Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've asked this question previously but didn't get an answer;

 

What determines an image that could be open to copyright issues as per the new contract,?  I mean what about travel shots with people in the street etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GaryK said:

I've asked this question previously but didn't get an answer;

 

What determines an image that could be open to copyright issues as per the new contract,?  I mean what about travel shots with people in the street etc..

It's not just copyright, after all most of us don't have any copyright on our own faces or bodies, except for some athletes and celebs.

Rights for travel shooting (people and buildings) depends from country to country, and sometimes particular regions or areas within a country.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GaryK said:

I've asked this question previously but didn't get an answer;

 

What determines an image that could be open to copyright issues as per the new contract,?  I mean what about travel shots with people in the street etc..

 

 

I posted a link to a Wikimedia summary of national laws.  Some countries like Mexico where the laws are complex, Wikimedia links to a summary of Mexican law.   If you don't know the laws of the country you're taking photographs in, don't offer them up as stock. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

It's not just copyright, after all most of us don't have any copyright on our own faces or bodies, except for some athletes and celebs.

Rights for travel shooting (people and buildings) depends from country to country, and sometimes particular regions or areas within a country.

OK, so I've got thousands of general travel shots from the UK and Italy,  aimed at he calendar market, what do I do to be safe, bin them ? what would any of you out there do ?    I know Doc has given us the benefit of his knowledge but we need guidance on where the real problem areas are,   I've been in this game for over 30 years and I'm a tad confused.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

 

I posted a link to a Wikimedia summary of national laws.  Some countries like Mexico where the laws are complex, Wikimedia links to a summary of Mexican law.   If you don't know the laws of the country you're taking photographs in, don't offer them up as stock. 

Ah, now we're getting somewhere... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GaryK said:

I've asked this question previously but didn't get an answer;

 

What determines an image that could be open to copyright issues as per the new contract,?  I mean what about travel shots with people in the street etc..

 

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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

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.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Homy
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
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.