Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?🤔

  • Haha 1
  • 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
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 ☹️

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

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.

I've had a look on one of the larger competitor sites, and from the pics I looked at they do appear to do that.  Rightly or wrongly I'm working my way through mine now, ticking 'editorial only' on most things bar plants and animals - don't need the stress

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, kay said:

I've had a look on one of the larger competitor sites, and from the pics I looked at they do appear to do that.  Rightly or wrongly I'm working my way through mine now, ticking 'editorial only' on most things bar plants and animals - don't need the stress

 

 

33 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

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.

 

 

 

based on Alamy's current client base i am not as worried at this point, especially after removing distribution. 

 

 

but i will point out that even Alamy automatically puts "For Editorial Only" on all submission through Live News when they move to stock (had to remove many of them on weather and cute animals), so i do have Editorial Only on similar types of images now, but not on image of a castle where someone is secondary yet

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kay said:

I've had a look on one of the larger competitor sites, and from the pics I looked at they do appear to do that.  Rightly or wrongly I'm working my way through mine now, ticking 'editorial only' on most things bar plants and animals - don't need the stress

 

Thanks for the sharing that. I'm slowly working through my images (glad I don't have a larger collection), but I've been checking "The Box" selectively up until now. Still hoping to receive more guidance from above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Thanks for the sharing that. I'm slowly working through my images (glad I don't have a larger collection), but I've been checking "The Box" selectively up until now. Still hoping to receive more guidance from above.

If you click the "Editorial only" box (as it seems many of us now are), don't forget to check the "personal use" box below it. You have to check it separately. It doesn't automatically check when you hit the editorial box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

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. 

 

 

 

That editor on the Iberian Peninsula is famous for that.

 

I've had images rejected by other agencies that now do quite well on Alamy. I'm not sure that editors can always pick "winners." However, you sound happy with the results so far.

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.