Jump to content

Contract Change 2021 - Official thread


Recommended Posts

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.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foreign Export said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

Naturally legal documents require a certain format to make them valid. I'm sure all of us have dealt with a few of these during our lifetime. 

But - if the document is made super complicated, needlessly complicated, you'll have to wonder what the intentions behind that action are. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Taina said:

Naturally legal documents require a certain format to make them valid. I'm sure all of us have dealt with a few of these during our lifetime. 

But - if the document is made super complicated, needlessly complicated, you'll have to wonder what the intentions behind that action are. 

 

Yes I agree with that point - but not your earlier one that suggested Alamy should base contracts on contributors working with images - yes the contract should be fair and yes it should be equitable 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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.

trust me it was extremely frustrating in an exercise that was meant to make it easier to understand for the people they were supposed to protect.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours 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

 

Then you're lucky. I have sold several music images and got 30% of the price because I sell mostly through distributors. Now with the new contract I will get only 20%. Funny thing is that I have mostly sold to Swedish media (where I live) and could get much more if I could sell directly to them but I have to go through Alamy since the Swedish agencies I have applied for have rejected me. They don't want hobby photographers but keep buying my images here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Homy said:

 

Then you're lucky. I have sold several music images and got 30% of the price because I sell mostly through distributors. Now with the new contract I will get only 20%. Funny thing is that I have mostly sold to Swedish media (where I live) and could get much more if I could sell directly to them but I have to go through Alamy since the Swedish agencies I have applied for have rejected me. They don't want hobby photographers but keep buying my images here.

 

 

Actually with the new contract you will now have no idea what % you get on distributor sales, as Alamy will apply the 80% commission AFTER REMOVING the Distributor cut. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Actually with the new contract you will now have no idea what % you get on distributor sales, as Alamy will apply the 80% commission AFTER REMOVING the Distributor cut. 

 

Damn, you're right. Another nail in the coffin! In the new contract it says Alamy 80% - You 20% so I thought Alamy would split the 80% between them and the distributor but it says "For Content sales via our Distributors after deduction of Distributor fee or commission". Before Alamy took 30%, the distributor 40% and I 30%. Assuming the distributor still takes 40% it means Alamy will take 48% of the original price and I get only 12%!! 18% deduction from 30% to 12% is a 60% income loss!!!

Edited by Homy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to register my displeasure and agree with pretty much everything that has been previously written by so many loyal Alamy contributors, I wont be adding any new images until after the new contract has come into place and if nothing has been changed to allay our fears with regards this new contract then my enthusiasm to continue will sadly end.

 

Please Alamy / PA do take note of everyone's concerns and try and find some compromise and clarify this liability debate !

 

All the best to all those who have taken the time to explain things and highlight the contract concerns, thank you.

 

Neil

 

Greed will be the end of us on this planet  😞

Edited by EYESITE
spelling mistake
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Homy said:

 

Damn, you're right. Another nail in the coffin! In the new contract it says Alamy 80% - You 20% so I thought Alamy would split the 80% between them and the distributor but it says "For Content sales via our Distributors after deduction of Distributor fee or commission". Before Alamy took 30%, the distributor 40% and I 30%. Assuming the distributor still takes 40% it means Alamy will take 48% of the original price and I get only 12%!! 18% deduction from 30% to 12% is a 60% income decrease!!!

"We now work with 80 distributors, and have gained around 30 distributor contracts via our merger with PA Images which are usually on a 50/50 basis. It's in Alamy's interest to work to get the best deal but in some cases the distributor will take the majority share if we feel it's the only way we can truly access that market, choice is limited and volumes are high. We have no desire not to be transparent on this but simply can't detail every single arrangement. We are keeping the opt-out available for distribution during the notice period for these changes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

"We now work with 80 distributors, and have gained around 30 distributor contracts via our merger with PA Images which are usually on a 50/50 basis. It's in Alamy's interest to work to get the best deal but in some cases the distributor will take the majority share if we feel it's the only way we can truly access that market, choice is limited and volumes are high. We have no desire not to be transparent on this but simply can't detail every single arrangement. We are keeping the opt-out available for distribution during the notice period for these changes."

 

Thanks but what do you mean by that? In my case it's on 70/30 basis and will be 88/12. At best 76/24 if I manage to earn $250.

Edited by Homy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Some have interpreted this as Alamy wanting to cull hobbyists. I think the opposite. I think they want to pressure people who have built larger collections and in the end force them down into the lowest band increment by increment.

 

I think there are a large number of people who have very tiny portfolios on Alamy who don't care one way or the other.  I suspect that Alamy does most of its business with its 600 agencies rather than with its 60,000 individual photographers.   I wouldn't be surprised if more of those 60,000 had portfolios of 600 or less than had portfolios of 4,000 or more (Alamy average from total photos and total photographers without agencies, so if the agencies account for more than half of the available photos, the average individual portfolio would be closer to 2,000 photos.

 

A lot of people imagine that the stream of photos will be endless because artists will do art anyway. 

 

Wikimedia gives its free contributors more legal advice than Alamy gives.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

 

A lot of people imagine that the stream of photos will be endless because artists will do art anyway. 

 

Wikimedia gives its free contributors more legal advice than Alamy gives.

 

 

But they don't have to upload it to Alamy. That for me is the only way I can demonstrate my discontent. 

 

Perhaps I will change my mind after 6 months but that will depend on sales increasing. I've had enough of trying to catch a falling knife.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Homy said:

 

Thanks but what do you mean by that? In my case it's on 70/30 basis and will be 88/12. At best 76/24 if I manage to earn $250.

I didn't say that, the MD of PA said that. It means that the commission going to each distributor will be different, so you can't know what percentage you'll get until you see the sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/05/2021 at 16:36, Mr Standfast said:

As I wrote in Josephs where now thread..

 

As mentioned, I was contacting Indemnity providers try to get cover.

 

So far two companies have replied. Ripe and Directline. Both have discussed 5.1 with their underwriters who have declined to cover the clause.

 

I am awaiting a third reply.

 

I have the third reply.

 

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

 

Now, here are my disclaimers:-

My comments are for information only.

This post is not a recommendation, do your own rescearch and draw your own conclusions, I am not telling you what to do.

I will receive no reward or compensation for this information.

 

Good Luck!

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

Thanks for finding out this information. Did they give an indication what the premiums would be for the cover?

I still find it frustrating that we've got to the point of looking for specialist insurance cover based on a clause in a contract.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

I have the third reply.

 

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

 

 

 

 

 

So now we need a thread about the Hiscox contract.🙃

 

 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Back on form!

 

Kind of you. I have been feeling super pis8ed off to be honest and too snappy.

 

Apologies to everybody. 

 

Not so good seeing a 20% and more cut in my income after so much work. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

I have the third reply.

 

The company is in the UK and is called Hiscox. The email I recieved says their cover is good for clause 5.1.

 

Now, here are my disclaimers:-

My comments are for information only.

This post is not a recommendation, do your own rescearch and draw your own conclusions, I am not telling you what to do.

I will receive no reward or compensation for this information.

 

Good Luck!

 

 

Out of the three you contacted - Hiscox would probably be the recognised PI (Professional Indemnity) insurance provider.

 

I have no idea what "their cover is good for clause 5.1" actually means and I won't ask you to copy the Hiscox reply but I would be very surprised, when they contacted you, if they didn't put a caveat in that the cover they provide is "subject otherwise to the terms exceptions and conditions" (I will use the acronym SOTEC) of the policy. Here are the "risks" contributors are exposed to under this clause (5.1) of the new PA/Alamy contract. 

 

"...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;

(iii) any claim against Alamy as a result of Alamy or its representatives pursuing an actual or suspected infringement of any Content; and

(iv) any breach of any your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System.

This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract."

 

 

I believe a PI policy will probably cover (i) and (iv) SOTEC, I believe (iii) may or may not be covered SOTEC but that probably depends on the contributor having done something that is in the remit of the policy; I don't believe it will cover (ii) unless the contributor has done something - (and remember clause 5.1 (ii) doesn't say because of something the contributor did) - that again is within the remit of the policy SOTEC.

 

This is not professional advice/legal advice just simply observations and it is up to each and everyone of us to weigh-up the risks that the new contract poses.

 

I wouldn't also like PA/Alamy to skim your post and think we they can get cover - I believe 5.1 (ii) is very onerous, outside PI cover as it is written, and as many have pointed out distributors and legislation within territories could be an issue. 

 

The ball is firmly in PA/Alamy's court to sort the wording out (if it really wants to retain contributors)  

 

 

 

  

Edited by Nodvandigtid
typo/SOTEC add
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.