Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

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?

 

Yes we can upload anything under the sun. But we have to take responsibility for that.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 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. 

That is precisely NOT what the worry is about.

The worry is about what we can't control as set out in many previous posts.

 

I'm not getting into this any further until we see what Alamy's redraft says.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Keith Douglas said:

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

 

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

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

That is precisely NOT what the worry is about.

If one was worried about that, possibly a genuine mistake in mis-labelling something, one could take out liability insurance

As you could read above, at least two insurance companies would not take on insuring Alamy's clauses as written. Another I looked at certainly didn't cover Alamy's wording in their standard contract for liability insurance.

 

The worry is about what we can't control as set out in many previous posts.

 

I'm not getting into this any further until we see what Alamy's redraft says.

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes we can upload anything under the sun. But we have to take responsibility for that.  

 

But are we being stiffed where the sun doesn't shine, that seems to be question.

 

I've obviously been reading this thread for too long, I had better run along...

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

That is precisely NOT what the worry is about.

The worry is about what we can't control as set out in many previous posts.

 

I'm not getting into this any further until we see what Alamy's redraft says.

 

 

That's okay, participation is optional.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Keith Douglas
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by geogphotos
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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%.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by MizBrown
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by geogphotos
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Rico
  • Upvote 2
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.