Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Jools Elliott]

22 hours ago, Jools Elliott said:

@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.

 

Dear @Alamy

 

So I'm sat here reading the mountains of responses again and yet again I see that you are hiding away. If you really are, as you claim to be, reading through people's responses then don't let this fester as it will only annoy people even more.

 

In a public place such as Twitter you post: With up to the minute international news imagery covering innovations and global trends in banking and finance, it's easy to source content for your next project and remain at the forefront of your industry.

 

So it's easy to source is it @Alamy? Who exactly is sourcing it? US! WE are the ones who are sourcing the imagery that you sell. And yet you cannot be bothered to engage with the very people that are sourcing you the imagery.

 

Another one: We pay our photographers a higher percentage of the sale than our competitors and it’s easy to get your images online.

 

Actually you are now starting to come into line with a number of other agencies so you should change this!

 

How about this: We have a bigger, broader, more unique collection than any other library and every day we supply thousands of creative professionals including designers, marketing departments, news desks, and publishers with images produced by the best professional photographers around.

 

Do you now? Images produced by the best photographers? So @Alamy do you think that by cutting commissions yet again that the best photographers are really going to want to stay with you? Just think about that for a moment.

 

I do like this one: Our contributors think we’re great too!

 

Really? Maybe we should direct people to the thread of discontent? We'll soon see how great people think you are!

 

Got to love this: We’re proud of doing things differently...

 

Actually you are now no different than the other agencies out there who don't give a stuff about contributors.

[Doc]

19 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Nothing to stop us (the so-called Cambridge Alamy Group) meeting at some point Allan so don't get too down on that account. I don't recall the conversation ever being restricted to Alamy matters either. We covered a vast range of topics over those lunches. 

 

I would suggest not speculating too much about the intentions of others either. I have not made up my mind at all about what I am going to do as yet and am awaiting further input from Alamy about the contract in the light of their statement yesterday. If I leave, it will have nothing to do with commission rates either but all to do with the contract itself and particularly the issues around contributor liability. And I have never prospered through Alamy sales I hasten to add, partly because I have always tended to err on the side of caution. 

Agree entirely on all points

 

Kumar

[Foreign Export]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

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?

 

you and the agent would be sued - always go for both- just in case one doesnt have deep pockets

[geogphotos]

45 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

 

At least one, then.

 

 

Don't think it was through Alamy and he didn't come back to say what had happened.

 

So as far as I know the total is zero.

 

Considering how many images Alamy has licensed, how may contributors it has, that we have an active forum, I'd say that is not too much to worry about. But that is the old contract, it remains to be seen how much this new one is different. 

 

I completely understand why people want to terminate but personally I'd want to make a decision like that on facts not emotion and forum chit-chat. 

[geogphotos]

18 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

 

you and the agent would be sued - always go for both- just in case one doesnt have deep pockets

 

If you had misrepresented the facts  to the estate agent and they ,in good faith believed you, they would certainly come after you if they got dragged into a legal dispute with the buyer.

 

But that would never happen - because they would make sure that the contract covered such an eventuality and held the seller totally responsible..  

 

Sound familiar?

 

And if the seller and agent told the buyer that there were restrictions of how the property could be developed because it was listed then it would be totally the responsibility of the buyer if they went ahead without planning permission. I think that is what we hope the revised contract does. We shouldn't be held responsible as long as we have told the truth, given accurate information without any important omissions,  and Alamy has passed all that on.

Edited May 26, 2021 by geogphotos

[Russell Watkins]

12 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Don't think it was through Alamy and he didn't come back to say what had happened.

 

So as far as I know the total is zero.

 

Considering how many images Alamy has licensed, how may contributors it has, that we have an active forum, I'd say that is not too much to worry about. But that is the old contract, it remains to be seen how much this new one is different. 

 

I completely understand why people want to terminate but personally I'd want to make a decision like that on facts not emotion and forum chit-chat. 

 

I had my tongue in my cheek and I agree with your general premise.

 

However, the big proposed change in the new contract is that should Alamy be sued for any reason in a case involving one of our images, we agree to underwrite Alamy's legal costs. And this is on the backdrop of the new contract also seemingly giving Alamy the right to override the restrictions that we place on our images. 

 

So I'm looking forward to Alamy's response to our legitimate concerns over these contract terms.

[gardenbush]

23 hours ago, KTC said:

 

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.

Thanks KTC

[ManfredG]

15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

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'?

 

 

 

One extra point:
In the UK and US there seems to be the opinion, you can upload and use everything as long as it is editorial only. I don't know whether this is really true.
But here in Germany (and certainly in many other countries of the world) there are many situations where you must not publish images in any way without permission of the property owner.

[BobD]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

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?

 

I think we would all agree that lies and misrepresentations would be the fault of the contributor. However clause 5.1 doesn't stipulate any distinction.

Under that clause the contributor would be liable whoever gave rise to a lawsuit. 

 

As stated by various posters it is doubtful that would stand up in a court of law, but I for one do not want the worry of shouldering the legal costs to prove that point.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Don't think it was through Alamy and he didn't come back to say what had happened.

 

So as far as I know the total is zero.

 

Considering how many images Alamy has licensed, how may contributors it has, that we have an active forum, I'd say that is not too much to worry about. But that is the old contract, it remains to be seen how much this new one is different. 

 

I completely understand why people want to terminate but personally I'd want to make a decision like that on facts not emotion and forum chit-chat. 

 

speaking of facts, did person get sued or receive a letter with threats of?   Yes fishing expedition and scams are sadly part of most business, but like you i am curious how many actually get sued, and also even under the current contract which allowed Alamy to dump on contributors already, how many times they actually did.  The main public one I remember where client was at risk they seemed highly involved, did they charge the defence to the contributor? 

Edited May 26, 2021 by meanderingemu

[spacecadet]

15 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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.

There we have it.

If Alamy doesn't give a toss about its exclusive contributors, or about the mountain of work some put in to stay that way barely 18 months ago, it certainly doesn't mind lying to them about cutting the commission.

Edited May 26, 2021 by spacecadet

[Russell Watkins]

5 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

There we have it.

If Alamy doesn't give a toss about its exclusive contributors, or about the mountain of work some put in to stay that way barely 18 months ago, it certainly doesn't mind lying to them about cutting the commission.

 

Alamy are between a rock and a hard place on this matter now -- when they give us the "updated" contract terms, will it be regarded as sneakiness or incompetence? Those are really the only two options.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Russell Watkins

[hotbrightsky]

15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

an intermediary between buyer and seller

 

Now owned by the buyers. 🤔

[hotbrightsky]

12 hours ago, Nathaniel Noir said:

 

because they are acting as a middleman here they are more like an agent than anything else [...] taking 60% commission for what exactly. 

 

This is exactly what Alamy's CEO now needs to justify to us. I bet she can't.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, ManfredG said:

But here in Germany (and certainly in many other countries of the world) there are many situations where you must not publish images in any way without permission of the property owner.

That's an interesting point, I think it's true in France as well and as you say in many other countries. How does that work in practice for stock photographers based in Germany? Presumably it's not that easy to get such permission just as it wouldn't be here? It may be true of people also, I think it is in France but since it's generally not feasible to get model releases from people in a public place how does that work? 

 

I suppose it's two questions, how does it work for photographers based in the country concerned and does it work in the same way for photographers based in a different country - if the answer is different? I'm not expecting you to know the answer but I'd like Alamy to give a bit more guidance. There's this page from 2016 which could have covered it but seems out of date now, they refer to two outside links one of which no longer works and the other, from Techradar is 9 years old and almost submerged by pop-up advertising.

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/copyright_team

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

More Alamy guidance on copyright and releases:

 

For buyers:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/model-and-property-releases-explained (July 2015)

 

https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/5109-2

 

For models:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/ive-signed-model-release-rights

 

For contributors:

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/difference-between-editorial-and-commercial-photography

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/releases-who-what-when-where-why

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/understanding-stock-image-licensing/

 

 

[Mr Standfast]

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

More Alamy guidance on copyright and releases:

 

For buyers:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/model-and-property-releases-explained (July 2015)

 

https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/5109-2

 

For models:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/ive-signed-model-release-rights

 

For contributors:

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/difference-between-editorial-and-commercial-photography

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/releases-who-what-when-where-why

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/understanding-stock-image-licensing/

 

 

 

I wonder how many of the new "exponential growth" contributors have read all of these???? 

[Nodvandigtid]

Deleted

Edited May 26, 2021 by Nodvandigtid
wrong post

[Harry Harrison]

9 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

I wonder how many of the new "exponential growth" contributors have read all of these???? 

Perhaps I should say that I'm not recommending them, just indicating you enter a kind of maze, I couldn't find my way back to some of the pages I'd visited. Could do better.

[Foreign Export]

"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."

 

------------

I  can fully accept that Alamy do not see any commercial or marketing benefit in the exclusive collection- but what did they expect when the exclusive images are not curated and solely determined by the contributors - we know there are some very average images on Alamy that will never sell ( including some of mine) but I wondered if Alamy has considered creating a high quality and strictly managed portfolio of exclusive images - and then paying at least 50% commission.

 

I would certainly think this approach would be of commercial value, high quality and unique images marketed as exclusive and backed by a proper functioning infringement team- it would at least mitigate the race to the bottom for the stock industry.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Foreign Export
spelling

[Foreign Export]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

If you had misrepresented the facts  to the estate agent and they ,in good faith believed you, they would certainly come after you if they got dragged into a legal dispute with the buyer.

 

But that would never happen - because they would make sure that the contract covered such an eventuality and held the seller totally responsible..  

 

Sound familiar?

 

And if the seller and agent told the buyer that there were restrictions of how the property could be developed because it was listed then it would be totally the responsibility of the buyer if they went ahead without planning permission. I think that is what we hope the revised contract does. We shouldn't be held responsible as long as we have told the truth, given accurate information without any important omissions,  and Alamy has passed all that on.

 

thats correct but the buyer wouldn't have visibility of the agents agreement with the seller - so would pursue both

but I take your point

[Mr Standfast]

4 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Perhaps I should say that I'm not recommending them, just indicating you enter a kind of maze, I couldn't find my way back to some of the pages I'd visited. Could do better.

 

 

It's hard enough when you know how to frame the question... Cheers Harry.

[Foreign Export]

"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."

 

-------------

 

so its not about contributors distributing exclusive images to other libraries - its about a pool of average at best exclusive images at Alamy- why not say that at the outset?

 

[ChrisC]

24 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That's an interesting point, I think it's true in France as well and as you say in many other countries. How does that work in practice for stock photographers based in Germany? Presumably it's not that easy to get such permission just as it wouldn't be here? It may be true of people also, I think it is in France but since it's generally not feasible to get model releases from people in a public place how does that work? 

 

I thought that, @geogphotos mentioned some people possibly aren't being as careful as a Photographer should be, when uploading, adding descriptions etc, which is exactly right, we do need to be truthful with how we describe our photos.

 

Like you I did wonder if for example I put photos up on Alamy from another country, I too have images of France etc, where the laws are different and without knowing, one could easily make a mistake, would someone be sued for that? I'm not sure?

 

Alamy has often sent e-mails about various photos that companies have complained about their image being used, such as British Rail, Royal De Luxe, Olympics, Unipart, surely though even the Olympics or a company such as Disney, would ask for the web page, book, article, to be taken down first rather than sued?

I don't know much about such matters, but generally, the question is asked first before action is taken?

 

I remember working on a Cirque Du Soleil events job and gave a copy to the company I was working for so they could use it on social media, this was around 10-11 years ago, a few hours after it was uploaded, Cirque du Soleil asked for it to be taken down, as we didn't have permission, the photo was only taken with a cheap camera, the image hadn't ben sold, or misused as such, but they obviously had a serious legal team.

 

So whilst I understand the mistrust, is someone going to sue a photographer, unless he has done something very illegal? I can't imagine what context? 

 

Also, with regards to Graffiti artists, I was talking to a friend recently about copyright, I mentioned the stock photography/graffiti debate and as he said, what's the legal aspect for graffiti artists? What hey done is illegal, ie having sprayed paint on someones property

 

Chris

[BobD]

22 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

I thought that, @geogphotos mentioned some people possibly aren't being as careful as a Photographer should be, when uploading, adding descriptions etc, which is exactly right, we do need to be truthful with how we describe our photos.

 

Like you I did wonder if for example I put photos up on Alamy from another country, I too have images of France etc, where the laws are different and without knowing, one could easily make a mistake, would someone be sued for that? I'm not sure?

 

Alamy has often sent e-mails about various photos that companies have complained about their image being used, such as British Rail, Royal De Luxe, Olympics, Unipart, surely though even the Olympics or a company such as Disney, would ask for the web page, book, article, to be taken down first rather than sued?

I don't know much about such matters, but generally, the question is asked first before action is taken?

 

I remember working on a Cirque Du Soleil events job and gave a copy to the company I was working for so they could use it on social media, this was around 10-11 years ago, a few hours after it was uploaded, Cirque du Soleil asked for it to be taken down, as we didn't have permission, the photo was only taken with a cheap camera, the image hadn't ben sold, or misused as such, but they obviously had a serious legal team.

 

So whilst I understand the mistrust, is someone going to sue a photographer, unless he has done something very illegal? I can't imagine what context? 

 

Also, with regards to Graffiti artists, I was talking to a friend recently about copyright, I mentioned the stock photography/graffiti debate and as he said, what's the legal aspect for graffiti artists? What hey done is illegal, ie having sprayed paint on someones property

 

Chris

 

Interesting about graffiti. I had some images with graffiti in only as an incidental to the overall subject. SS refuse to take them on copyright grounds, even for editorial.