Alamy license wording "xyz" purchaser is copyright holder

[imageplotter]

What do we think of these license terms details from Alamy?

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial, Editorial Use. Rights Granted for print and digital for use with affiliates worldwide as long as they cite Moseley Road as the copyright holder and Alamy as the source of the images. Includes in context promotion.
Media: Book, print and/or e-book
Print run: up to 50,000
Insert: 1
Placement: Any - print cover & inside, electronic, online
Image Size: Any size
Start: 09 September 2023
Duration: In perpetuity

 

The image in question is RM, editorial only. Moseley Road is a publishing packager in the US (assuming they are not the denim clothes manufacturer of the same name).

I strongly object to the phrasing "as long as the cite Moseley Road as the copyright holder" - I am the copyright holder of that image.  Moseley Road have acquired a license. NOT copyright.

 

And how is the "for use with affiliates worldwide" defined?   

Nice that they insist on Alamy being mentioned as the "source" (these days, togs themselves are only mentioned as an afterthought, if there is enough space, even for large newspaper prints, but I have long since given up fighting that fight). Anyway - is the wording on that license legal?

 

The price tag they were charged for this: $15 (of which my share is...yeah...tiny)

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by imageplotter

[geogphotos]

What is the image of - are they possibly 'copyright owner' of the thing photographed?

 

I support your objections very strongly. 

[Phil Robinson]

That is staggering. The photographer IS the copyright holder.  I have seen some ridiculous licence agreements in my time but this one need explaining. Quickly. Now, in fact.

[imageplotter]

On 15/09/2023 at 21:13, geogphotos said:

What is the image of - are they possibly 'copyright owner' of the thing photographed?

 

I support your objections very strongly. 

 

No, they most definitely are not. It's a wildlife pic (non captive). I have since found another one with the same terms, also wildlife, also Moseley Road. If this a new type of license then I want a way to opt out of it. 

 

It sets a dangerous precedence, because whoever the "affiliates" are who can also use the image will have no idea who the actual copyright holder is. And by quoting Moseley Road as the copyright holder, there is then an open door for sub-licensing from them, rather than via Alamy. 

 

I'd like an explanation from Alamy for the wording.

 

 

[imageplotter]

On 15/09/2023 at 21:44, Phil Robinson said:

That is staggering. The photographer IS the copyright holder.  I have seen some ridiculous licence agreements in my time but this one need explaining. Quickly. Now, in fact.

 

Yes, I was a little surprised to see it, to put it mildly. I've seen two of these now, and if it's a new license type of sorts then I want to opt out now. My copyright ain't going nowhere.

[Alamy]

Hi All, 

 

Apologies this is an error in the wording of the license. The customer account handler has been made aware and of course the copyright remains with the contributor. 

 

Thanks,

Louise 

[Phil Robinson]

26 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi All, 

 

Apologies this is an error in the wording of the license. The customer account handler has been made aware and of course the copyright remains with the contributor. 

 

Thanks,

Louise 

Is the customer fully aware of that - especially if they negotiated that wording?

Edited September 18, 2023 by Phil Robinson

[imageplotter]

35 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi All, 

 

Apologies this is an error in the wording of the license. The customer account handler has been made aware and of course the copyright remains with the contributor. 

 

Thanks,

Louise 

 

Thank you for the response. I hope that no further licenses with this wording will be issued.

[DJ Myford]

Other reassurances that we've been given via this forum have proved to be false, so it's getting increasingly hard to believe anything we are told. This just feels like yet another reason to not send any more images to Alamy. Sorry, but it's just getting ridiculous: Licences are supposed to be legal documents that accurately set out the rights that have been purchased.

[imageplotter]

On 18/09/2023 at 13:18, Alamy said:

Hi All, 

 

Apologies this is an error in the wording of the license. The customer account handler has been made aware and of course the copyright remains with the contributor. 

 

Thanks,

Louise 

 

Dear Alamy,

 

The details in question have yet to be changed on my sales history. They currently remain unchanged, as per my original post. I have yet to see any evidence that the license has been changed, "making the customer account handler" aware is not enough, the actual license issues needs to be changed, and "of course the copyright remains with the contributor" is certainly not enough when the written license terms say otherwise.

 

BTW - the copyright remains with the PHOTOGRAPHER, not the contributor, my copyright of the two images in question is not related to being an Alamy contributor, it is my copyright regardless of that status. 

 

Please change the license so that it appears on my sales history with the correct terms ASAP.

 

Thank you.