Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[MDM]

5 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Does 'assumed intention' have any currency in Law?

The wording is that the content uploaded will not be or be deemed to be ...

Yes, it's ambiguous: it could mean that end users or even those consume the end use will not deem them to be X Y and Z, but does that clause really preclude a lawsuit?

 

Deemed by Alamy would be better but they don't examine content. It is a gigantic improvement over the May 17th version. I can't see them changing it again so if it is a deal-breaker than time to resign I guess. With my content I am not at all worried by this. 

[Cryptoprocta]

12 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Deemed by Alamy would be better but they don't examine content. It is a gigantic improvement over the May 17th version. I can't see them changing it again so if it is a deal-breaker than time to resign I guess. With my content I am not at all worried by this. 

Hahaha, "I'm a libertarian speed fiend and I deem your photo of a  'speed limit for safety reasons' sign to be offensive."

I'd hope the Man in the Clapham Omnibus might find in your favour, but who wants to be the test case?

Edited June 9, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[spacecadet]

In some ways the revisions are worse.

For example, I now appear to be liable merely for uploading images which might violate publicity rights (I'm thinking of France and Germany, where I have plenty of images of individuals which might if published in those countries) rather than being liable on publication. I hope I'm wrong- these are regular sellers.

Edited June 9, 2021 by spacecadet

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Phil Crean said:

Thanks... However I would expect that you would have to have lied deliberately in order for that to be enforced.

Phil

 

 

Ignorance of the law/rules is not a valid defence, so it may not include a "deliberate lie".

 

For example not finding out commercial distribution of image taken in a paid venue, and assuming this meant it was ok for "editorial purpose" is on the Contributor.  

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Richard Tadman said:

 

Hi MDM. I interpret 4.1.6 differently. I don't think that striking out "anywhere in the world" alters the clause significantly or at all. Being 'silent' about the geography isn't the same as explicitly stating 'within the UK' or similar. I think that Alamy could justifiably argue that not restricting the clause to a region effectively still encompasses the world. Clever drafting!

 

 

wouldn't 25.8 cover this?

 

1. This Contract will be governed by and interpreted in all respects in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and each of the parties hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

[Harry Harrison]

16 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

For example, I now appear to be liable merely for uploading images which might violate publicity rights (I'm thinking of France and Germany, where I have plenty of images of individuals which might if published in those countries) rather than being liable on publication. I hope I'm wrong- these are regular sellers.

I'd also like some clarification of that kind of situation, even a blog post might do.

[Harry Harrison]

It's a 100 pages folks. 

[meanderingemu]

22 minutes ago, Paul J said:

They seem to have forgotten to amend the commission back to the original 50% !!!!

 

 

in line with predictions they put all the other untenable clauses to back down on them when the main goal was to pass the major points

 

1. Drop commission

2. Going direct on Infringement cases without checking with contributors.  

[ChrisR Photo]

On 07/06/2021 at 13:45, wilkopix said:

Come on Alamy, you have always promoted yourselves as being fair to photographers, this new contract and royalties is definitely NOT fair on your contributors. 

 

 

A response from Corporate head office and shareholders on commission and contributor fairness  ......

 

[Richard Tadman]

25 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

wouldn't 25.8 cover this?

 

1. This Contract will be governed by and interpreted in all respects in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and each of the parties hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

No - this is purely a statement of the Applicable Law and Court jurisdiction. 

[meanderingemu]

2 minutes ago, Richard Tadman said:

No - this is purely a statement of the Applicable Law and Court jurisdiction. 

 

 

so all the terms in contract would be based on that no?  Indecent in Chicoutimi would not be a reason to hold me responsible, if the English and Welsh court don't deem it so 

[Phil Crean]

33 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Ignorance of the law/rules is not a valid defence, so it may not include a "deliberate lie".

 

For example not finding out commercial distribution of image taken in a paid venue, and assuming this meant it was ok for "editorial purpose" is on the Contributor.  

Ok so lets say I've been to a paid venue and see no conditions restricting photography but later the venue issue a claim against a usage; if I have said that there is property and I don't have a release, am I not covered?

Phil

[meanderingemu]

Just now, Phil Crean said:

Ok so lets say I've been to a paid venue and see no conditions restricting photography but later the venue issue a claim against a usage; if I have said that there is property and I don't have a release, am I not covered?

Phil

that will be to the court to decide, and it may vary per legislative environment where image taken.  But that has not changed from the current contract, we always had the responsibility to ensure we were in the right to take image for commercial purpose under all circumstances.  

 

I generally check the conditions of entry.  I think the bigger issue is Private property that people deem public.  But again this is not a change from Today's contract to the new one.  

 

 

[Phil Crean]

9 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

that will be to the court to decide, and it may vary per legislative environment where image taken.  But that has not changed from the current contract, we always had the responsibility to ensure we were in the right to take image for commercial purpose under all circumstances.  

 

I generally check the conditions of entry.  I think the bigger issue is Private property that people deem public.  But again this is not a change from Today's contract to the new one.  

 

 

However by saying there is property and no release that automatically takes it out of Commercial uses... Then it is up to the end user to verify that they can use it for whatever purpose they have in mind...

At least that is my understanding(notalawyer.com!)

Phil

[wilkopix]

40 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

in line with predictions they put all the other untenable clauses to back down on them when the main goal was to pass the major points

 

1. Drop commission

2. Going direct on Infringement cases without checking with contributors.  

 

Nope .. absolutely no incentive for anyone to stay exclusive with the drop in commission and the risk of them approaching legitimate direct clients without consulting the photographer first. We may as well farm out our photos to each and every outlet possible to try and make up the loss.

 

After eighteen years of supplying Alamy, of which 99% of my photos were exclusive to them I have no choice but to go non exclusive. It makes no difference with the commission structure now anyway.

 

I'll probably take a break from supplying Alamy. It's no longer the same company that I once trusted and felt was a safe pair of hands to sell my library images.

 

Once they have lost the trust of their suppliers it a slippery slope to the bottom I fear.

 

[ManfredG]

12 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

However by saying there is property and no release that automatically takes it out of Commercial uses... Then it is up to the end user to verify that they can use it for whatever purpose they have in mind...

 

As always, it depends on the country and its law were the photo as been taken.
You might get troubles as soon as you put the image on Alamy for sale. (For example photos taken on castle grounds in Germany)
Just do not offer photos taken on private property unless you are 100% sure about the legal situation in the specific case.

[Richard Tadman]

40 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

so all the terms in contract would be based on that no?  Indecent in Chicoutimi would not be a reason to hold me responsible, if the English and Welsh court don't deem it so 

It's not quite that simple. Basically the contract between you and Alamy (contributor and Alamy/PA) and any disputes arising would be subject to English Law, which has long established rules and precedents and a codified legal system. Put another way it governs which country's laws and regulations are used to resolve a dispute between the parties to the contract. The fact that a breach or transgression occurred in a different country doesn't invalidate the breach. It simply means that English Courts will rule on the dispute.

[ManfredG]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

In some ways the revisions are worse.

For example, I now appear to be liable merely for uploading images which might violate publicity rights (I'm thinking of France and Germany, where I have plenty of images of individuals which might if published in those countries) rather than being liable on publication. I hope I'm wrong- these are regular sellers.

I can talk only about Germany.
There are certain rules whether you may publish images with people without release. In most cases it does not matter if used "editorial" or "commercial" !! Even uploading to any website is a violation of law. This has always been so in Germany and much more now due to the GDPR in the EU.

Please inform about the laws in countries you take photos !! Otherwise you will get troubles sooner or later.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Phil Crean said:

However by saying there is property and no release that automatically takes it out of Commercial uses... Then it is up to the end user to verify that they can use it for whatever purpose they have in mind...

At least that is my understanding(notalawyer.com!)

Phil

Unfortunately Phil I am not sure that's right - there are two meanings of "commercial use" - the one we as stock photogs understand, which is advertising etc, and there is the wider use which is "for any financial gain", ie. selling the image for editorial purposes. That's my understanding anyway!

 

Best,

Kumar

[KevinS]

No trust here, awaiting closing of my account. 7.1 looks problematic, but I’m no lawyer.

[Steve F]

I've not yet done a full comparison with the original contract, but I have noted that some of the things being complained about in this thread already appeared to be in the original contract.

I will be ignoring the now discarded changes from the recent proposed contract and will be comparing the finalised version with the original contract.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Steve F

[John Morrison]

I’ve read these 100 pages, skipping posts by contributors who just say the same thing over and over again. Though I won’t be terminating my contract, my enthusiasm for stock has taken a hit. I doubt if I’ll be organising many more trips with the sole purpose of shooting stock. I’ll just upload enough pix to keep my port ‘ticking over’.

 

The transfer of the business to PA would have been a good moment to confirm that the marketing of stock imagery is a collaborative venture. We could have heard about new initiatives to promote the collection, which would enrich both Alamy and the contributors. We could have been enthused! Instead, the handover has been marked by animosity and disappointment, as contributors are left in no doubt where they stand in the ‘pecking order’…

[Phil Crean]

13 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

Though I won’t be terminating my contract, my enthusiasm for stock has taken a hit. I doubt if I’ll be organising many more trips with the sole purpose of shooting stock. I’ll just upload enough pix to keep my port ‘ticking over’.

 

The transfer of the business to PA would have been a good moment to confirm that the marketing of stock imagery is a collaborative venture. We could have heard about new initiatives to promote the collection, which would enrich both Alamy and the contributors. We could have been enthused! Instead, the handover has been marked by animosity and disappointment, as contributors are left in no doubt where they stand in the ‘pecking order’…

This is pretty much where I'm at just now, plus I may look at deleting some images and restricting others. I've already started to look at distribution and unticked those who have been persistent low $ fees.

It's a further step on the road to killing the stock industry and I'll be surprised if Alamy and the other large general agencies are still in business in 10 years time...

Phil

[Shergar]

For those of us that dont have great legal minds and have read through the msg boards but are still a little confused. Any chance Alamy could post something in laymen's terms.

Thanks 

Cheers and gone

 

Shergar.

[spacecadet]

3 hours ago, ManfredG said:

I can talk only about Germany.
There are certain rules whether you may publish images with people without release. In most cases it does not matter if used "editorial" or "commercial" !! Even uploading to any website is a violation of law. This has always been so in Germany and much more now due to the GDPR in the EU.

Please inform about the laws in countries you take photos !! Otherwise you will get troubles sooner or later.

Hitherto we had assumed that the liability was with the publisher- I have had numerous images with identifiable people taken and published in Germany. Those publishers have assumed the risk. My understanding in Germany is that right of publicity only applies if there is an expectation of privacy.

The GDPR has limited relevance as photographs are only sensitive personal data if taken for the purpose of identifying a person, which wouldn't apply to our images.

I was once challenged merely for taking a photograph in Stuttgart that I had "kein recht". I know that is not the case.