Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

"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 by Foreign Export
spelling
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by MizBrown
I stand corrected and removed something that might not be so
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by MizBrown
typos
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by ManfredG
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alan Beastall said:

 

 

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

 

2FNJ603.jpg

 

 

 

2FNJ60D.jpg


No job to small 📷

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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

Edited by Alan Beastall
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Keith Douglas
  • Upvote 4
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.