Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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".

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by geogphotos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by spacecadet
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Russell Watkins
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • 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.