Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[GaryK]

I've been with Alamy since 2002, and with 19k images don't really want to start deleting images, but there are concerns here.  So could someone give me an example of what type of unreleased property shot could give rise to the photographer being sued,  assuming the photographer wasn't trespassing whilst he/she captured the image.

 

I shoot a lot for calendars, not just with Alamy, so is this also open to possible legal action?  

[wilkopix]

15 hours ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

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.

I think you have very eloquently expressed how many of us feel.

 

[Russell Watkins]

1 hour ago, Foreign Export said:

<snippity snip>... 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.

 

I'd another caveat -- don't license any of the "high quality and strictly managed portfolio of exclusive images" for a couple of dollars.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Russell Watkins

[hotbrightsky]

37 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

I'd another caveat -- don't license any of the "high quality and strictly managed portfolio of exclusive images" for a couple of dollars.

 

How about allowing individual contributors to assign "premium" status to 10% of their own collections? These images would be exclusive to Alamy and not subject to massive price discounting.

[MizBrown]

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

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.

 

My guess is that without this long long thread, and with some of us who sent in our resignations last week for a range of reasons, those who are waiting wouldn't be getting a possibly better contract.   I think a clearer contract and reality-checking people who post "but they said in a post/twitter entry" will be better in the long run.  If it's not in the contract, it's not real.

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by MizBrown
I stand corrected and removed something that might not be so

[spacecadet]

49 minutes ago, ChrisC said:

what's the legal aspect for graffiti artists? What hey done is illegal, ie having sprayed paint on someones property

 

It has no impact on copyright as such. If I smash through a fence to take a photograph, I may be prosecuted for criminal damage, but I still own the copyright.

The only possibility mught be that a court would refuse damages on public policy grounds- that it was unconscionable to reward criminal damage. But if that had come to court I'm sure we'd know about it

[BobD]

8 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

My guess is that without this long long thread, with some people who cut back then now not having large portfolios on Alamy (Jeff Greenberg has 266 photos up on Alamy now), and with some of us who sent in our resignations last week for a range of reasons, those who are waiting wouldn't be getting a possibly better contract.   I think a clearer contract and reality-checking people who post "but they said in a post/twitter entry" will be better in the long run.  If it's not in the contract, it's not real.

 

 

 

 

I would be surprised if Jeff only had 266 images, Jeff has several pseudonyms.

[Radim]

6 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

I would be surprised if Jeff only had 266 images, Jeff has several pseudonyms.

yes, for example https://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?&xstx=0&userid={5473AC7E-598E-4DB4-A22C-3BDAD20CD050}&name=jeffgreenberg&st=12

[MizBrown]

4 hours ago, BobD said:

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.

Given that two insurance agencies in the UK have refused to cover legal obligations to a photographer after looking at the relevant clause of the Alamy contract,  I'd be concerned if I lived in England or Wales.

 

Alamy really needs to invest some money in quality control over its collection.  Simple way (and what I think they've done) is penalize people who are not selling acceptable amounts and want them to resign.   Although I resigned, I'm not sure that works as well as they imagine.  Write in to the contract that there's a probationary period and if sales don't reach $250 per annum in that period, the contributor will be dropped.  The worst people never imagine that they're that bad.  And for some people, having photos up at Alamy and being a stock photographer, however little money they make, is an identity thing.  And others have forgotten that they have an Alamy portfolio.

[Steve F]

18 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

Given that two insurance agencies in the UK have refused to cover legal obligations to a photographer after looking at the relevant clause of the Alamy contract,  I'd be concerned if I lived in England or Wales.

 

Alamy really needs to invest some money in quality control over its collection.  Simple way (and what I think they've done) is penalize people who are not selling acceptable amounts and want them to resign.   Although I resigned, I'm not sure that works as well as they imagine.  Write in to the contract that there's a probationary period and if sales don't reach $250 per annum in that period, the contributor will be dropped.  The worst people never imagine that they're that bad.  And for some people, having photos up at Alamy and being a stock photographer, however little money they make, is an identity thing.  And others have forgotten that they have an Alamy portfolio.

 

Every new contributor would need to upload several thousand pictures in one go in order to achieve the $250 per annum from the get go. How long a probation period were you thinking of? It's a lot of work to put into an agency you've got no experience with.... Would certainly weed out those that aren't totally committed. I'd never have signed up for a start!!

[MizBrown]

4 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Every new contributor would need to upload several thousand pictures in one go in order to achieve the $250 per annum from the get go. How long a probation period were you thinking of? It's a lot of work to put into an agency you've got no experience with.... Would certainly weed out those that aren't totally committed. I'd never have signed up for a start!!

 

I had one year prior to the sale of Alamy where I had two pictures licensed/sold that would have made that, with less than a thousand photos up.  I think Alamy could look at their history and see what the curves were for sales by people who ended up being perpetually in demand.  

[MizBrown]

1 hour ago, hotbrightsky said:

 

How about allowing individual contributors to assign "premium" status to 10% of their own collections? These images would be exclusive to Alamy and not subject to massive price discounting.

 

Because really bad photographers, bad writers, bad project directors and a range of other really bad things don't necessarily know how bad they are.   The market place doesn't always get it right, but it doesn't always get it wrong either.

Edited May 26, 2021 by MizBrown
typos

[ManfredG]

4 hours 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? 

 

Is just does not work.
There are many photos you just cannot put to a stock archive. Under certain restrictions they may be used in a newspaper report about current affairs, but never in stock.

Generally you should always know the legal situations in the countries you take photos. (And in your own country of course.)

But the situation is difficult in the other way too.
Here in Germany (usually) I am allowed to take pictures of buildings when I am on public territory and sell these pictures for whatever I want.
(Please beware that there are some pitfalls of course. And this rule does not apply to trademarks etc.)
What to do on Alamy? It certainly is private property, and of course I do not have a release. But the image may be used without restrictions. 😉

Edited May 26, 2021 by ManfredG

[Alan Beastall]

 

 

Tong in the cheek, Is time too fly the Honeypot?

 

 

 

 

[ManfredG]

3 hours ago, ChrisC said:

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? 

 

An unreleased photo is used for a big marketing campaign (or e.g a book). The property owner (or the person shown) might demand to stop the campaign and destroy all printed materials.
The damage may easily be 5-digit.

Usually this will not happen, but the owner will charge a (maybe pretty high) amount of money for the "license".

[MDM]

14 minutes ago, Alan Beastall said:

 

 

Tong in the cheek, Is time too fly the Honeypot?

 

 

 

 

No job to small 📷

[sb photos]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

 

Every new contributor would need to upload several thousand pictures in one go in order to achieve the $250 per annum from the get go. How long a probation period were you thinking of? It's a lot of work to put into an agency you've got no experience with.... Would certainly weed out those that aren't totally committed. I'd never have signed up for a start!!

Re new contributors, my thoughts too. To make a go of it they would need to research their market, read the forum to get an idea what sells, then be very busy shooting, editing, applying captions and tags to around 1000 images or more ready to upload after signing up. Then be very busy or get stuck in silver. Will they do that, doubtfull.

[Alan Beastall]

Are we an endangered species like the Honey Bee? Not if we stop poisoning the land and give nature a hand.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Alan Beastall

[Keith Douglas]

Clause 5.1 was in the old contract, 

 

"5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract."

 

Not unreasonable. If I lie about releases, don't have the copyright, have taken photographs in breach of a contract, have taken photos of people when they could reasonably expect privacy etc. then I leave myself open to having to answer under this clause. Being truthful, careful and honest is part of doing a professional job. I can probably get insurance to cover any genuine mistakes as well. 

 

The new clause 5 is in four parts, one of which is, in effect the existing clause. the other three clauses concern me, and in particular clause  ii). Here's what that clause is. I have left out i), iii) and iv) for clarity (note that in the contract online ii) is effectively buried in a long string of text). 

 

You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: 

...

(ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; 

...
 

I know what I think about it. 

 

Based on my own revenue history and the downward trend in licence fees, I estimate that my total revenue to the end of the decade from my current portfolio is about £2000 net. I am indemnifying a whole bunch of people who I have had no direct dealings with for any use of my content for that sum of money?

 

For somebody with 10x the images that I have the estimate will be different, and they might reach a different conclusion. But that doesn't change what the contract says.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Keith Douglas

[meanderingemu]

16 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

Clause 5.1 was in the old contract, 

 

"5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract."

 

Not unreasonable. If I lie about releases, don't have the copyright, have taken photographs in breach of a contract, have taken photos of people when they could reasonably expect privacy etc. then I leave myself open to having to answer under this clause. Being truthful, careful and honest is part of doing a professional job. I can probably get insurance to cover any genuine mistakes as well. 

 

The new clause 5 is in four parts, one of which is, in effect the existing clause. the other three clauses concern me, and in particular clause  ii). Here's what that clause is. I have left out i), iii) and iv) for clarity (note that in the contract online ii) is effectively buried in a long string of text). 

 

You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: 

...

(ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties; 

...
 

I know what I think about it. 

 

Based on my own revenue history and the downward trend in licence fees, I estimate that my total revenue to the end of the decade from my current portfolio is about £2000 net. I am indemnifying a whole bunch of people who I have had no direct dealings with for any use of my content for that sum of money?

 

For somebody with 10x the images that I have the estimate will be different, and they might reach a different conclusion. But that doesn't change what the contract says.

 

 

 

One of the BIG difference in clause 5.1 is the expressly added (iii)

 

any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; 

 

Which makes us liable for an action by Alamy which we do not control.  So if someone feels aggrieved by Alamy's representative claiming infringement in a case we do not believe they should have pursued- we do not control how aggressive they will be- why should we be held responsible?  

[Russell Watkins]

7 minutes ago, Paul J said:

$100 sale appeared today, satisfying knowing Alamy won't be earning from me after July 1st.

 

Yes, that kind of sale would mean me earning £29 after July 1st, but means Alamy won't getting the majority share of £43.50 

 

Zero loyalty, 60% of nothing is ........ NOTHING. 

 

Your red number will be turning green very soon at this rate.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

Every new contributor would need to upload several thousand pictures in one go in order to achieve the $250 per annum from the get go. How long a probation period were you thinking of? It's a lot of work to put into an agency you've got no experience with.... Would certainly weed out those that aren't totally committed. I'd never have signed up for a start!!

 

 

would the average 1.5 years given to get to that level (this is the interpretation of the contract by their Twitter account) be sufficient?   I'm not sure.  I do think it would create a bunch of stagnant account after the 2nd July 1. 

[M.Chapman]

On 25/05/2021 at 10:14, Cryptoprocta said:

Remember, you need to give us 45 days notice after you change the wording, as that will be a new contract.

If they make significant changes - they will also need to withdraw the new contract before it comes into force.

 

Mark

[wilkopix]

26 minutes ago, Paul J said:

Zero loyalty, 60% of nothing is ........ NOTHING. 

Absolutely ..

Doesn't seem like a good business decision for Alamy. I've now gone totally non exclusive and busily uploading elsewhere (several with 50% split or premium collections with high sales volume). I'll probably be earning a lot more than the 20% I'll lose from Alamy.

Seems a shame as I was very happy for Alamy be my main outlet and let me concentrate on my commissioned photography but 50% was my 'line in the sand' for exclusive material.

Bit depressing really as I've been with them a long time and liked the 'family' feel of Alamy. Just shows how naive and stupid I've been to believe them when they said they had no plans to change the royalty structure last year.

Edited May 26, 2021 by wilkopix
spelling

[John Mitchell]

21 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

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.

 

Thanks. I'm doing some research on my situation as a Canadian.