Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

An improvement on clarity, but still:

"4.1.6. the Content uploaded to the System will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar or violate publicity rights; "

How can we control what any other person will 'deem to be' any of these things?

Presumably an anti-vaxxer would deem images of anything to do with covid vaccination offensive, for example.

 

As long as we are objective in our descriptions, I think we are covered for stuff like this as it will be down to how it is used. That is the big difference in the revision in my opinion. If we caption a picture as idiot who does not believe in vaccination or who thinks Covid-19 is a conspiracy then that might be dodgy I guess as it could be deemed insulting even if the person deserves it. Leave that to the publisher. Obscene would worry me if I did glamour or nude.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sb photos said:


Very true. I’m thinking specifically of deemed to be insulting or offensive. Sometimes half the placards at a demonstration could be deemed such by people with opposing views and is very subjective. All I do is record what is happening. This is potentially censorship of news and what in reality happens. 

 

Again I don't believe that is what Alamy intend here. Just be objective and leave the subjectivity to the publisher. As news it will be editorial only in any case.

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

An improvement on clarity, but still:

"4.1.6. the Content uploaded to the System will not be, or be deemed to be indecent, obscene, defamatory, insulting, racist, offensive, vulgar or violate publicity rights; "

How can we control what any other person will 'deem to be' any of these things?

Presumably an anti-vaxxer would deem images of anything to do with covid vaccination offensive, for example.

The clause 4.1.6. IS too relative and vague. Who uploads? Who decides if the content is indecent, obscene, etc? Who is responsible?

Using passive tense just blurs this clause. 

I guess one should use common sense, but even common sense is out of the window these days... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MDM said:

<snip>

 

I think the wording could be even more explicit though. Deemed racist, for example, could be interpreted as uploading a picture of someone who is behaving in a racist manner rather than what is really intended (in my opinion) which is that the uploaded material is not fundamentally racist including captions so we don't condone racism in the caption. Vulgar, indecent, insulting and obscene are very subjective and a big stretch in the 21st Century. 


i couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MDM said:

 

Again I don't believe that is what Alamy intend here. Just be objective and leave the subjectivity to the publisher. As news it will be editorial only in any case.

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Taina said:

I guess one should use common sense, but even common sense is out of the window these days... 

 

We can never second-guess what The Man in the Clapham Omnibus might think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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

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 by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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  ......

 

Kick Ass GIF by memecandy

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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