Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[formerly snappyoncalifornia]

6 hours ago, Shergar said:

Releases – Alamy says Relax. 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/releases-alamy-says-relax

Ummm...that was Posted 30.08.18. I think what these 80+ pages are discussing are ch ch changes.

[Foreign Export]

2 hours ago, ManfredG said:

I read this clause very clearly as:
The photographer may not sue Alamy for making an error. - That's a very different case.

 

 

well you can sue them- but their defence will be this clause that states Alamy are not liable

[Hans Muelder]

Alamy has lost it: a leftist greedy company that is alienating its contributors. And without contributors Alamy is nothing. For the many small photographers who just occasionally sell a photo your commission drops from 50% to just 20%. That is robbery. 

[Shergar]

1 hour ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

Ummm...that was Posted 30.08.18. I think what these 80+ pages are discussing are ch ch changes.

I know, what a change. 

[Foreign Export]

9 hours ago, Foreign Export said:

 

well you can sue them- but their defence will be this clause that states Alamy are not liable

 

red coward strikes again

 

[M.Chapman]

Should new clause 3.3 be amended to state that these extra liabilities will not apply to deleted images where Alamy received the request to delete these images before 1st June 2021. Or, in legal terms, is that self evident?

 

3.3 Where an item of Content is deleted whether by you or by Alamy, you will continue to indemnify Alamy as outlined in clause 5 after the date of deletion for any claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs or expenses related to the Content.

 

The reason I ask is that I may well stay with Alamy. But if the contract isn't going to be changed, I (like others) may go through my portfolio and hit the delete button on images which include anything where there could be any risk whatsoever of Alamy incurring legal costs (from scurrilous 3rd party claims etc.) that they could pass onto me. Bear in mind it takes 180 days for deletion to occur. What about images deleted previously (under terms of previous contracts). If I accept the new contract, am I accepting the extra liabilities on previously deleted images?

 

Mark

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by M.Chapman

[Mr Standfast]

1 hour ago, Foreign Export said:

 

red coward strikes again

 

I've added a green arrow to restore balance! Er is that off topic?🤔

[Gordon Scammell]

15 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, to give Alamy credit they do at least do that, I had marked one as 'Editorial only' simply because there were two cyclists coming towards me down a country lane and they were important to the picture. They arranged for the customer to take on any risk, which would have been negligible I suppose, but it was a pleasant exchange and a good sale. They may be doing a lot more of that in the fuure I suppose.

How did Alamy 'arrange for the customer to take on any risk'?  

Do you know for a fact that the customer took on the risk?  

If so, how did the customer tell you they 'took on the risk' and what proof did they supply to you?  If you believe that the 'customer took on the risk' and agreed to lift the restrictions then you are opening yourself up to possible legal action.  

Alamy lays down the rules regarding releases for legal reasons.  By asking you to break their rules simply to make a sale tells me all I need to know about Alamy's approach.

 

I have been asked on a few occasions to lift restrictions.  I have always agreed (in retrospect I believe this was a huge mistake) but the last time I was asked I decided it was way too risky and refused.

 

Unfortunately I think It is way too risky to trust Alamy and the 'customer'.  

[Harry Harrison]

2 minutes ago, Gordon Scammell said:

How did Alamy 'arrange for the customer to take on any risk'?  

Who knows, but this was before the new contract revelation and I have had no reason to distrust Alamy up to this point. Whether this new PA Media contract marks a turning point in this question of trust remains to be seen.

[Harry Harrison]

7 minutes ago, Gordon Scammell said:

By asking you to break their rules

I don't see it as breaking their rules incidentally, I was simply asked to temporarily lift the restrictions that I had put on that image by checking 'For editorial use only', namely:

 

Don't sell for advertising and promotion

Don't sell for consumer goods

 

My picture certainly wasn't going to be used in a way that suggested that the cyclists would be promoting the company concerned and so I think I shouldn't have checked the box in the first place. The new contract as it is written at the moment makes this much more problematic and I have suggested on several occasions in the past that Alamy should give more guidance on the use and implications of the 'Editorial use' box. 

 

 

[Gordon Scammell]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

I don't see it as breaking their rules incidentally, I was simply asked to temporarily lift the restrictions that I had put on that image by checking 'For editorial use only', namely:

 

Don't sell for advertising and promotion

Don't sell for consumer goods

 

My picture certainly wasn't going to be used in a way that suggested that the cyclists would be promoting the company concerned and so I think I shouldn't have checked the box in the first place. The new contract as it is written at the moment makes this much more problematic and I have suggested on several occasions in the past that Alamy should give more guidance on the use and implications of the 'Editorial use' box. 

 

 

Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea how that image was going to be used.  You lift Alamy's restrictions and it's open season on that image.  A dodgy customer can promise everything in return for the restrictions being lifted and once that happens they do what they like with it.  That's only view of course - you can obviously make whatever decisions you wish.  Good luck.

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, Foreign Export said:

 

red coward strikes again

 

green arrow to compensate.  hope that's not cowardly. 

 

 

 

(also thanks for sticking a The Smiths earworm in my brain now)

Edited May 28, 2021 by meanderingemu

[Harry Harrison]

32 minutes ago, Gordon Scammell said:

That's only view of course - you can obviously make whatever decisions you wish.  Good luck.

And yet, as you say, in the past you have always agreed to do it. Since you have been on Alamy since 2007 and have 44,000+ images they would so far appear to have acted in your interests and with integrity. As I say, that situation may now be changing, and so is the world outside so it may well be time to reconsider. A lot hinges on this new contract.

[Bill Kuta]

Alamy should read the "Discuss Any Subject Here" thread. People are moving on, from Alamy, from stock photography, taking breaks from photography in general. This contract thread is moving down the forum page. I think most people have decided.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Bill Kuta

[Joseph Clemson]

It's all been very quiet from Alamy. Would it be too cynical to think this is heading for a late Friday evening update from them, leaving us to stew for the weekend with meage fare to sustain us?  I've seen moe sales this month than for over a year now and I really, really hope Alamy are going to return with a degree of contrition and enable us to move forward togther. Or have I just read too many fairy tales where the people live happily ever after?

[DDoug]

Presumably, an agency looks out for the interests of its contributors when dealing with buyers of image licenses. In practice, it appears that agencies look out for themselves exclusively and only treat contributors just enough better than other agencies to keep them from leaving in droves, if only by a whisker. After all, 30 percent is still better than 20 percent.

 

I wonder if it might not be like buying coffee or bananas. When the commodity is labeled “Fair Trade” lots of people buy it in preference to other brands because they want to see the banana and coffee farmers treated fairly. Perhaps a Fair Trade stock agency that guarantees to pay contributors no less than 50 percent of fees for rights managed licenses would have a good market opportunity.

[Nathaniel Noir]

59 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

Alamy should read the "Discuss Any Subject Here" thread. People are moving on, from Alamy, from stock photography, taking breaks from photography in general. This contract thread is moving down the forum page. I think most people have decided.

 

I'm not surprised. I haven't uploaded anything new since the new contract announcement, been focusing on writing for my blog instead and it feels really good! 

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, Bill Kuta said:

Alamy should read the "Discuss Any Subject Here" thread. People are moving on, from Alamy, from stock photography, taking breaks from photography in general. This contract thread is moving down the forum page. I think most people have decided.

You're mistaking PA for an entity which cares what we think.

 

For a start, instead of that haze about removing the exclusive incentive because of a 'sizeable minority' of people being dishonest, they should have just come out straight from the beginning and said, "We are PA, we are not the old Alamy. We have a different vision for this company. We envision having an elevated collection with a fancy name, for which you will retain 65%. This is the sort of images we want in the elevated collection ... words and examples. If you feel you have images already in your portfolio which meets these criteria, please submit them to XXX for consideration. Going on, (there will be a tick box for submitting specific images for consideration for the elevated collection, or some other way of nominating specific files added in future).

 

Secondly, as a new company, they should have looked at the whole contract, and probably rewritten the whole thing (which as we have seen rehearsed above, most of us seem to have accepted without considering the minutae of the implications of certain clauses), as I suggested already, iterating between their lawyers and representatives of the Plain English group, and probably with a group of contributors to represent our concerns, (though I don't know how these could have been chosen). That could have gone through several revision rounds before being presented to the contributors as a whole, hopefully avoiding the semblance of incompetence on top of lack of concern for the sustainability of contributors. (Because they know for all who drop off, more dewy-eyed innocents will sign up.)

 

I'm guessing a proportion of people will have already decided to remove their ports, or stay but not upload new files, based on the money drop.

Others like me are waiting to see the contract rewrite, while madly positively designating a goodly proportion of their files as editiorial only.

Others will just keep going on regardless.

 

I'm not sure there's much more to say here until PA produces their contract revision, but I'm quite prepared to be wrong about that.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Bill Kuta]

Nope, no mistaking here. Sent in my termination some days ago.

[AlbertSnapper]

1 hour ago, DDoug said:

 Perhaps a Fair Trade stock agency that guarantees to pay contributors no less than 50 percent of fees for rights managed licenses would have a good market opportunity.

 

But would Fair Trade work when it's a company doing the purchasing ?

Can't see companies having too much of an ethical stance when sourcing their stock pictures.

I know some companies, such as the supermarkets, do source Fair Trade produce from poor countries. I expect most stock photographers are based in the wealthy countries, so no one will care ☹️

[MizBrown]

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

You're mistaking PA for an entity which cares what we think.

 

For a start, instead of that haze about removing the exclusive incentive because of a 'sizeable minority' of people being dishonest, they should have just come out straight from the beginning and said, "We are PA, we are not the old Alamy. We have a different vision for this company. We envision having an elevated collection with a fancy name, for which you will retain 65%. This is the sort of images we want in the elevated collection ... words and examples. If you feel you have images already in your portfolio which meets these criteria, please submit them to XXX for consideration. Going on, (there will be a tick box for submitting specific images for consideration for the elevated collection, or some other way of nominating specific files added in future).

 

Lower Alamy's take on second or third sales of the same image.   That's easier to do than hire eyeballs to look at photos and make decisions, and less personal.   The market is not always wrong, and for PA/Alamy sales are always necessary.  

 

Rejecting people can be tricky.  Most publishers have a bland non-confrontational printed rejection slip or letter for people they don't particularly want to see work from again.   If they want to see more, they will say that.   One reason many publishers and most film companies won't look at un-agented material is that they want a buffer between the delusional and their editorial staff.

 

 

[meanderingemu]

36 minutes ago, AlbertSnapper said:

 

But would Fair Trade work when it's a company doing the purchasing ?

Can't see companies having too much of an ethical stance when sourcing their stock pictures.

I know some companies, such as the supermarkets, do source Fair Trade produce from poor countries. I expect most stock photographers are based in the wealthy countries, so no one will care ☹️

 

also not sure how you guarantee fair trade, how do you make sure models were paid fairly?  what about agency/grouping that hire photog to produce the image, KW etc?

[geogphotos]

Just working through an edit received back from elsewhere. A fantastic, hugely experienced editor with such a great eye and who picks out the winners. They are always so friendly and supportive, always find something positive to say, and don't bother saying anything about what they don't want ( unlike a former editor in Spain who did the exact opposite 😄). No stress about releases as they are all going as editorial, if somebody wants to use them commercially that is down to them. Anything dubious I think the editor just knows to avoid by working to guidance and using experience. No worries. 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by geogphotos

[Mr Standfast]

7 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

I've added a green arrow to restore balance! Er is that off topic?🤔

Got a red arrow for that. Twerp!

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I don't see it as breaking their rules incidentally, I was simply asked to temporarily lift the restrictions that I had put on that image by checking 'For editorial use only', namely:

 

Don't sell for advertising and promotion

Don't sell for consumer goods

 

My picture certainly wasn't going to be used in a way that suggested that the cyclists would be promoting the company concerned and so I think I shouldn't have checked the box in the first place. The new contract as it is written at the moment makes this much more problematic and I have suggested on several occasions in the past that Alamy should give more guidance on the use and implications of the 'Editorial use' box. 

 

 

 

Wholeheartedly agree. We need more feedback from Alamy about the use of the "editorial box" in light of the new contract -- e.g. should we be checking the box for every image that has someone with a recognizable face in it? I haven't been doing this.