a sale.

 

 

 

Let's work with your definition for the sake of argument though a quick Google search finds others with different interpretations.

 

If you tell an estate agent something that is untrue about your property - the extension has planning permission - and the buyer later finds out who would you say gets sued?

Edited May 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[Martyn]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

An Alamy photographer posted on the forum about being sued by the artist of the famous 'Welcome to Buffalo' mural, NY state, USA. The artist and his lawyer have a track record. 

 

As you say most times the artist would not mind or be pleased, but there is still a risk. I have on occasions asked the artist but equally other times I haven't. I really need to tighten up  my act in this respect.

 

As you say, it's better to get a release where possible to be on the safe side. I'm not sure how far a mural artist would get in a UK court though ... different in the USA where suing people is a national pastime ... but I suspect the mural artist would have to demonstrate to the court that he / she had suffered financial loss due to a photo of the mural being used ... given that it would be unlikely that anyone would purchase a building just to buy the mural, that would be hard to do ... not that I would want to test that in court myself !

[Russell Watkins]

11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

How many Alamy photographers have been sued?

 

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

An Alamy photographer posted on the forum about being sued by the artist of the famous 'Welcome to Buffalo' mural, NY state, USA. The artist and his lawyer have a track record. 

 

As you say most times the artist would not mind or be pleased, but there is still a risk. I have on occasions asked the artist but equally other times I haven't. I really need to tighten up  my act in this respect.

 

At least one, then.