Contract Change 2021 - Official thread

[Foreign Export]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Honestly, thinking  about it, I can't come up with anything more than the new MD wanting to demonstrate her ability to achieve something that the former CEO failed to do. 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

very often this is what lies behind the changes a business makes 

[Joseph Clemson]

3 hours ago, Shergar said:

I know I have posted this before and its from 1998 (I think) but it was very useful  then and something like it now would be very helpful now.

 

 

If you're licensing your images as RF then we recommend you do tick the 'sell for editorial only box' but as you are licensing the images as RM then you don’t necessarily need to have these restrictions.

This will however open up the option to customers to purchase commercial licenses but as long as you have annotated the images correctly by saying they contain unreleased people and/or property then customers are notified with the following; “If you want to use the image commercially, you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand”. This puts the onus on them to ensure that should they wish to use an image commercially, they will need to seek releases themselves.

We've written a blog that might help: http://bit.ly/2UdRb75

 

I then further queried why RM and RF images were treated differently as far as the editorial only tick box is concerned. The reply was thus...

 

With RM, the customer has to declare details of the use before a license is issued i.e. what the use is, what size they need, how long the image will be used for etc. With RF the customer simply has to pick a size they want, and they can use that however, wherever and whenever.

 

Both license types can be used for editorial or commercial, but RF is often more associated with commercial as they are usually released images, and the customer doesn’t have to declare all the details of the use. This is why we have always advised that images that contain unreleased people and property should be RM, as this reduces the risk of the image being used commercially. When we introduced RF-Editorial, you could have annotated the unreleased images as RM or RF-Ed.

 

So long as you have annotated that the image contains people/property, and that there are no releases, the onus will be on the customer to clear the image for commercial use if that was what they wanted to use it for.

 

We don’t want to encourage or discourage you from restricting your images, but as I mentioned above, the most important thing is that they are annotated correctly. We have found that customers sometimes get scared off by restricted images, which is why we have sent emails to contributors with restricted images, as there may be restrictions that have been added unnecessarily.

 

In summary, just make sure that your images are correctly annotated, and if they are unreleased, they should be RM or RF-Ed

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/13135-editorial-box-should-it-be-checked/?do=findComment&comment=252441

 

The passage you quote is actually much more recent than 1998. I originally posted the above replies which I had received in December 2018 from CR. I was corresponding with them on the diference between RM and RF and use of the Editorial Only box in 2019. On the basis of those replies I then felt comfortable with all my images as RM with just a few with the Editorial only box ticked.

 

Now, having had full light shone upon the Contract, existing and revised, I feel much less easy of mind about it all and am still undecided what to do. I do know that I can't carry on as before and change must come. It would be nice to think that the position outlined to me by Alamy as recently as late 2018 afforded contributors the protection I once thought it did, but it appears not. I think the burden of risk is too great for the individual contributor to bear and it seems taht, even with all its strength and power,  PA media are unable or unwilling to bear it either. Shame.

[Steve F]

Okay, I had to compare 7th May 2021 changes with original contract and then amendments to the 7th May 2021 contract... New contract clauses in red below, original contract clauses in blue.

 

I note that a major sticking point was the "obscene, indecent and vulgar worldwide" clause. Well, this new clause:

 

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;

 

looks very similar to the clause in the original contract:

 

4.5. You hold all permissions needed for the exploitation by third parties of the rights, including, without limitation, from subjects or owners of products or property depicted in the Images and/or original clients for whom the Images may have been created. Any exercise by Alamy of the rights shall not violate the rights of any third party (including, without limitation, the rights of the subject of the Images), in particular with regard to laws relating to trade mark, copyright, indecency and obscenity, privacy, publicity and defamation within the UK, USA or elsewhere.

 

It looks to me that there is no change here then. I also think some common sense has to apply here. Certain types of images will be illegal in the UK for example and in many other countries and I think we know what these are. For other pictures such as nudes, which may be deemed obscene/vulgar in some parts of the world, I can't see how anyone would risk any consequences from taking and uploading these pictures in any country where it is legal to do so. The same also applies to you uploading legal photos in your country and the end user using them in a country where they are not legal - I do not believe that you would be legally liable. Caveat - anyone photographing in countries with tighter legal restrictions on what types of pictures you can take should be aware of these restrictions.

 

 

 

The other major sticking point was on indemnifying Alamy. Original contract clause:

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract.

 

I believe warranties here would refer to the accuracy of captions and accuracy of the contents of your model and property releases.

 

New clause is:

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) 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.

 

The reference to third party copyright in new clause 5.1 (above) is covered in original contract clause 4.5 (above). As other's have noted previously, as long as you accurately caption your pictures and don't take pictures of copyright material, you should be fine. Again, there is no material change in the contract.

 

With reference to third party copyright, and recent Forum threads that I've seen, I think many contributors need to be more aware of uploading pictures containing e.g. single album covers or book covers with no context shown around them, as well as artwork etc. I would assume that this would normally be a breach of copyright (just because a lot of people are doing it on the web, doesn't mean it's alright).

 

It seems the 'indemnify against...' clause has always been in the contract and is very broad in its definition. I don't agree with that at all. That seems to read to me that we should e.g. pay Alamy's legal costs if they are sued, frivolously or otherwise, regarding one of our images. I'm getting very sketchy with my knowledge here, but I'm not sure that this enforceable under English law (Alamy being registered in England) if you yourself are not actually at fault:

 

An indemnity is a promise, usually made in a contract, to pay money on the happening of a specified event. Indemnities protect one party from a contract from suffering financial loss in relation to certain eventualities – usually those that would arise from the conduct of the other contracting party, or over which the other contracting party has control.

 

Indemnifications that require a party to indemnify another party for any claim irrespective of fault ('broad form' or 'no fault' indemnities) generally have been found to violate public policy.

 

So I think English common law would take over, rendering the indemnity clause invalid...?

 

If you've e.g. breached copyright with a picture and Alamy need to pay some costs because of this, then ok, they could probably in theory try to recoup these costs from you. If Alamy have to defend a breach of copyright which hasn't actually occurred, I don't see how they can go after you for recouping their costs defending themselves unless this contract clause really is enforceable under English law. Any law experts out there care to comment?

 

 

 

Another problem clause was related to Alamy not being limited to licensing images. New clause:

 

4.1.5. subject always to clause 4.1.10, except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;

 

4.1.10 refers to restrictions that you have put on licensing your images, so your restrictions always take precedence over Alamy's ability to license your images. Original contract clause was:

 

4.4. You hold the rights to... ... there is not and will not during the term of this contract be any limitation or restriction on Alamy licensing each Image to a Customer to the fullest extent possible.

 

Again, there is essentially no change to the contract here, just a rewording.

 

 

 

A contract clause I don't agree with (and that I don't think would be enforceable under English law) is:

 

4.1.9. where you have indicated that a Release is available, you must immediately make the Release available to Alamy if so requested;

 

This should say within a 'reasonable time period' and then define what reasonable is, e.g. 3 working days.

 

 

 

Final major problem was (Forum question and Alamy response below):

 

If you chase infringements on my behalf for exclusive images, won’t this stop me selling directly myself?

 

No, that’s not the case. The same rules apply as before when marking images as exclusive – you can still sell your images directly and at the same time mark images as exclusive to Alamy. Our infringements chasing will not affect that and when identifying a potential infringement, we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue.

 

This doesn't affect me, but I think if I was licensing my images directly as well, I would want some more reassurance that my clients wouldn't get bombarded with multiple contact from the infringements team. Would the infringements team would keep track of who they contact and how often? Alamy won't want to annoy their own customers too much so I assume (🙃) there would be some sort of discretion used.

 

 

Stephen

 

p.s. I'm not a lawyer and stand to be corrected!

 

p.p.s. mountain and molehill come to mind. I don't think there's anything to worry about here that's new, I'm more concerned about the pay cut!!

 

p.p.p.s bed time!

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Steve F

[Cryptoprocta]

59 minutes ago, Steve F said:

A contract clause I don't agree with (and that I don't think would be enforceable under English law) is:

4.1.9. where you have indicated that a Release is available, you must immediately make the Release available to Alamy if so requested;

This should say within a 'reasonable time period' and then define what reasonable is, e.g. 3 working days.

 

Doesn't affect me, but they should surely require the releases to be uploaded with the photos (but enforcing that retrospectively would be a logistical nightmare).

What if the release holder was on holiday (even if they took all their releases with them on their laptop, they could be in a place without wi-fi, as I often am) or in hospital, or deceased? (Maybe in the latter case, the clause would be unenforceable)

 

That's a clause to mitigate against OldAlamy's historic incompetence and lack of forethought/imagination.

 

It's almost as unreasonable as the relict clause 4.4 You  will ensure that all Metadata including, without limitation, any and all other information pertaining to the Content: (i) is and will remain accurate and factually correct.

Hey, PA, how much would you pay per correctly-identified wrongly-tagged file? I can identify many thousands on one particular two-word search alone!

Edited June 10, 2021 by Cryptoprocta

[Steve F]

3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Doesn't affect me, but they should surely require the releases to be uploaded with the photos (but enforcing that retropsectively would be a logistical nightmare).

What if the release holder was on holiday (even if they took all their releases with them on their laptop, they could be in a place without wi-fi, as I often am) or in hospital, or deceased? (Maybe in the latter case, the clause would be unenforceable)

 

That's a clause to mitigate against OldAlamy's historic incompetence and lack of forethought/imagination.

 

It's almost as unreasonable as the relict clause 4.4 You  will ensure that all Metadata including, without limitation, any and all other information pertaining to the Content: (i) is and will remain accurate and factually correct.

Hey, PA, how much would you pay per correctly-identified wrongly-tagged file? I can identify many thousands on one particular two-word search alone!

 

Yes, it did occur to me that it was unreasonable of Alamy to expect you to provide releases when you're on holiday somewhere, considering they don't allow you to upload them anymore. But my post is too long already! Perhaps 'within a reasonable time' would be better, or 'as soon as possible, subject to circumstances'.

 

I think the removal of the facility to upload releases is just because of the EU data protection laws, so outside of Alamy's control.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Steve F

[Cryptoprocta]

28 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Yes, it did occur to me that it was unreasonable of Alamy to expect you to provide releases when you're on holiday somewhere, considering they don't allow you to upload them anymore. But my post is too long already! Perhaps 'within a reasonable time' would be better, or 'as soon as possible, subject to circumstances'.

 

I think the removal of the facility to upload releases is just because of the EU data protection laws, so outside of Alamy's control.

Hmmm, other agencies located outwith the EU require images to be uploaded with the files, so moving forward, that would be worth them considering. The thing is that buyers might require to be assured that the releases exist and are legally sound, so can't wait a week, a month or ... though what will happen is just that they'll move on and choose a file from 'wherever' which has a release immediately or readily available.

[Ollie]

4.1.12 requires us to warrant 

"there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;"

Tell me please how we can warrant that no other person will not do something, might launch a legal action that, no matter how unfounded, might require an expensive legal response.

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Steve F said:

Okay, I had to compare 7th May 2021 changes with original contract and then amendments to the 7th May 2021 contract... New contract clauses in red below, original contract clauses in blue.

 

I note that a major sticking point was the "obscene, indecent and vulgar worldwide" clause. Well, this new clause:

 

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;

 

looks very similar to the clause in the original contract:

 

4.5. You hold all permissions needed for the exploitation by third parties of the rights, including, without limitation, from subjects or owners of products or property depicted in the Images and/or original clients for whom the Images may have been created. Any exercise by Alamy of the rights shall not violate the rights of any third party (including, without limitation, the rights of the subject of the Images), in particular with regard to laws relating to trade mark, copyright, indecency and obscenity, privacy, publicity and defamation within the UK, USA or elsewhere.

 

It looks to me that there is no change here then. I also think some common sense has to apply here. Certain types of images will be illegal in the UK for example and in many other countries and I think we know what these are. For other pictures such as nudes, which may be deemed obscene/vulgar in some parts of the world, I can't see how anyone would risk any consequences from taking and uploading these pictures in any country where it is legal to do so. The same also applies to you uploading legal photos in your country and the end user using them in a country where they are not legal - I do not believe that you would be legally liable. Caveat - anyone photographing in countries with tighter legal restrictions on what types of pictures you can take should be aware of these restrictions.

 

 

 

The other major sticking point was on indemnifying Alamy. Original contract clause:

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its sub-licensees and assigns harmless against any prejudice, damage, liability or costs (including reasonable lawyers' fees) which any of the indemnified parties incur arising from or in respect of any claim that there has been a breach of your representations, obligations and warranties in this contract. This paragraph will remain in force after the termination of this contract.

 

I believe warranties here would refer to the accuracy of captions and accuracy of the contents of your model and property releases.

 

New clause is:

 

5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) 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.

 

The reference to third party copyright in new clause 5.1 (above) is covered in original contract clause 4.5 (above). As other's have noted previously, as long as you accurately caption your pictures and don't take pictures of copyright material, you should be fine. Again, there is no material change in the contract.

 

With reference to third party copyright, and recent Forum threads that I've seen, I think many contributors need to be more aware of uploading pictures containing e.g. single album covers or book covers with no context shown around them, as well as artwork etc. I would assume that this would normally be a breach of copyright (just because a lot of people are doing it on the web, doesn't mean it's alright).

 

It seems the 'indemnify against...' clause has always been in the contract and is very broad in its definition. I don't agree with that at all. That seems to read to me that we should e.g. pay Alamy's legal costs if they are sued, frivolously or otherwise, regarding one of our images. I'm getting very sketchy with my knowledge here, but I'm not sure that this enforceable under English law (Alamy being registered in England) if you yourself are not actually at fault:

 

An indemnity is a promise, usually made in a contract, to pay money on the happening of a specified event. Indemnities protect one party from a contract from suffering financial loss in relation to certain eventualities – usually those that would arise from the conduct of the other contracting party, or over which the other contracting party has control.

 

Indemnifications that require a party to indemnify another party for any claim irrespective of fault ('broad form' or 'no fault' indemnities) generally have been found to violate public policy.

 

So I think English common law would take over, rendering the indemnity clause invalid...?

 

If you've e.g. breached copyright with a picture and Alamy need to pay some costs because of this, then ok, they could probably in theory try to recoup these costs from you. If Alamy have to defend a breach of copyright which hasn't actually occurred, I don't see how they can go after you for recouping their costs defending themselves unless this contract clause really is enforceable under English law. Any law experts out there care to comment?

 

 

 

Another problem clause was related to Alamy not being limited to licensing images. New clause:

 

4.1.5. subject always to clause 4.1.10, except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted in relation to the Content, there is not and will not be during the term of this Contract, any limitation or restriction on Alamy’s ability to license the Content;

 

4.1.10 refers to restrictions that you have put on licensing your images, so your restrictions always take precedence over Alamy's ability to license your images. Original contract clause was:

 

4.4. You hold the rights to... ... there is not and will not during the term of this contract be any limitation or restriction on Alamy licensing each Image to a Customer to the fullest extent possible.

 

Again, there is essentially no change to the contract here, just a rewording.

 

 

 

A contract clause I don't agree with (and that I don't think would be enforceable under English law) is:

 

4.1.9. where you have indicated that a Release is available, you must immediately make the Release available to Alamy if so requested;

 

This should say within a 'reasonable time period' and then define what reasonable is, e.g. 3 working days.

 

 

 

Final major problem was (Forum question and Alamy response below):

 

If you chase infringements on my behalf for exclusive images, won’t this stop me selling directly myself?

 

No, that’s not the case. The same rules apply as before when marking images as exclusive – you can still sell your images directly and at the same time mark images as exclusive to Alamy. Our infringements chasing will not affect that and when identifying a potential infringement, we will always ask the user first whether or not they hold an existing licence before we pursue.

 

This doesn't affect me, but I think if I was licensing my images directly as well, I would want some more reassurance that my clients wouldn't get bombarded with multiple contact from the infringements team. Would the infringements team would keep track of who they contact and how often? Alamy won't want to annoy their own customers too much so I assume (🙃) there would be some sort of discretion used.

 

 

Stephen

 

p.s. I'm not a lawyer and stand to be corrected!

 

p.p.s. mountain and molehill come to mind. I don't think there's anything to worry about here that's new, I'm more concerned about the pay cut!!

 

p.p.p.s bed time!

 

 

 

My brain cells are rebelling at this point, so thanks very much for posting this comparison.

 

Time to do some overdue housecleaning by the sounds of it...

 

Too bad risky images can't be deleted instantly. 🙁

[M.Chapman]

6 hours ago, Ollie said:

4.1.12 requires us to warrant 

"there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;"

Tell me please how we can warrant that no other person will not do something, might launch a legal action that, no matter how unfounded, might require an expensive legal response.

Yes that's still a ridculous clause.

 

I've been comparing clause 7.1 which in the current contract says this.

 

7 Alamy's Obligations

7.1 Alamy agrees to use its reasonable endeavours to grant licences as you have requested. However if Alamy (or one of itsDistributors) sells an Image outside the terms specified by you it shall not be liable for any loss.

 

I had previously (possibly incorrectly) interpreted this to mean that if Alamy licenced an image incorrectly that they wouldn't be liable for any loss in licence revenue that I might receive. (e.g. if an RM image was licenced as RF I would loose revenue from further uses by same customer). Possibly a "rose tinted spectacles" interpretation, but I felt more positively about Alamy at the time.

 

In the new contract, it's been reworded.

 

7.1. Alamy agrees to use its reasonable commercial endeavours to grant Licences inaccordance with your instructions. Alamy will not be liable if it (or a Distributor) sells or otherwisemakes available an item of Content outside the instructions specified by you

 

Which, given all the other changes in the contract, "feels" different and could now be interpreted as Alamy attempting to absolve itself from liability to the costs of defending any 3rd party action, even if Alamy or its distributor has incorrectly licenced an image. If so, that's unacceptable.

 

After 100 pages of forum posts I'm extremely disappointed that only minor revisions have been made to the contract and many other issues (e.g. freedom to chase potential infringers without consultation) haven't been addressed. I didn't expect the commission rates to change, but I did expect more changes to contract clauses.

 

Mark

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by M.Chapman

[Colblimp]

7 hours ago, Steve F said:

It looks to me that there is no change here then.

 

That's because there is no change.  What Alamy/PA have done is made noises about changing the contract, thinking we've 'idiot' tattooed across our foreheads, and have actually simply reworded it.  Deceit, plain and simple.

[griangraf]

At this stage I'm growing more and more confused. Where can we see the full contract that is currently valid and will be replaced by the new one? I can only find the payment terms.

[Steve F]

7 minutes ago, griangraf said:

At this stage I'm growing more and more confused. Where can we see the full contract that is currently valid and will be replaced by the new one? I can only find the payment terms.

 

Key changes:

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.aspx

 

7th May 2021 contract is here:

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx

 

It seems the original contract is no longer able to be viewed and I didn't download it - I don't understand why Alamy would have uploaded a contract as the 'official contract', that's not actually come into force yet and that they're changing, but there you go. But you can compare the key changes with the original contract using the link at the top.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Steve F

[Steve F]

5 hours ago, Ollie said:

4.1.12 requires us to warrant 

"there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;"

Tell me please how we can warrant that no other person will not do something, might launch a legal action that, no matter how unfounded, might require an expensive legal response.

 

+1

[MDM]

18 minutes ago, griangraf said:

At this stage I'm growing more and more confused. Where can we see the full contract that is currently valid and will be replaced by the new one? I can only find the payment terms.

2019 contract

 

I just searched Alamy contract 2019 on Google

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I'm inclined to believe you. In Clause 4.1.15 we warrant that: the Content complies with the privacy and property laws of the country in which it was taken, e.g. in certain countries before taking a photo of someone you are required by law to ask the subject’s permission. 

 

I think this would override anything if a publisher was legally challenged in Germany. I don't think is specifically about the GDPR in English law as photos are not considered as data in themselves. This is about privacy laws in specific countries. If Alamy gets egg on its face in Germany (and they have an office there as well as a contract in German for buyers) then it may ultimately come back to the contributor. I assume that German publishers would be well aware of the legalities but how easy is it for something too slip through the net. There are similar laws in Spain and other European countries.

 

Ultimately it comes down to the question: is it worth the hassle for the money involved taking a chance with anything?

I am sure Manfred G knows whereof he speaks  but I'll repeat that I have licences of images with identifiable people taken in public in Germany, and come to think of it, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and France as well. Despite what is sometimes said AFAICS none of those countries requires permission for images taken in public.

If marked as unreleased I am not in breach of warranty AFAICS. Since these images license in the countries in which they were taken I blithely assume that the publishers know their trade. If they don't, I have done nothing wrong. I agree that proving it could be bothersome but there we are.

Two AFAICS is probably two too many but hey.

[spacecadet]

6 hours ago, Ollie said:

4.1.12 requires us to warrant 

"there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;"

Tell me please how we can warrant that no other person will not do something, might launch a legal action that, no matter how unfounded, might require an expensive legal response.

That's simply untenable. They might as well have a clause warranting that fairies exist.

[Allan Bell]

OK!  I have been quiet till now as I have been reading, rereading and reading again the latest contract changes.

 

As far as I can see there has not been a change in meaning between the old/new contract and the new/new contract.

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison]

Thanks to Ollie for picking up on clause 4.1.12 of the new May 17th contract and retained in the latest version, and others for commenting on it. It does not seem to be present in the 2019 contract.

 

"there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;"

 

Is this in fact so untenable that it couldn't be invoked? Why is there at all?

 

I think I'm right in saying that none of us picked up on this before Alamy agreed to address concerns about the May 17th contract expressed in this forum, in which case it slipped though the net. 

 

I think it would be reasonable therefore for Alamy/PA to explain to us why it's there.

[MDM]

 

I

15 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks to Ollie for picking up on clause 4.1.12 of the new May 17th contract and retained in the latest version, and others for commenting on it. It does not seem to be present in the 2019 contract.

 

"there are not and will not be any claims by any other party in connection with the use, reproduction or exploitation of the Content;"

 

Is this in fact so untenable that it couldn't be invoked? Why is there at all?

 

I think I'm right in saying that none of us picked up on this before Alamy agreed to address concerns about the May 17th contract expressed in this forum, in which case it slipped though the net. 

 

I think it would be reasonable therefore for Alamy/PA to explain to us why it's there.

 

I noticed it before but am not concerned as this is a standard type of clause relating to copyright primarily (I think) and it is certainly present in the 2019 version - most likely in earlier versions as well. Again people not reading previous contracts and panicking now. You have already signed up to this.

 

2019 contract

4.9. There are and will be no claims by any other party in connection with the use or reproduction of any of the Image

[BobD]

Clause 5 was my main concern, that has now been resolved to my satisfaction. I am prepared to take liability for my own actions if I lie or misrepresent something.

I will be removing a few images that could be a problem ( isolated statues, i.e out of context with their surroundings).

 

As I don't believe I have anything indecent, offensive or profane, the new contract doesn't affect me. 

[MDM]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I am sure Manfred G knows whereof he speaks  but I'll repeat that I have licences of images with identifiable people taken in public in Germany, and come to think of it, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and France as well. Despite what is sometimes said AFAICS none of those countries requires permission for images taken in public.

If marked as unreleased I am not in breach of warranty AFAICS. Since these images license in the countries in which they were taken I blithely assume that the publishers know their trade. If they don't, I have done nothing wrong. I agree that proving it could be bothersome but there we are.

Two AFAICS is probably two too many but hey.

 

I am not going to get into this one as it would require an awful lot of research but I am pretty sure it applies in Spain to pictures taken in public. It is the sort of thing that most people don't think about and nothing ever happens but that does not mean that it couldn't. 

[meanderingemu]

18 hours ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

My first take on this is that if you mark everything correctly, you're off the hook. So I'm taking the conservative approach. I've marked my entire port as "editorial only" and I've marked everything as containing property, with no release. I'm deleting all pictures off art, sculpture, trademarked items that are not in "context" (part of a much larger scene). I've also marked everything non-exclusive and will decide what other agencies are appropriate for some images that don't sell at microstock prices.

 

 

I also find it troubling that Alamy still Literally says this is OPTIONAL to provide.  In light with the liability they are passing to us, this appears to be a break in trust that they are setting business partners for trouble,  To me this is like a car rental company writing Optional on the seat belt of the car they are leasing, and especially considering fact probably a significant number of contributors do not have English as their first language, and probably make the now apparent wrong assumption Alamy is a partner. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by meanderingemu

[MDM]

11 minutes ago, BobD said:

Clause 5 was my main concern, that has now been resolved to my satisfaction. I am prepared to take liability for my own actions if I lie or misrepresent something.

I will be removing a few images that could be a problem ( isolated statues, i.e out of context with their surroundings).

 

As I don't believe I have anything indecent, offensive or profane, the new contract doesn't affect me. 

 

I am going to do something I very rarely do bit I am going to agree with Bob here.  The modifications to Clause 5.1 are the most important changes by far.

 

The only other one that would worry me is Clause 7.1 as mentioned by Mark above which absolves Alamy of blame if an image is licensed on terms that break a contributor restriction (e.g. an editorial only image licensed for advertising). But I think that clause might well qualify as unreasonable if they do not take reasonable care - what is the definition of  reasonable I wonder. 

[Steve F]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

what is the definition of  reasonable I wonder. 

 

That's what lawyers charge big bucks for answering (obfuscating)

[Cryptoprocta]

58 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I am going to do something I very rarely do bit I am going to agree with Bob here.  The modifications to Clause 5.1 are the most important changes by far.

 

The only other one that would worry me is Clause 7.1 as mentioned by Mark above which absolves Alamy of blame if an image is licensed on terms that break a contributor restriction (e.g. an editorial only image licensed for advertising). But I think that clause might well qualify as unreasonable if they do not take reasonable care - what is the definition of  reasonable I wonder. 

Probably (IANAL, and I know diddly squat about English Law) reasonable care is that the files on the selling page are marked as being for editorial only, and/or as not having releases.

I do think it's possible that I could be losing sales to tourist companies by marking any even munutely risky images as editorial only (e.g. city scenes), but it has to be.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Cryptoprocta