Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Doc]

None of us can tell anyone else what to do, as we are in different positions. However we can all decide what we ourselves are going to do.

For me, firstly I am waiting to see what comes back from Alamy. Nothing to be lost at this point by waiting for that. Sadly, as we have seen in the recent past, when new contracts are proposed, violently objected to by us, and then made more benign, they may not then last very long. On the other hand, the partial reversal last time (retain 50% for exclusive images) was decided by the old Alamy management, and this is now PA. They may be less inclined to go back on contract decisions within a year or so which they themselves have made.

In the meantime however this is what I have been doing:

 

1. I have ticked the "for editorial use only" box in the appropriate images. In my collection of 27K photos, the vast majority have people in, so I am guessing c. 20-22K will need that doing. Like John in Vancouver I am not certain how helpful that will be, as all my images have always been marked correctly for model/property releases etc. Interestingly I asked Alamy if they could mark all my images as "for editorial use only" as I thought it would be easier to untick that box on 7K images, rather than to tick it on 20K images. Unfortunately when Alamy did this for me (very quickly) they put a red padlock on all the restrictions so I could not go through and take the  editorial restriction off the 7K or so images which didn't need it. So I asked them to take the tick off the editorial only box, and I am going through making all images editorial use only initially, and will then go through and remove it from the ones which don't need it. This will take some time.

 

2. I have removed myself from all distributors. I am very concerned that apparently distributors may not abide by our restrictions, leaving me more open to legal problems. Normally you can only withdraw in April but at the moment this appears to have been extended.

 

3. I will be going through and removing images which might possibly leave me more open to being sued/having to pay Alamys' legal charges. 

 

4. Although I have never sold any images except through Alamy, I will at some point ask them to make my collection non-exclusive, as with these changes and the ever-reducing cost at which they are selling images I am not going to be able to re-attain the $25K threshold for 50% reimbursement.

 

5. I have taken out some Professional Indemnity insurance, which may or may not work against Alamy's contract but will make me feel a bit better.

 

I have invested 17 years and 27K images in Alamys' collection, and both I and Alamy have done well out of it. I, like many others with large longstanding collections do not want to throw that all away, but like everyone I am very concerned about legal fees being dumped on me, especially when I might have known nothing about it till it happens. 

It would be very interesting, and useful I think to many of us, to know how many times Alamy and Alamy photogs have actually been sued in the last say 10 years. I have asked this question of Alamy, but was told that they could not respond due to confidentiality issues. I am not sure how that applies to just giving us the numbers of occasions. My suspicion is it is very small numbers.

 

There are still some very good people working at Alamy, but they must recognise that explaining "intentions" of complicated legal paragraphs is simply not enough. The wording must be changed to reflect this more accurately.

 

Alamy - we await your proposed changes.

 

Kumar

 

 

[Mr Standfast]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

None of us can tell anyone else what to do, as we are in different positions. However we can all decide what we ourselves are going to do.

For me, firstly I am waiting to see what comes back from Alamy. Nothing to be lost at this point by waiting for that. Sadly, as we have seen in the recent past, when new contracts are proposed, violently objected to by us, and then made more benign, they may not then last very long. On the other hand, the partial reversal last time (retain 50% for exclusive images) was decided by the old Alamy management, and this is now PA. They may be less inclined to go back on contract decisions within a year or so which they themselves have made.

In the meantime however this is what I have been doing:

 

1. I have ticked the "for editorial use only" box in the appropriate images. In my collection of 27K photos, the vast majority have people in, so I am guessing c. 20-22K will need that doing. Like John in Vancouver I am not certain how helpful that will be, as all my images have always been marked correctly for model/property releases etc. Interestingly I asked Alamy if they could mark all my images as "for editorial use only" as I thought it would be easier to untick that box on 7K images, rather than to tick it on 20K images. Unfortunately when Alamy did this for me (very quickly) they put a red padlock on all the restrictions so I could not go through and take the  editorial restriction off the 7K or so images which didn't need it. So I asked them to take the tick off the editorial only box, and I am going through making all images editorial use only initially, and will then go through and remove it from the ones which don't need it. This will take some time.

 

2. I have removed myself from all distributors. I am very concerned that apparently distributors may not abide by our restrictions, leaving me more open to legal problems. Normally you can only withdraw in April but at the moment this appears to have been extended.

 

3. I will be going through and removing images which might possibly leave me more open to being sued/having to pay Alamys' legal charges. 

 

4. Although I have never sold any images except through Alamy, I will at some point ask them to make my collection non-exclusive, as with these changes and the ever-reducing cost at which they are selling images I am not going to be able to re-attain the $25K threshold for 50% reimbursement.

 

5. I have taken out some Professional Indemnity insurance, which may or may not work against Alamy's contract but will make me feel a bit better.

 

I have invested 17 years and 27K images in Alamys' collection, and both I and Alamy have done well out of it. I, like many others with large longstanding collections do not want to throw that all away, but like everyone I am very concerned about legal fees being dumped on me, especially when I might have known nothing about it till it happens. 

It would be very interesting, and useful I think to many of us, to know how many times Alamy and Alamy photogs have actually been sued in the last say 10 years. I have asked this question of Alamy, but was told that they could not respond due to confidentiality issues. I am not sure how that applies to just giving us the numbers of occasions. My suspicion is it is very small numbers.

 

There are still some very good people working at Alamy, but they must recognise that explaining "intentions" of complicated legal paragraphs is simply not enough. The wording must be changed to reflect this more accurately.

 

Alamy - we await your proposed changes.

 

Kumar

 

 

Thank you Kumar.

[John Richmond]

Well said, Kumar.  You've echoed my own thinking.

 

I've stayed away from the forum while I considered my own options.  As a specialist I may be at less potential risk than others but that risk is not zero.  Accordingly, I've opted out of most distribution, will be going through all my images to decide which to retain as exclusive, which to delete, and which to mark as editorial only.  This will be completed by the end of June irrespective of whether the contract wording is changed to limit the individual photographer's liability for suable errors outwith their control,

 

Up to now all my images except a few have been exclusive so a drop in commission will hit me harder than those who became non exclusive after the last commission 'adjustment'.  I'm not at risk of going down to the 20% level if sales are maintained at the current levels.  Most months generate double or even treble the gross revenue required for the yearly gold rate.  Even so the drop will be significant and I will need to explore other options.  What they are I've not fully explored or decided as yet but the revenue from them will not be going into Alamy's pockets.

[yokochanie]

 

2008  31 pictures sold  $3705

 

2021 (part year only)  53 pictures sold, $1521

 

 

I had a company contact me two years ago asking to use an old postcard picture of mine on Alamy for around $400. I had to sign that I owned the copyright. I declined and referred them to Alamy. The picture they said would be used for an advert campaign. They did and and around two months later it went through as been paid for around $40. I checked this with Alamy but they said it was correct. A few pictures recently went through for $3.13...multiple use and in perpetuity. Better then the one that went through at $1.18 for the same use.

 

As for the picture that went royalty free for $0.24, words fail me.

 

There has to be something wrong if a company want to pay me $400, but then get the same picture from the agency where they first saw it for just $40.

 

My point?

 

With that kind of pricing (giveaways), maybe look first at your charging policy before cutting a percentage from the people that go out there and get the pictures.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by yokochanie

[FOTOLINCS]

I have been with Alamy since Feb 04 and the $$$ rewards have been plummeting in the last... what, 10 years? I manage some sales each month but prices are now dire!  I keep thinking a percentage of 'something' no matter how small is better than a percentage of nothing but up to now, this month's smallest it $4 largest is $14.  It is not easy to understand Alamy's tentacled structures now, how many other 'agents' are cashing in and wanting a cut from a cut from my cut, I have no idea anymore.  I prefer to be loyal to an agent but I think it's time to have a look around.

C'mon Alamy, you are heading in the wrong direction and it is obvious to all.

 

[FOTOLINCS]

30 minutes ago, yokochanie said:

 

2008  31 pictures sold  $3705

 

2021 (part year only)  53 pictures sold, $1521

 

 

I had a company contact me two years ago asking to use an old postcard picture of mine on Alamy for around $400. I had to sign that I owned the copyright. I declined and referred them to Alamy. The picture they said would be used for an advert campaign. They did and and around two months later it went through as been paid for around $40. I checked this with Alamy but they said it was correct. A few pictures recently went through for $3.13...multiple use and in perpetuity. Better then the one that went through at $1.18 for the same use.

 

As for the picture that went royalty free for $0.24, words fail me.

 

There has to be something wrong if a company want to pay me $400, but then get the same picture from the agency where they first saw it for just $40.

 

My point?

 

With that kind of pricing (giveaways), maybe look first at your charging policy before cutting a percentage from the people that go out there and get the pictures.

 

 

This is a very worrying blog my friend. Clearly, how do we know what fees are really being offered. No wonder there's very little left commission-wise.

[BobD]

1 hour ago, John Richmond said:

Well said, Kumar.  You've echoed my own thinking.

 

I've stayed away from the forum while I considered my own options.  As a specialist I may be at less potential risk than others but that risk is not zero.  Accordingly, I've opted out of most distribution, will be going through all my images to decide which to retain as exclusive, which to delete, and which to mark as editorial only.  This will be completed by the end of June irrespective of whether the contract wording is changed to limit the individual photographer's liability for suable errors outwith their control,

 

Up to now all my images except a few have been exclusive so a drop in commission will hit me harder than those who became non exclusive after the last commission 'adjustment'.  I'm not at risk of going down to the 20% level if sales are maintained at the current levels.  Most months generate double or even treble the gross revenue required for the yearly gold rate.  Even so the drop will be significant and I will need to explore other options.  What they are I've not fully explored or decided as yet but the revenue from them will not be going into Alamy's pockets.

 

 

Probably will never affect you John, but my prediction is in 12-18 months time the threshold will rise from $250 to $500, then $1000 and so on.

PA have now shown their true colours and will not be happy until they have wrung the most they can from their contributors.

Edited May 30, 2021 by BobD

[wilkopix]

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

The commission for most of us is being cut by 10 % points ( 20% drop in income)

 

Others are having they commission cut to a paltry 20%.

 

We will continue to bare all the costs of producing images, editing them, preparing them for sale.

 

Alamy will, however it is worded, pass more responsibility for indemnifying themselves to us, thereby putting us at some level of increased financial risk.

 

Alamy will be increasing their share by 10% points ( 20% increase in income) for doing no more work and taking less responsibility.

 

In addition they will muscle in to a new area and prevent those with exclusive images from chasing their OWN copyright infringements.

100% agree.

The once cuddly, photographer friendly Alamy has completely gone with the new dodgy contract and stupidly low royalty rates. It's all about sharholders dividends not contributors. It's only going in one direction.

Loads of reputable agencies out there with fair commissions and/or high sales. Easy enough for anyone interested to research where best to place your images. There is absolutely no incentive to stay exclusive to Alamy .. in fact lots of very good reasons not to, both legal and financial.

Think like a business and how to maximise your return on investment and the work you put into producing images to sell .. after all that's all Alamy are doing now.

Edited May 30, 2021 by wilkopix

[Cryptoprocta]

And of course, there's a potential conflict of interest where PA can award its own companies/partners even deeper discounts, so making our job reaching targets even harder.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[MizBrown]

6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Not bothered about a 20% pay cut?

 

I certainly am damn well bothered!

 

We have been told that the clause about idemnity is going to be clarified. It may be that Alamy are searching the forum for guidance on how to word it but I somehow doubt it. 

 

My guess would be that it is all part of an expectation management plan in the lead up to July 1st.

 

 

 

It depends on whether the top brass at PA/Alamy see their better photographers as people with valuable skills, or if they see all their photographers as one rich trustee head of a NYC orchestra board saw musicians -- trained workers with some specialized skills who were quite interchangable.   Or Hollywood's term -- "the talent." 

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

None of us can tell anyone else what to do, as we are in different positions. However we can all decide what we ourselves are going to do.

For me, firstly I am waiting to see what comes back from Alamy. Nothing to be lost at this point by waiting for that. Sadly, as we have seen in the recent past, when new contracts are proposed, violently objected to by us, and then made more benign, they may not then last very long. On the other hand, the partial reversal last time (retain 50% for exclusive images) was decided by the old Alamy management, and this is now PA. They may be less inclined to go back on contract decisions within a year or so which they themselves have made.

In the meantime however this is what I have been doing:

 

1. I have ticked the "for editorial use only" box in the appropriate images. In my collection of 27K photos, the vast majority have people in, so I am guessing c. 20-22K will need that doing. Like John in Vancouver I am not certain how helpful that will be, as all my images have always been marked correctly for model/property releases etc. Interestingly I asked Alamy if they could mark all my images as "for editorial use only" as I thought it would be easier to untick that box on 7K images, rather than to tick it on 20K images. Unfortunately when Alamy did this for me (very quickly) they put a red padlock on all the restrictions so I could not go through and take the  editorial restriction off the 7K or so images which didn't need it. So I asked them to take the tick off the editorial only box, and I am going through making all images editorial use only initially, and will then go through and remove it from the ones which don't need it. This will take some time.

 

2. I have removed myself from all distributors. I am very concerned that apparently distributors may not abide by our restrictions, leaving me more open to legal problems. Normally you can only withdraw in April but at the moment this appears to have been extended.

 

3. I will be going through and removing images which might possibly leave me more open to being sued/having to pay Alamys' legal charges. 

 

4. Although I have never sold any images except through Alamy, I will at some point ask them to make my collection non-exclusive, as with these changes and the ever-reducing cost at which they are selling images I am not going to be able to re-attain the $25K threshold for 50% reimbursement.

 

5. I have taken out some Professional Indemnity insurance, which may or may not work against Alamy's contract but will make me feel a bit better.

 

I have invested 17 years and 27K images in Alamys' collection, and both I and Alamy have done well out of it. I, like many others with large longstanding collections do not want to throw that all away, but like everyone I am very concerned about legal fees being dumped on me, especially when I might have known nothing about it till it happens. 

It would be very interesting, and useful I think to many of us, to know how many times Alamy and Alamy photogs have actually been sued in the last say 10 years. I have asked this question of Alamy, but was told that they could not respond due to confidentiality issues. I am not sure how that applies to just giving us the numbers of occasions. My suspicion is it is very small numbers.

 

There are still some very good people working at Alamy, but they must recognise that explaining "intentions" of complicated legal paragraphs is simply not enough. The wording must be changed to reflect this more accurately.

 

Alamy - we await your proposed changes.

 

Kumar

 

 

Kumar,

 

I agree with what you have written 100%.

 

Chuck

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, MizBrown said:

 

It depends on whether the top brass at PA/Alamy see their better photographers as people with valuable skills, or if they see all their photographers as one rich trustee head of a NYC orchestra board saw musicians -- trained workers with some specialized skills who were quite interchangable.   Or Hollywood's term -- "the talent." 

 

 

I'm guessing the more valuable contributors and agencies can negotiate their own terms directly with PA.

[Keith Douglas]

7 hours ago, Doc said:

None of us can tell anyone else what to do, as we are in different positions. However we can all decide what we ourselves are going to do.

For me, firstly I am waiting to see what comes back from Alamy. Nothing to be lost at this point by waiting for that. Sadly, as we have seen in the recent past, when new contracts are proposed, violently objected to by us, and then made more benign, they may not then last very long. On the other hand, the partial reversal last time (retain 50% for exclusive images) was decided by the old Alamy management, and this is now PA. They may be less inclined to go back on contract decisions within a year or so which they themselves have made.

In the meantime however this is what I have been doing:

 

1. I have ticked the "for editorial use only" box in the appropriate images. In my collection of 27K photos, the vast majority have people in, so I am guessing c. 20-22K will need that doing. Like John in Vancouver I am not certain how helpful that will be, as all my images have always been marked correctly for model/property releases etc. Interestingly I asked Alamy if they could mark all my images as "for editorial use only" as I thought it would be easier to untick that box on 7K images, rather than to tick it on 20K images. Unfortunately when Alamy did this for me (very quickly) they put a red padlock on all the restrictions so I could not go through and take the  editorial restriction off the 7K or so images which didn't need it. So I asked them to take the tick off the editorial only box, and I am going through making all images editorial use only initially, and will then go through and remove it from the ones which don't need it. This will take some time.

 

2. I have removed myself from all distributors. I am very concerned that apparently distributors may not abide by our restrictions, leaving me more open to legal problems. Normally you can only withdraw in April but at the moment this appears to have been extended.

 

3. I will be going through and removing images which might possibly leave me more open to being sued/having to pay Alamys' legal charges. 

 

4. Although I have never sold any images except through Alamy, I will at some point ask them to make my collection non-exclusive, as with these changes and the ever-reducing cost at which they are selling images I am not going to be able to re-attain the $25K threshold for 50% reimbursement.

 

5. I have taken out some Professional Indemnity insurance, which may or may not work against Alamy's contract but will make me feel a bit better.

 

I have invested 17 years and 27K images in Alamys' collection, and both I and Alamy have done well out of it. I, like many others with large longstanding collections do not want to throw that all away, but like everyone I am very concerned about legal fees being dumped on me, especially when I might have known nothing about it till it happens. 

It would be very interesting, and useful I think to many of us, to know how many times Alamy and Alamy photogs have actually been sued in the last say 10 years. I have asked this question of Alamy, but was told that they could not respond due to confidentiality issues. I am not sure how that applies to just giving us the numbers of occasions. My suspicion is it is very small numbers.

 

There are still some very good people working at Alamy, but they must recognise that explaining "intentions" of complicated legal paragraphs is simply not enough. The wording must be changed to reflect this more accurately.

 

Alamy - we await your proposed changes.

 

Kumar

 

 

 

Excellent post Kumar. I agree with all of it and I am also following the steps that you have listed. I don't have as much to lose by leaving Alamy as I have fewer images than you do. For me the reduction in commission combined with ever falling licence fees will makes the decision easier though as I'm just not prepared to accept the financial risks for what is a rapidly reducing revenue.  

[John Mitchell]

I think that Kumar created a very useful roadmap for those of us who hope to stay with Alamy after putting so much time, effort, and money into this project. I'm slowly taking most of the proactive steps that he has mentioned. It's going to take quite awhile to make all the changes, even with my relatively small collection, as I have a lot of other things going on at the moment. Have to admit, though, that I feel like I'm taking stabs in the dark much of the time when ticking boxes, deleting images, etc. I'm going to wait for Alamy's promised updates before possibly removing myself from distributors, which is another move I would hate to have to make as I often get decent distro sales. I've yet to look into personal indemnity insurance, but it's on my to-do list. 

[Nathaniel Noir]

 

7 hours ago, yokochanie said:

 

2008  31 pictures sold  $3705

 

2021 (part year only)  53 pictures sold, $1521

 

 

I had a company contact me two years ago asking to use an old postcard picture of mine on Alamy for around $400. I had to sign that I owned the copyright. I declined and referred them to Alamy. The picture they said would be used for an advert campaign. They did and and around two months later it went through as been paid for around $40. I checked this with Alamy but they said it was correct. A few pictures recently went through for $3.13...multiple use and in perpetuity. Better then the one that went through at $1.18 for the same use.

 

As for the picture that went royalty free for $0.24, words fail me.

 

There has to be something wrong if a company want to pay me $400, but then get the same picture from the agency where they first saw it for just $40.

 

My point?

 

With that kind of pricing (giveaways), maybe look first at your charging policy before cutting a percentage from the people that go out there and get the pictures.

 

 

 

This is indeed very worrying. We are kept in the dark about who the clients are(unless you regularly Google your name, then you will have some information) and how can we trust that we have the right info about the fees that are being paid. Incidentally I was googling for my Alamy pictures some 3 or 4 weeks ago, I found one of my pictures on the website of a well known auction house, the sale has not come through on my account yet. Then 2 weeks ago Alamy got in touch with me to lift restriction for that image so that the client could buy it. Obviously I already knew who the client was, but I was quite taken aback by that the image was already published some weeks prior. When i googled it again the image was no longer there. I sent Alamy a screenshot and I asked if their clients are allowed to publish the images before licensing them I didn't get an answer.

 

The lack of transparency begs the question - how much is there that we do not know?

Edited May 30, 2021 by Nathaniel Noir

[Bill Brooks]

I believe Alamy are only going to rewrite some clauses so they will be clearer to photographers. I do not see where they are going to change the intent of the contract at all.

 

How many photographers have been sued? Probably very few, as that is not how it works.

 

Parties in the chain receive threats from the plaintive's lawyer. For reasonable smaller claims, a confidential financial resolution is reached between all parties. It never gets to court. It is not public. No one has been sued. However legal costs and settlement costs have been incurred.

 

For large claims everyone in the chain becomes adversaries, all with their own legal representation. Every entity in the chain for themselves.

 

If an agreement is not reached with the plaintive, then the plaintive may sue. Then it becomes public.

 

Occasionally there is a perfect storm of circumstances that can lead to a large claim regardless how careful all members of the stock photo chain have been.

 

Before 2000 most stock photographers were also commercial photographers. They used professional models which made their model releases enforceable. Commercial photographers understood about trademarks, photographing money, photographing artwork in public places, copyright. They had a good working knowledge of the legal aspects of stock photography, and knew their risks. They had their own limited companies, and also carried insurance just in case.

 

When the prices paid for stock photography fell, around 2000, professional stock photographers stopped production. They went on to other types of photography, but left their existing stock on sale because it was largely bullet proof legally.

 

New submissions from professional stock photographers fell off, so stock archives had a problem. Stock archives conducted misleading PR campaigns that placed newspaper stories about how a stay at home mom was supplementing family income by using her new digital camera to photograph her family and friends. Misleading PR campaigns about how amateur authenticity with real people, not professional slickness with actors, was the new trend.

 

New amateur stock shooters, poured in, but had no concept about the risks they were taking.

 

The "Photo AGENCY Council of America" (PACA) understood the risk, and changed their name to "Photo ARCHIVE Council of America"(PACA). Former agencies took the agency language out of their photographers contracts and became archives. If you are an agent you have a heightened responsibility to act in the best interests of the people you represent. Archives are depositories, they represent no one.

 

The new Alamy contract is an honest contract that lays out the risk that photographers have been taking all along. Everything in this contract, is standard stock industry practice, and has been so for many years.

 

Do the low returns, due to low prices and a smaller cut, justify the risks and any future production? That is the question.            
 

[M.Chapman]

23 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

The new Alamy contract is an honest contract that lays out the risk that photographers have been taking all along. Everything in this contract, is standard stock industry practice, and has been so for many years.

 

Since when have we been asked to take liability for mistakes Alamy or its distributors might make? Or have I misunderstood the new contract?

 

Mark

 

 

[geogphotos]

If he sort of thing Bill Brooks writes about is common why have we never heard about an Alamy contibutor being caught up in such events?

 

Or have we heard about it?

[MizBrown]

52 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

How many photographers have been sued? Probably very few, as that is not how it works.

 

We have no idea because if anyone threatening to sue approaches Alamy and the photographer directly, and the parties settle out of court to save those hassles, then we don't know how many of these events have happened because the parties tend to also sign non-disclosure agreements.  Alamy has refused to give any numbers on this. 

 

My guess is that the Big Issue incident, where cropping to use a face from another photo was a pretty clear violation of copyright, settled out of court, with non-disclosure agreements, which is why nobody heard one way or the other how that played out, just that it didn't play out in court.   And Alamy may have had some reason or reasons for asking all of us who'd photographed painting to mark them editorial only, and the recent "if you photograph an album cover, it must be in context -- the record playing on a turntable or being removed from the sleeve by someone."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by MizBrown

[geogphotos]

Just now, MizBrown said:

 

We have no idea because if anyone threatening to sue approaches Alamy and the photographer directly, and the parties settle out of court to save those hassles, then we don't know how many of these events have happened because the parties tend to also sign non-disclosure agreements.  Alamy has refused to give any numbers on this. 

 

My guess is that the Big Issue incident, where cropping to use a face from another photo was a pretty clear violation of copyright, settled out of court, with non-disclosure agreements, which is why nobody heard one way or the other how that played out, just that it didn't play out in court.   And Alamy may have had some reason or reasons for asking all of us who'd photographed painting to mark them editorial only, and the recent "if you photograph an album cover, it must be in context."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe so but you would think that if that was happening there would be discussion of it and that it would have a much higher profile - even if simply to justify the contract.

 

We do need this information.

[Cryptoprocta]

24 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Since when have we been asked to take liability for mistakes Alamy or its distributors might make? Or have I misunderstood the new contract?

 

Mark

 

 

They're going to redraft the contract, because these clauses are 'open to interpretation' (a facility which keeps lawyers in clover)

4.1.5. except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, be any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;

4.1.6. any use or exploitation of the Content by Alamy, a Customer or a Distributor will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, indecent, vulgar or violate publicity rights anywhere in the world.

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;

5.1 You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s rights including but not limited to any third party trademark, copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or any right of privacy or publicity; (ii) any use, exploitation or distribution of the Content by the Indemnified Parties;

 

[MizBrown]

They need to abide by their non-disclosure agreements.  Sigh.

 

 

[geogphotos]

9 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

They need to abide by their non-disclosure agreements.  Sigh.

 

 

 

Surely it is possible to highlight the issue in a general way without referring to any specifics. If stock agencies were encountering this as a frequent problem I think they would be making a lot of noise about it.

[Matthew]

12 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

It would depend on where I was sitting in the stadium.

 

This is the smart answer...

[John Mitchell]

32 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

We have no idea because if anyone threatening to sue approaches Alamy and the photographer directly, and the parties settle out of court to save those hassles, then we don't know how many of these events have happened because the parties tend to also sign non-disclosure agreements.  Alamy has refused to give any numbers on this. 

 

My guess is that the Big Issue incident, where cropping to use a face from another photo was a pretty clear violation of copyright, settled out of court, with non-disclosure agreements, which is why nobody heard one way or the other how that played out, just that it didn't play out in court.   And Alamy may have had some reason or reasons for asking all of us who'd photographed painting to mark them editorial only, and the recent "if you photograph an album cover, it must be in context -- the record playing on a turntable or being removed from the sleeve by someone."

 

 

 

Just wondering where you read the Alamy request about photographing record album covers. I don't remember seeing that anywhere.