Jump to content

Alamy's responsibility under Section 16.7


Recommended Posts

Since Alamy closed the other thread, can Alamy address the issue of their responsibility under Subsection 16.7 of the agreement.

 

Wouldn't the issuance of a notice of infringement letter by their agent qualify as "Suspicion of Infringement", and therefore Alamy would have been required as per the Agreement to "Promptly Inform" the contributor of said suspicions, regardless of the exclusivity status of the image? 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hope that Alamy would contact me first before pursuing a possible infringement.  While all my original photos on Alamy are exclusive to Alamy as a stock source, many were created from editorial assignments for one time use.  So they may appear on those publications' web sites.

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This very problem was discussed extensively on the forum.

 

Exclusive on Alamy means at the moment it is the only place it is available as stock. That's all.

 

Alamy chose not to take heed of the warnings. 

  • Thanks 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Ventura said:

I would hope that Alamy would contact me first before pursuing a possible infringement.  While all my original photos on Alamy are exclusive to Alamy as a stock source, many were created from editorial assignments for one time use.  So they may appear on those publications' web sites.

As Alamy said on the locked thread, you are additionally supposed to mark them as appearing elsewhere other that on your own website. If you do Alamy will presumably not go after them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

As Alamy said on the locked thread, you are additionally supposed to mark them as appearing elsewhere other that on your own website. If you do Alamy will presumably not go after them.

So where do you mark that it was shot as a commission for another client, and then placed on stock as is the case with a fair few images I have on Alamy, and they also say that it can be exclusive and sold from your own site.... 

There are too many variables involved and the only responsible way for Alamy to behave is to check with the photographer...

Phil

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

As Alamy said on the locked thread, you are additionally supposed to mark them as appearing elsewhere other that on your own website. If you do Alamy will presumably not go after them.

 

Is there a field in AIM to do that?

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

4 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

Is there a field in AIM to do that?

No but there's this from Steve's locked thread about notifying Alamy about sales outside the system, s2.3

s2.3 doesn't explicitly refer to commissioned images subsequently upoaded as stock, but it's clear from that post that Alamy expects you to tell it about such images, and that if you don't, and still have images marked as exclusive to Alamy, it can't guarantee that there won't be a problem such as Steve's.

s16.7 obliges Alamy to notify you if they pursue a suspected infringement, but it doesn't appear to oblige it to get your permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

As Alamy said on the locked thread, you are additionally supposed to mark them as appearing elsewhere other that on your own website. If you do Alamy will presumably not go after them.

 

but that still does not negate their obligation under this section that they need to promptly advise of potential infringement. In addition in the case in the lock thread  the sale most likely happened Before the images were made available to Alamy, therefore there could not have been any advice to be given.  They respected the rules of Exclusive, and were not sold while under "exclusive terms" (undefined). 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

but that still does not negate their obligation under this section that they need to promptly advise of potential infringement. In addition in the case in the lock thread the sale happened Before the images were made available to Alamy, therefore there could not have been any advice to be given.  They respected the rules of Exclusive, and were not sold while under "exclusive terms" (undefined). 

That's right. s2.3 is unclear and obviously insufficient. But now we know how Alamy are treating alleged infringements, contributors in Steve's or Michael's position know what they have to do- inform Alamy.

But here's an easy answer, which I didn't think of when Michael asked about an option in AIM: now there's no disadvantage in doing so, just untick the exclusive box on commissioned images.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, spacecadet said:

But here's an easy answer, which I didn't think of when Michael asked about an option in AIM: now there's no disadvantage in doing so, just untick the exclusive box on commissioned images.

And any other image you sell outside Alamy... yet more work which is not compensated by the ridiculous low fees that Alamy are getting for the licenses..

 

The simplest and most responsible way to deal with this is for Alamy to ask the photographer before they contact a suspected infringer.

 

Phil

  • Love 1
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

But here's an easy answer, which I didn't think of when Michael asked about an option in AIM: now there's no disadvantage in doing so, just untick the exclusive box on commissioned images.

 

 

But there is, as images not ticked as Exclusive do not get Infringement monitoring, by Alamy, a feature Alamy sold as a great improvement, and which costs justified the latest commission change. 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

And any other image you sell outside Alamy... yet more work which is not compensated by the ridiculous low fees that Alamy are getting for the licenses..

 

The simplest and most responsible way to deal with this is for Alamy to ask the photographer before they contact a suspected infringer.

 

Phil

 

The simplest, most responsible way, AND contractually required under 16.7 since they cannot contact without suspicions,  to deal with this is for Alamy to advise the photographer before they contact a suspected infringer.

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

This very problem was discussed extensively on the forum.

 

Exclusive on Alamy means at the moment it is the only place it is available as stock. That's all.

 

Alamy chose not to take heed of the warnings. 

 

and According to AIM, still earn 50% royalties. 🤔

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

now there's no disadvantage in doing so, just untick the exclusive box on commissioned images.

 

I disagree with this idea.  All my original photos on Alamy ARE exclusive as stock imagery.  It is just that they were created originally on assignment.  I do want Alamy to chase infringements on these, but just want them to check with me first, as they may be chasing after a client of mine.

Edited by Michael Ventura
  • Thanks 3
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

I disagree with this idea.  All my original photos on Alamy ARE exclusive as stock imagery.  It is just that they were created originally on assignment.  I do want Alamy to chase infringements on these, but just wanted to be checked with me first, as they may be chasing after a client of mine.

+1. Not all my photos were commissioned, but a substantial number were and I have also sold some(at a better licence fee than Alamy would have charged!!!), so I also do not want them upsetting my clients.

Phil

Edited by Phil Crean
Spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

+1. Not all my photos were commissioned, but a substantial number were and I have also sold some(at a better licence fee than Alamy would have charged!!!), so I also do not want them upsetting my clients.

Phil

 

 

And again, these were not sold while "on exclusive terms" so 2.3 wouldn't even apply.  In addition I have donated the use of a couple of my images to a non-profit project on a restricted basis, so again Alamy can't even claim 2.3 (and neglect 16.7) in these cases. 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I disagree with this idea.  All my original photos on Alamy ARE exclusive as stock imagery.  It is just that they were created originally on assignment.  I do want Alamy to chase infringements on these, but just wanted to be checked with me first, as they may be chasing after a client of mine.

Same here. Almost 100% of my images were exclusive to Alamy and not available elsewhere as stock imagery until the latest drop in commission. Along with that loss and the fact that Alamy wouldn't contact me first before chasing infringements left me with no alternative but to mark everything as non exclusive. With so many low ball sales now I can't see that chasing infringements is going to be worth it for Alamy for very long anyway.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

Same here. Almost 100% of my images were exclusive to Alamy and not available elsewhere as stock imagery until the latest drop in commission. Along with that loss and the fact that Alamy wouldn't contact me first before chasing infringements left me with no alternative but to mark everything as non exclusive. With so many low ball sales now I can't see that chasing infringements is going to be worth it for Alamy for very long anyway.

 

 

but was is even more glaring, is that Alamy states that chasing Infringements is a great source of revenue, but now insists on making it absolutely unworkable.

 

The current system only works for 7% on images, and now they are telling us to reduce this number. So now they only rely on push infringements from us.  And in addition, even though we were promised a new submission form that would allow us to file for images not deemed exclusive images, this has not been done yet with no updates.

 

In addition though the contract implies they would only pursue images marked as Exclusive, people have reported Infringement fees for Non exclusive images, with no Prompt notification. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Exclusive on Alamy means at the moment it is the only place it is available as stock. That's all.

 

Doesn't ticking Exclusive mean the image isn't, and never has been, available anywhere else as stock?

 

"Exclusive"
means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.


Perhaps Alamy should revise the definition to say "means any item of Content that you have only ever made available to Alamy...." so it's absolutely clear? But that narrows the scope still further.

 

Mark

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Doesn't ticking Exclusive mean the image isn't, and never has been, available anywhere else as stock?

 

"Exclusive"
means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.


Perhaps Alamy should revise the definition to say "means any item of Content that you have only ever made available to Alamy...." so it's absolutely clear? But that narrows the scope still further.

 

Mark

 

 

 

On other hand, I base my selecting Exclusive Based on where the Decision is Made on the Alamy Image Manager, as the definition is more detailed than the contract (there is no such exclusion on PD and art in the Contract). Clearly only Present tense.

 

? "This is image IS not available on any other licencing outside your personal sight.  Public Domain images or images of art work cannot be marked as Exclusive to Alamy"

 

 

Since this is the place Alamy has gone into details to explain what Exclusive means to them, i have trusted this is what they mean. 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Doesn't ticking Exclusive mean the image isn't, and never has been, available anywhere else as stock?

NO... You can sell it as stock via your own site as per alamy's definition...

 

"Exclusive"
means any item of Content that you have only made available to Alamy which is not also available via any third party licensing, sales or distribution channel, including without limitation via any other stock agency or image site, but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales.


Perhaps Alamy should revise the definition to say "means any item of Content that you have only ever made available to Alamy...." so it's absolutely clear? But that narrows the scope still further. 

Too late for this now....

 

Mark

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

NO... You can sell it as stock via your own site as per alamy's definition...

 

In which case it's essential that Alamy and/or their infringement agents check with contributors, as per clause 16.7, before pursuing.

 

Mark

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

In which case it's essential that Alamy and/or their infringement agents check with contributors, as per clause 16.7, before pursuing.

 

Mark

100% essential...

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can take charge of this by marking all your images as non-exclusive and handling infringements yourself. 

 

One very postive aspect of Alamy ( compared with others) is the general high level of accuracy of sales information and the prompt responses ti queries from Contributor Relations.  A proviso here is the long length of time for the reporting of some sales especially from distributors ( Spain!!). Contact CR and they can tell you of any downloads or sales in the pipeline. 

 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 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.