Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[John Mitchell]

10 minutes ago, AndrewP said:

Exactly! Photograph what others aren't!

 

PS. I'll still be in the middle of the Gold Tier if all these changes go ahead.

 

I'm in a similar position.

[M.Chapman]

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

[MDM]

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 May 26, 2021 by MDM

[Mr Standfast]

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. 👍

[MDM]

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. 

[M.Chapman]

21 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Mark,

 

In all honesty why do you think Alamy should listen to you?

 

What are you expecting to gain for these 'Alamy should have' posts.

 

The same gain that we might have through 80 pages of feedback here i.e. some changes.

Indeed there appears a possibility that the feedback here is having an effect. (Or maybe I'm deluded and it's just the cancelled contracts that are making Alamy review their new contract). So I don't see why constructive suggestions about how things might be improved shouldn't be made.

 

Anyway - I thought you were moving on to find a better life. Or is the temptation to have the last word too strong?

 

Mark

Edited May 27, 2021 by M.Chapman

[Mr Standfast]

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...

 

[M.Chapman]

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 May 26, 2021 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

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 😃 .

[MizBrown]

1 hour ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

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

 

 

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.  

[Chuck Nacke]

Just my opinion;

 

We are all responsible for the "demise" of "Stock Photography"

 

I go back to the days when "OLD" photojournalists started putting

their images into the first "Stock libraries"  then the photo agents 

realized that there was money to be make from licensing "File Images"

 

Then digital and the internet came along and everyone was a "photographer."

 

In the 80's when I was working with one of the hottest News Photo

agencies in the U.S. I was making almost half of my large income from

the licensing of my "file" material (many of those images are on Alamy

now) but all of those licenses in the 80's and early 90's were made by  

"Real Photo Agents" who understood the business and were trained 

in journalism.

 

I have read on this forum too many times "Just upload it and see if it 

sells."  occasionally those "Second Rate Images" are licensed or sold 

for small fees.

 

Agencies jumped on this band wagon and made it worse.  Take a look

at Alamy Live News or recently uploaded images to any of the major sites.

over 50% of the images are "Garbage" and wasting band width, my opinion.

 

In my own opinion, the only way to save "Stock Photography" and independent

photography is for everyone contributing to the pool to raise their standards.

 

Finally, I have been trying to stay out of this discussion, BUT I am shocked and

appalled that Alamy would put out a contract like they did.  Then to make the 

entire situation WORSE they admitted that there were sections that were not 

clear.  I am not perfect, but I try to be.  I do not release things that are not 

accurate and if I do make a mistake I correct it ASAP.

 

I have been in this business for too many years and I have become very found

of Alamy and the people at Alamy that I communicate with.  I would like to see

Alamy succeed and all serious contributors to Alamy be happy.

 

I will try to stay away from this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck Nacke

Edited May 27, 2021 by Chuck Nacke
grammer

[Panthera tigris]

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

[geogphotos]

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 May 27, 2021 by geogphotos

[Mr Standfast]

My reasons for going off topic were my own. Yet I will wear my red arrows with pride!

 

Now to get back on topic: We're stuffed!

[Martin P Wilson]

6 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Just my opinion;

 

We are all responsible for the "demise" of "Stock Photography"

 

I go back to the days when "OLD" photojournalists started putting

their images into the first "Stock libraries"  then the photo agents 

realized that there was money to be make from licensing "File Images"

 

Then digital and the internet came along and everyone was a "photographer."

 

In the 80's when I was working with one of the hottest News Photo

agencies in the U.S. I was making almost half of my large income from

the licensing of my "file" material (many of those images are on Alamy

now) but all of those licenses in the 80's and early 90's were made by  

"Real Photo Agents" who understood the business and were trained 

in journalism.

 

I have read on this forum too many times "Just upload it and see if it 

sells."  occasionally those "Second Rate Images" are licensed or sold 

for small fees.

 

Agencies jumped on this band wagon and made it worse.  Take a look

at Alamy Live News or recently uploaded images to any of the major sites.

over 50% of the images are "Garbage" and wasting band width, my opinion.

 

In my own opinion, the only way to save "Stock Photography" and independent

photography is for everyone contributing to the pool to raise their standards.

 

Finally, I have been trying to stay out of this discussion, BUT I am shocked and

appalled that Alamy would put out a contract like they did.  Then to make the 

entire situation WORSE they admitted that there were sections that were not 

clear.  I am not perfect, but I try to be.  I do not release things that are not 

accurate and if I do make a mistake I correct it ASAP.

 

I have been in this business for too many years and I have become very found

of Alamy and the people at Alamy that I communicate with.  I would like to see

Alamy succeed and all serious contributors to Alamy be happy.

 

I will try to stay away from this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck Nacke

 

I totally agree Chuck.

 

However it will not be Alamy or the other big agencies who will put the genie back in the bottle. Lookat many other industries, expecially recently, and there is surge of interest in artidsan providers in many fields.

 

In the late C20 many industries consolidated, for example estate agents (realtors), the small mom and pop businesses were bought out by banks and lawyers to form national chains. Then the market got tough and the big corporate started to downsize, just as the original owners were coming free from their non-compete contracts. Many bought the businesses back, or more often started new ones. and found a market amongt people who did not want to deal with faceless suits.

 

The same has happened in the food industry: bakers, brewers, cheese-makers, gin-makers, even fashioaal are embracing the .artisanal. They are finding customers who want something better than the mass  market, or at least different.

 

Do the designers and picture researchers serving the middle and upper end of the graphic and publishing market really want to plough through masses of identical, sometime indifferent, images in the big bran tubs/ discount bins that are the major libraries and microstock? There are more traditional libraries out there, selecting phoitographers and curating iumages for an arguably more discerning market. And don't forget there are also many one-person specialists who, with effort, find a market. We will need to gforget the bloggers, influencers and the local cafe who needs a flyer; they will go for easy and cheap, preferably free. They are lost to us, but others will want to separate themselves from the noise created by that market and use good work that better represnts their brandd or other values. We have to respond by liftingour game, finding our niche and not running with crowd; it may be easy but the crtowd is running downhill to oblivion. As I have said many times in the past the bottom end of genmeric stock is going the way clip art went at the turn of the millenniom

 

I believe there will always by room for librraies serving a more premium market, it may be that it will be a true agency that represents the interest of their photographers. Remember only 20 years ago Alamy was a mould-breaking startup.

 

Probably too late for me, I am, going in other directions but I believe something can and will happen.

[MDM]

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 May 27, 2021 by MDM

[Sultanpepa]

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. 👍

[Gordon Scammell]

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. 

[Russell Watkins]

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.

[Nathaniel Noir]

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!

[Cliff Hide]

 

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?

 

 

[Foreign Export]

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

[Keith Douglas]

53 minutes ago, Gordon Scammell said:

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. 

You are right. And more importantly the discussion about keywords didn't even relate to a Change in the contract! The clause and sub clause that would apply to supplying incorrect keywords is in the current contract (all of 5.1) as well as in the new one (5.1 iv) . It's the other three sub clauses in 5.1 in the new contract that we should be discussing.

[Russell Watkins]

Aw come on, this is the internet. A few harmless and often interesting digressions here and there are the norm. 
 

Frankly, in an 80 page thread, I’m surprised there haven't been more. 

[MDM]

49 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

You are right. And more importantly the discussion about keywords didn't even relate to a Change in the contract! The clause and sub clause that would apply to supplying incorrect keywords is in the current contract (all of 5.1) as well as in the new one (5.1 iv) . It's the other three sub clauses in 5.1 in the new contract that we should be discussing.

 

A few thoughts Keith.

 

Firstly, I was referring to Clause 4.4 although 5.1 is relevant in terms of contributor liability if one has breached anything in section 4 (which would include accuracy of metadata). However, it is not hard to imagine scenarios where inaccurate metadata could lead to legal problems. I don't know what Alamy have in their customer contract in this regard and I presume they have covered themselves but can you really dismiss it out of hand and say that we should not even be discussing it?

 

Secondly, the fact that something is in the current contract does not mean it does not need examination or reconsideration in the light of the changes to contributor liability in the new contract. I know I pointed out several times last week that people were in many cases panicking about things that were already in the existing contract but I also said that that did not mean that one should not be worried about it now (in other words, the fact that the worry is leading to a sky is falling on my head syndrome does not mean that it is not falling on my head and in fact has been all along). As things currently stand before Alamy has presented revised clauses, it is probably pointless to speculate too much. 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by MDM