Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I know some on here are thinking of checking that 'Editorial only' box for extra safety, whether that's real or notional we're not sure. I wonder if I'm reading too much into it, perhaps it's just a way of checking "Don't sell for advertising and promotion" & "Don't sell for consumer goods" in one click rather then two, I hadn't actually realised that checking both those automatically checked "Editorial only", I didn't know it worked both ways. Still not sure in real terms what extra protection that offers over simply stating that you have no releases which is the default in any case.

 

Welcome to the club. I'm currently sifting through my images and clicking the "editorial use only" box for more of them. However, it feels like a symbolic gesture more than anything else.

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

As much as I hate to say it, the micros probably have it right by deeming images either  "editorial" or "commercial" before making them available for licensing. It would be almost impossible for Alamy to start doing this now of course given the size of their existing collection. However, one solution might be to create two separate collections -- e.g. "Alamy Editorial" and "Alamy Commercial."

 

 

but that system is also flawed, as it puts to onus on a heavy centralise infrastructure to make decisions regardless of context and gives an extremely false sense of security to all parties that does not exist.  At at least one major micro, "editorial" many time means it didn't make it through the perceived more lucrative "commercial" filters.  

 

It is also a significant cost, resulting in higher commission charges.

 

Yes it catches some stuff, but i wouldn't call it a solution in an environment with knowledgeable customers 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Mitchell said:

 

Welcome to the club. I'm currently sifting through my images and clicking the "editorial only" box for more of them. However, it feels more like a symbolic gesture than anything else.

same here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

However 7.1

 

  1. Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences in accordance with your instructions. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwise makes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you.

 

So they can't, but if they do, they will not be liable. 

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul J said:

 

Good photo, I assume its in the Scottish edition in print, saw it online. Why not bypass Alamy live and sell direct? Then if you can be bothered, then upload as stock. You'll make 100% of the money and build contacts. 99+% of my income is direct sales. 

 

Thanks Paul. That has been suggested to me before. Not familiar with how to do it, not sure whether I can be bothered with the paperwork. Worth mulling over as the extra work involved in many news shoots is worth more than 40% IMO.

 

It wasn’t actually in the Scottish print version: they had a photographer working for the shoot so were sending out free photos and used one of those, hence I was surprised anything of mine was used at all.

 

Sorry for the diversion...back to the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour 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.

 

so what are the consequences for not respecting instructions .  if there is none, how is that different.  You can read in another post, currently images are on offer at a distributors even against contributors instructions, and there is no consequences- how is it different, i guess i fail to see the difference in the application.  

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The days are passing by and no amendments to the contract yet without any indication from Alamy of when we will see anything unless I missed it. The last response from Alamy just says 'soon'.

As mentioned in this thread, the 45 days notice starts again once (if) it's amended, or not?

Would be good to know what to expect.

Communication: basic good practice in any business.

Edited by Tony ALS
misspelling
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

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. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foreign Export said:

 

red coward strikes again

 

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

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by meanderingemu
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Bill Kuta
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Cryptoprocta
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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.