Jump to content

Contract Change 2021 - Official thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, Steve F said:

 

Oh damn, I should have posted in the 'Post a good thing that happened to to today post'! Yes, I got it back yesterday. Works fine. Except replacing some of the electronics is equivalent to a factory reset so I'm trying to remember what all my shortcut keys were set as....

 

Thanks a lot for the tip you gave me, much appreciated. They were very professional. Also never seen a camera place with so much decent professional equipment in before.

Glad you got it repaired Steve.  If you are talking about Fixation yes they are brilliant.  However, I'm surprised if you only came out with your repaired camera and not tempted to buy anything else😁

 

Oh, also check if you shoot RAW check it's on RAW as I know when I've taken mine there for whatever and/or sensor clean they put on jpeg and don't change it back to RAW.

 

Carol

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Oh damn, I should have posted in the 'Post a good thing that happened to to today' thread! Yes, I got it back yesterday. Works fine. Except replacing some of the electronics is equivalent to a factory reset so I'm trying to remember what all my shortcut keys were set as....

 

Thanks a lot for the tip you gave me, much appreciated. They were very professional. Also never seen a camera place with so much decent professional equipment in before.

 Great Steve. Fixation is top class. Enjoy the new camera.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CAROL SAUNDERS said:

Glad you got it repaired Steve.  If you are talking about Fixation yes they are brilliant.  However, I'm surprised if you only came out with your repaired camera and not tempted to buy anything else😁

 

Oh, also check if you shoot RAW check it's on RAW as I know when I've taken mine there for whatever and/or sensor clean they put on jpeg and don't change it back to RAW.

 

Carol

 

Carol, fixation, yes, I was very impressed. Well, I try not to look too hard at lenses, I've already got four. But I'm starting to think F2.8 isn't enough for some lovely buttery bokeh so maybe I need an F1.8 or F1.4.... 🤦‍♂️🙃

 

I've got to play with all the settings. It's even making the annoying audible chirp again when it auto focuses...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Yes but as I say you would never get such continuous and regular striae over such distances. Glacial scouring is formed by rocks of all shapes and sizes being carried along on the bottom of a glacier. The lineation towards the corrie may be something to do with preferential erosion along the pre-existing structure, probably long before glaciation began. Without reading about it in detail it is impossible to say but I am 100% certain that the regular marks are primary igneous features. 

Here's one of the sources I used (page 5) it's the same location

https://www.scottishgeology.com/wp-content/uploads/lfbg/LandscapeFashionedbyGeology-skye.pdf

Which only mentions glacial polishing - I'll add layered intrusion into my caption and keywords and put something in the notes

 

Mark

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Here's one of the sources I used (page 5) it's the same location

https://www.scottishgeology.com/wp-content/uploads/lfbg/LandscapeFashionedbyGeology-skye.pdf

Which only mentions glacial polishing - I'll add layered intrusion into my caption and keywords and put something in the notes

 

Mark

 

Quick glance Page 14 - mineral layering in gabbro  = layered intrusion. 

 

EDIT That is an excellent booklet. The whole section on roots of the volcanoes is relevant.  

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Yes but as I say you would never get such continuous and regular striae over such distances. Glacial scouring is formed by rocks of all shapes and sizes being carried along on the bottom of a glacier. The lineation towards the corrie may be something to do with preferential erosion along the pre-existing structure, probably long before glaciation began. Without reading about it in detail it is impossible to say but I am 100% certain that the regular marks are primary igneous features. 

 It's the university challenge speed of recall that impresses. 👍

  • Haha 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

 It's the university challenge speed of recall that impresses. 👍

 

If only 🤔. These days it is about knowing where to find info rather than having it ready to go. This is logic though really and the rocks are world famous as I said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

I started watching a Netflix movie on Elsa Dorfman's portrait photography, then went out and photographed my sheets drying on the line. 

 

From Elsa Dorfmans Wiki page.   Camera on wheels...

 

Elsa_Dorfman_(2005).jpg

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Quick glance Page 14 - mineral layering in gabbro  = layered intrusion. 

 

EDIT That is an excellent booklet. The whole section on roots of the volcanoes is relevant.  

Excellent - thanks. I'll change to layered intrusion and I see I need to add gabbro too.

 

Mark  (Thread hijack over)

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Excellent - thanks. I'll change to layered intrusion and I see I need to add gabbro too.

 

Mark  (Thread hijack over)

 

At least we have come to an amiable conclusion based on rational argument and a diversion has not been harmful. I am available as a (well)-paid Earth science keyword checker in the unlikely event that Alamy take up your suggestion of random keyword checking 😃 .

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

From Elsa Dorfmans Wiki page.   Camera on wheels...

 

Elsa_Dorfman_(2005).jpg

 

The saddest thing is that what was a technological marvel in the 1950s or early 1960 was made obsolete by the rise of digital and she can't get the film now.  The detail in her photos is just wonderful.   My favorite print size is 20 by 16 and I've had a local printer get that size from some of my Nikon D300 shots, but 4x5 film was even more detailed. 

 

Love Dorfman's sunny nature -- making photos of people who were fundamentally happy.  I also hadn't realized Ginsberg was such an avid photographer.   I'd come across her when I was active on Photo.net.  

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

 

We all have different points of view and we all have our own tolerance threshold but we are all responsible for our actions and, individually, for the way things evolve.

Stock agencies, whatever the name, cannot do anything without the consent of their contributors. We are where we are only because contributors have agreed to unacceptable terms, and continue to do so.

 

 

I agree Olivier which is why I think we have to get on to the next stage rather than wishful thinking imagining an Alamy that doesn't exist.

 

I wish you all the best with your decision to leave Alamy. I am not as brave as you but am certainly pausing any uploads while I consider what to do over the next few months. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

 

I agree ~ something as important as this, to all contributors, yet its being hi-jacked to yak about volcanoes and camera technique

 

Geez c'mon! 🤨

 

 

It was but a brief digression and will never happen again 🤫. I will confine myself to having fascinating endless and vital discussions about the meaning of words such as "agent" and "agency", an understanding of which is fundamental if we are to get any further in this thread and in stock photography in general. I will also (not) continue to flog the same old thing as hard as I can in as many different ways as I can imagine, while awaiting some fresh input from Alamy which is probably the only input of any real importance at this point. We are all going to leave or not. We are all going to die (the only certainty at this point).

 

I will try to make hilarious relevant comments such as "Nope but they'll have us working for peanuts and we'll go bust just give it time" even though we don't actually work for Alamy and "Sorry but I'm not going to go further with this I'm looking for proper jobs right now 😆" even though you are still posting in the thread.

 

However, I will point out the relevance of my initial pointing out to Mark that his keywords and descriptions of the rocks were incorrect in the context of Clause 4.4 (You will ensure that all Metadata including, without limitation, any and all other information pertaining to the Content: (i) is and will remain accurate and factually correct; ----). This little diversion does in fact illustrate the difficulty in abiding by such a clause without specialist knowledge. 

 

 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Good idea. You have a solid, well captioned and keyworded collection that you've put a lot of time and effort into.

 

It seems to me that UK-based contributors are ironically at something of a disadvantage on Alamy when it comes to making a lot of sales (except to "the papers" of course) due to the huge local competition, and the fact that every crag and cranny of the relatively small region appears to have been covered. Also, fees appear to be quite low in the UK, which is even more of an impediment for those looking for "Gold." Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

 

Chicken Little Syndrome can be contagious. Best to wait to see just how much of the sky will end up falling IMHO. 🐔

 

 

 

 

Thank you. I think you're right. We are a tiny island with many photographers where travel is extremely well covered. Andrew's pics are excellent. There are some genres that can do well it seems. 👍

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

Can we keep this thread on the topic subject - the draft/proposed new contract pls. Cheers.

Exactly!  This is a really important subject yet contributors insist on wandering away with whimsical irrelevant stories.  This is what Alamy wants.  They must be p-----g themselves laughing at us.

 

Bracing myself for the red arrows from the skulking cowards. 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gordon Scammell said:

<snip>  They must be p-----g themselves laughing at us.

 

Bracing myself for the red arrows from the skulking cowards. 

 

I don't think they're laughing at us. They might have been when they wrote the new contract.

But now I think they're spending a significant amount of time wondering how to rephrase the contract without it making them look like they were either being a bit naughty or that their legal team are hopeless at writing contracts.

 

I don't think I've ever dished out a red by the way. Received one or two, mind.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

I don't think they're laughing at us. They might have been when they wrote the new contract.

But now I think they're spending a significant amount of time wondering how to rephrase the contract without it making them look like they were either being a bit naughty or that their legal team are hopeless at writing contracts.

 

I don't think I've ever dished out a red by the way. Received one or two, mind.

 

Regardless of what it makes them look like (I think we all have drawn our conclusions by now), it's much better to fix the problems now then wait and see and hope for the best for Alamy's sake. Before it's too late!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I've just emailed a few questions to Alamy about clause 5.1 so thought I would post them here in case useful (together with the preamble for context) and also might help the thread get back on track!  If I get any answers I'll post them here.

 

______________________________________

 

I have yet to make a final decision as to whether to accept your proposed contract changes. Before I do, I would welcome some additional information particularly in regard to clause 5.1 which, to my mind, transfers a considerable amount of legal obligations to Alamy’s contributors. They are intended to help me understand the level of risk I would be exposed to and how it might be mitigated via professional indemnity insurance or otherwise.

 

 

1. Under the proposed revision clause 5.1 can you clarify where liability for any legal fees would have fallen in the recent Big Issue/Kandar case (where the magazine heavily cropped an image to focus on a copyrighted work without Alamy’s knowledge)?

 

How would this situation have changed if the original photograph had been able to rely on the incidental inclusion exemption contained in the CDPA 1988 Act under section 31?

 

Further details here if needed: https://petapixel.com/2019/07/10/magazine-says-its-stolen-cover-photo-was-a-stock-photo-of-the-photo/

 

2. How many court cases has Alamy and its affiliates been involved in over the last five years (or a similar period if that is more convenient)? What were the average level of legal fees incurred in each case?

 

Can you provide the same information for Alamy’s customers and distributors and the current cohort size of each?

 

3. Who provides Alamy’s liability insurance? Would they be willing to provide cover for clause 5.1 as currently drafted?

 

Are you aware of any insurer that has agreed to provide professional indemnity cover at reasonable rates for the liabilities that are being transferred onto your contributors both by clause 5.1 and elsewhere in the proposed contract?

 

4. The proposed clause 5.1 seems to be heavily in Alamy’s favour. I would welcome clarification from your in-house lawyers, who I believe are responsible for the drafting, how clause 5.1 as proposed passes the reasonableness tests contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The legislation specifically deals with non-negotiated contracts between parties with asymmetrical bargaining power with the weaker being asked to provide wide ranging indemnities for the stronger which seems to be the case here.

 

Given the low level of prominence the changes to clause 5.1 were given in your blog post 17th May I’m assuming they aren’t considered either unusual or onerous (using common law definitions). I would welcome clarification as to why not?

 

 

 

I would be surprised if you receive a detailed reply to all those points - but good luck

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.