Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Cryptoprocta]

5 minutes ago, GaryK said:

I don't agree , the content of a specific image is exactly what this thread is about and how the new contract could affect legal issues with certain subject matter.  

 

Not so much.

We've always been responsible for what we submit as stock images.

What the new contract seems to do is to 'hold harmless' everyone else but us for the end use, over which we have no control. It's the rewrite of these parts of the contract that we're all anxiously waiting for.

[MizBrown]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

I think people have been slow to reply to your original question because it leads off at a tangent to the main topic of the thread. Really, it needs a topic of its own. It.s also worth saying there is no easy answer.

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

 

It's not that complicated.  Don't imagine you can make money from vacation photos taken on the street without knowing the relevant laws in the country or region or state where you're photographing.   Google if you can't bookmark those two sites. 

[meanderingemu]

9 minutes ago, GaryK said:

I don't agree , the content of a specific image is exactly what this thread is about and how the new contract could affect legal issues with certain subject matter.  

 

nothing has changed with the new contract, so if your image was fine today, it is still fine July 1.

[GaryK]

17 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

 

It's not that complicated.  Don't imagine you can make money from vacation photos taken on the street without knowing the relevant laws in the country or region or state where you're photographing.   Google if you can't bookmark those two sites. 

In a photographic career of over thirty years I have sold , and continue to sell travel images on a regular basis for the calendar and magazine market.  

[MizBrown]

Just now, GaryK said:

In a photographic career of over thirty years I have sold , and continue to sell travel images on a regular basis for the calendar and magazine market.  

 

Editorial usage.  Generally okay.  One thing is that the internet has only become close to ubiquitous in the last five to ten years.   Some of the security from legal actions that photographers have had is security by obscurity.   Or that people are flattered by being photographed and don't care about the photo being in print. 

[CarloBo]

Great now we're not even sure what this thread is about.

Not even native English speakers fully understand the new contract.

Time for Alamy to step in and shed some light ?

 

Lol at red arrow, didn't know this was primary school.

Edited May 31, 2021 by CarloBo
Clarification

[MDM]

44 minutes ago, CarloBo said:

Great now we're not even sure what this thread is about.

Not even native English speakers fully understand the new contract.

Time for Alamy to step in and shed some light ?

 

Lol at red arrow, didn't know this was primary school.

 

One would probably need a degree in law, specialising in global media law, to fully understand the contract and its implications. 

[KevinS]

Just sent in my request to have my account here closed. Good luck to you all in making your own decision!

[Homy]

On 30/05/2021 at 21:09, Nathaniel Noir said:

 

 

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?

 

Unfortunately this happens often and Alamy is fine with it. This and the new contract is so discouraging and makes it harder each time to trust Alamy. I'm in the exact same situation and haven't got a satisfying answer yet. My image was published three months before the license date and Alamy just says "We can’t backdate licence’s, therefore you may sometimes see that there is a licence but the date is a little later than the use".

 

It really shouldn’t be my concern as contributor/photographer how they manage the licenses and whether they can backdate them or not. My only concern is when my image has been published and used. That’s the date when the the license begins. If they can’t backdate that’s really Alamy's problem and something they should have fixed a long time ago.

 

That's not the only problem. The image license ended on March 1 2021, but in my opinion it already ended on Dec 2 2020 because it was published on that date 5 years ago. Now Alamy says the reason it is still in use is because the customer has archival rights but no such rights are included in the license. I have other images that have either ”archival rights for lifetime” or ”duration in perpetuity” clearly included in their licenses because the customers have chosen and paid for such licenses. To change the license afterwards to include such rights without paying for it is a violation of the license and the contracts between me the photographer, Alamy and the distributor. I have objected against this and I'm waiting for an answer.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Homy

[Russell Watkins]

32 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

One would probably need a degree in law, specialising in global media law, to fully understand the contract and its implications. 

 

This. Which is one of the reasons why we're still waiting and PA/Alamy are scrabbling around for a reasonable response.

[BobD]

3 minutes ago, Homy said:

 

Unfortunately this happens often and Alamy is fine with it. This and the new contract is so discouraging and makes it harder each time to trust Alamy. I'm in the exact same situation and haven't got a satisfying answer yet. My image was published three months before the license date and Alamy just says "We can’t backdate licence’s, therefore you may sometimes see that there is a licence but the date is a little later than the use".

 

It really shouldn’t be my concern as contributor/photographer how they mange the licenses and whether they can backdate them or not. My only concern is when my image has been published and used. That’s the date when the the license begins. If they can’t backdate that’s really Alamy's problem and something they should have fixed a long time ago.

 

That's not the only problem. The image license ended on March 1 2021, but in my opinion it already ended on Dec 2 2020 because it was published on that date 5 years ago. Now Alamy says the reason it is still in use is because the customer has archival rights but no such rights are included in the license. I have other images that have either ”archival rights for lifetime” or ”duration in perpetuity” clearly included in their licenses because the customers have chosen and paid for such licenses. To change the license afterwards to include such rights without paying for it is a violation of the license and the contracts between me the photographer, Alamy and the distributor. I have objected against this and I'm waiting for an answer.

 

The licence doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but we are still expected to have liability.

[Homy]

3 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

The licence doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, but we are still expected to have liability.

 

Indeed! Not logical at all as Spock would say.

[John Mitchell]

59 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

One would probably need a degree in law, specialising in global media law, to fully understand the contract and its implications. 

 

... or brain damage. 😕

[Keith Douglas]

1 hour ago, CarloBo said:

Great now we're not even sure what this thread is about.

Not even native English speakers fully understand the new contract.

Time for Alamy to step in and shed some light ?

 

Lol at red arrow, didn't know this was primary school.

I think we do understand very well what the new contract is about. I hope that nobody has been taken in by Alamy's statement that they need to clarify some of the clauses so that we can all understand what they intend? What it needs is the offending clauses removing and/or rewriting in a way that is fair to contributors.

[Keith Douglas]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

One would probably need a degree in law, specialising in global media law, to fully understand the contract and its implications. 

Yes, to understand all its implications in every territory of the world that would be true. But there's been enough considered analysis on here for anyone to be able to join the dots and see what the changes to the Contract are, and what their possible effects are on contributors. As they say, you could ask half a dozen global media law specialists for their view of the implications and get seven different answers. The only way that the revised Contract will be tested is with real live cases, and, having understood the possible implications, I don't want to be involved in one of those test cases.

[Martin P Wilson]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

One would probably need a degree in law, specialising in global media law, to fully understand the contract and its implications. 

 

I don't think that even that would be enough to talk in general terms. Lawyers will only really express and opinion, uswually with caveats, on specific cases. Even then it is only an opinion until it has been tested in court, often through several levels of the courts. The onlpoy decision that really counts is the highest court in the land, Supreme Court in UK, USA and equivalents elsewhere.

[DawnOne]

On 20/05/2021 at 05:57, BobD said:

You should remove your images first, wait 6 months for them to be taken down fully and then close your account. that way if any sell in the meantime you will still get what's due, otherwise any that sell Alamy will keep all the commission.

Seriously? Well, too late now, but they have just committed the ultimate insult and sold one of my photos for $4.70 (at 50%) which is the lowest price yet in 5 years. I wrote to Alamy- Hello! I have a question. How did you manage to sell one of my photos (of the band Rush) for the princely sum of $4.70, of which you take half? This only solidifies my decision to quit Alamy as being the correct one. This will be the last photo you sell for me, and it is something to remember you by. But seriously, I don't believe it's listed anywhere on my page (see attachments) that the price is that low, and to add insult to injury, they have it for 5 years and archival rights in perpetuity??? WTF??? What a deal- for them. 

Linda Dawn Hammond

[DawnOne]

10 minutes ago, DawnOne said:

Seriously? Well, too late now, but they have just committed the ultimate insult and sold one of my photos for $4.70 (at 50%) which is the lowest price yet in 5 years. I wrote to Alamy- Hello! I have a question. How did you manage to sell one of my photos (of the band Rush) for the princely sum of $4.70, of which you take half? This only solidifies my decision to quit Alamy as being the correct one. This will be the last photo you sell for me, and it is something to remember you by. But seriously, I don't believe it's listed anywhere on my page (see attachments) that the price is that low, and to add insult to injury, they have it for 5 years and archival rights in perpetuity??? WTF??? What a deal- for them. 

Linda Dawn Hammond

How does one delete all the photos and also obtain the meta data? Supposedly they make the latter available but it seems it might only be the last 500 uploaded. 

[Thyrsis]

1 hour ago, DawnOne said:

How does one delete all the photos and also obtain the meta data? Supposedly they make the latter available but it seems it might only be the last 500 uploaded. 

Go to Image Manager

’If you would like a copy of all file names and related image metadata,
then you can request a spreadsheet by clicking the button below.’

[Taina]

17 hours ago, MDM said:

 

One would probably need a degree in law, specialising in global media law, to fully understand the contract and its implications. 

 

True. I wonder why the contract is written in such heavy legalese? Alamy should bear in mind that their contributors work with images, not within law, and many don't even speak English as their native language.  

[Foreign Export]

1 hour ago, Taina said:

 

True. I wonder why the contract is written in such heavy legalese? Alamy should bear in mind that their contributors work with images, not within law, and many don't even speak English as their native language.  

 

contracts by their very nature contain legal terms and language - they can be simplified somewhat but there is a limit as to how far this can be taken. Without any "legal" terms the contract in itself would be worthless

 

Im sure that Alamy could provide a copy in other languages - and indeed doing so is quite common practice these days

 

 

 

 

[Radim]

Isn't the purpose of regulations to be as complicated as possible?

Who makes the rules? Lawyers. And who will benefit from these confusing regulations?
It's clear to you now.

[meanderingemu]

21 minutes ago, Radim said:

Isn't the purpose of regulations to be as complicated as possible?

Who makes the rules? Lawyers. And who will benefit from these confusing regulations?
It's clear to you now.

it goes beyond that.  Court and jurisprudence has also developed around this legal framework.  I have worked on contracts with lawyers and legislators  and many would have loved to change the presentation, but in the end the goal is for it to withstand challenge.   

In fact 30 years ago attempts I was involved to simplify Pension Plan text to plain language were rejected not be lawyers but by the review from the legislators (non lawyers), because they were used to interpret texts in the legalised form and couldn't change their mind frame even though their goal was to protect plan members who were the one asking for simpler language.     

[Cryptoprocta]

7 hours ago, DawnOne said:

Alamy- Hello! I have a question. How did you manage to sell one of my photos (of the band Rush) for the princely sum of $4.70, of which you take half?

Is that really the lowest you've had in five years? Lucky you!!!

The answer is that the price depends totally on the price the buyer can negotiate, which probably connects to the number of images they commit to buying in a timeframe.

So any unique photo we might have can sell for the same price as a photo of the most common subjects. Indeed, IIRC there was a very large value sale a few years back literally of someone's lawn outside their door.

[Cryptoprocta]

40 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

it goes beyond that.  Court and jurisprudence has also developed around this legal framework.  I have worked on contracts with lawyers and legislators  and many would have loved to change the presentation, but in the end the goal is for it to withstand challenge.       

Which is odd, as to the layperson, the aim seems to be to make it as ambiguous as possible so that lawyers can spend hours, weeks or months debating the intricacies and inferences ad nauseum, at the expense of the rest of us.