Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nodvandigtid said:

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

+1

 

Mark

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

 

 

 

I have used Hiscox in the past for liability and also for accidental damage/theft and found them good to deal with. Gear was covered even if stolen from a parked vehicle as long as it was out of sight. I can't say how watertight there liability insurance is in particular with regards Alamy contract but the prices seemed reasonable to me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Would any possible future claim be against the individual ?   or the company that has supplied the photograph ?

 

If it was against the company, would that be a safer way to proceed ?  

 

Some people here may be trading thru their own limited company ?

 

🤔

 

I'm tired and struggling to think straight by the way.

Edited by AlbertSnapper
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

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.

 

Yes, I know you quoted Alamy but wasn't sure what you were aiming at. Yes, true about the different distributors but my numbers are based on the Swedish distributors whom I mainly sell to. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This thread has become like the "Blind men looking at, feeling, an elephant."  I do think that it would be in Alamy and PA's best interests to provide an update to the issue at hand.  There are also, in my opinion, many who are contributing comments to this thread who do not understand the

photo agency / library business.

 

OK, I was more than a bit Blunt and I apologize to those offended.  What I should have written was some, small number, of those contributing comments to this thread do not understand the Photo Agency / Library business.

 

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Nacke
clarification
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours 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.

 

 

But you do not know this (except if you have a copy of Alamy's agreement with this specific distributor).

 Alamy has been using a standard 40% charge to us for distributor's portion of commission, Regardless of what their agreement with the distributor was. We have no idea what each individual agreement was in first place.  I wonder if there is a line in their results that shows if this was a fair average, a money maker or a loss leader?

 

 

As of July 1, Alamy is changing the rules, and from now on the distributor's specific commission will be charged back to us, and I have been speculating, since this is what Alamy has forced us to do with their silence, will possibly not be transparent- we will only be revealed what Alamy got, ie Net of Distributor's cut, as this is the way the contract now reads.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jools Elliott said:

I think what we DO understand about the agency business is that time and time again we are getting screwed over.

 

 

How many times did @Alamy say the commission wouldn't be dropped etc? And yet here we are again! And no response from them either which speaks volumes. They go on and on about how fair they are to photographers but their words are now meaningless and full of cr@p.

 

They are no better than any other agency out there.

100% agree.

 

Still waiting to hear if they are going to change anything in the new contract to make it fairer to it's contributors.

 

Their decision to cut the commission yet again seems very short sighted. As a supplier it will only lead to poorer and cheaper content produced quickly with the need to distribute it through several agencies to make it financially viable.

If you read through Alamy's 'wants' list a lot of that can't be photographed on the hoof. It all comes at a quite a cost to the photographer. The 40-20% commission makes it impossible to recoup enough to warrant the effort and certainly not exclusively.

It's such a shame that Alamy have decided to take away any incentive to be exclusive to them. I worry that they will just become a dumping ground for images that aren't good enough for other agencies.

 

I really hope Alamy are listening as a lot of long term contributors with quite large collections are going to have to go elsewhere and place their images with other agencies. I'm sure many of us don't want to but by Alamy cutting our income by at least 20% it is rather forcing our hand.

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

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

Thanks Cliff; Sounds promising....

 

Kumar

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

Thanks Cliff, some light at the end of that tunnel . 

Edited by Shergar
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 


I await the redrafting of the contract, sensibility rules (hopefully).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

thanks.   

 

note to people who speculate this would delay implementation,  sadly there is a way around it by going ahead with the proposed contract  and issuing amendments to it effective in 45 days, retro to July 1st .

 

in fact you don't have to really make retroactive,  assuming the change is more "generous " because Alamy would not really worry about someone suing them to uphold a more punitive clause. 

 

 

in fact my experience for things that are technically less worse for clients not upholding the notice period is not an uncommon practice.  For example my direct brokerage just changed commission schedule by eliminating it on ETF with 0 notice period, I'm not going to sue them to charge me more. 

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

 

Seriously? -  Really? - surely not

Let's wait and see what they come up with in their re-draft - that will reveal all.

  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jools Elliott said:

I think what we DO understand about the agency business is that time and time again we are getting screwed over.

 

 

How many times did @Alamy say the commission wouldn't be dropped etc? And yet here we are again! And no response from them either which speaks volumes. They go on and on about how fair they are to photographers but their words are now meaningless and full of cr@p.

 

They are no better than any other agency out there.

Jools, I agree with your observations, and your opinion. Your post speaks for a lot of us I'm sure.

 

I've been with Alamy since 2006, overall, its been a reasonably good ride. Sure there have been some contract changes and reductions in licensing and commission rates, but then I have seen the same with other agencies that I deal with. I had only been with Alamy for about 12 to 18 months when I became very aware that they are, a law unto themselves!

However, they have consistently sold my pictures and paid me on time, every time. They have answered my questions and corrected some of my cock ups. Because of this, they have always had my trust and respect.

 

I agree, the fact that they have not engaged in this discussion speaks volumes. I regret to say that following this latest contract change, my trust and respect has diminished somewhat.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm so...

 

 

 

staggering- surely we aren't meant to believe this 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Cliff.

 

As surmised 60 odd pages ago, the contract was signed off without understanding it. 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got confirmation that my termination is in progress. So glad to be leaving. What a company!

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Hide said:

 

I have received a helpful reply from Emily Shelley to my letter regarding  the proposed clause 5.1 (the one causing me the most concern).  As promised I've posted it below (emphasis is mine) . 

 

This reply may have crossed with the official announcement, but I wanted to let you know that we have taken feedback on board about the clause you mention and will be redrafting it back to its original form. The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm sorry for the concern this has caused.

 

 

 

I hope they are having a redraft of Clause 4.1.6.  where the contributor warrants that:

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.

 

This one appears to have been forgotten in the concern about 5.1. Reading it literally it is asking the contributor to warrant something that nobody could possibly warrant. I have had the attitude that they cannot possibly mean it,  that somebody has made a mistake (there is a typo - indecent occurs twice) and that it will be corrected. While it may not be intended, in its current form It would be extremely alarming if left in.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Foreign Export said:

The legal view here was that this cleared up wording rather than materially altered the meaning but that's not how it has been interpreted and we would of course not pass on liability to contributors for something that was our fault. I'm so...

 

 

 

staggering- surely we aren't meant to believe this 

 

I know. The contract literally* said that we'd be on the hook for legal costs arising from the mistakes of others.

 

* That's "literally" in the literal sense, not the figurative sense.

  • Upvote 4
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.