Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

Not that I doubt the EPUK story but we only have a partial story. From what I read there was a hint of dissembling in what the infringer said to the Alamy salesman. The wool may have been pulled over his eyes somewhat.

QED. The photographer did indeed tell half the story.

 

 

From the details provided, it would be fair to say that they did act correctly in the end (Alamy).

 

What would be useful is when they receive a request for a retrospective licence for an image that was not sourced from Alamy originally, they should contact the photographer first to make sure it is okay to proceed. There can't be many of these instances and an email to a photographer asking whether they were in the process of legal proceedings or whether they were happy for Alamy to proceed would be a good option.

Edited by Duncan_Andison
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read Alamy's response to the EPUK letter and must say I'm still not happy with the revised contract, in spite of their reassurances.

In particular I'd like the following clause 4.2.1 to be amended so that it more clearly reflects Alamy's stated intentions.
 

Where Alamy has Licensed an image to one of its Customers or if an Image has been sourced directly or indirectly from the Alamy System and or if the image is solely available via the Alamy System and the systems of its Distributors, You agree that you will not contact the Customer or user of the Image for any reason pertaining to this sale or the use of the Image. This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced from Alamy.


To my mind the legal wording of the contract does not match Alamy's reassurance.
 

We are most definitely not saying that photographers cannot chase any infringements.


Please can Alamy consider rewording this clause to remove the term "indirectly" or to clarify what it means? Does "indirectly" mean sourced from an Alamy distributor, or does it include copying of in image from another publication (e.g. newspaper)? Alternatively, please consider rewording the last sentence to This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced directly from Alamy or their distributors.

The use of "and or" in the first sentence of the clause also strikes me as problematic. Surely that should just say "and"?

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.You can't collect damages if you did not have the image registered BEFORE the infringement.

 

L

 

Linda, please remember that most of the world doesn't have copyright registration.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am curious how Alamy can pursue infringements when they don't even know if a photo has a registered copyright...

L

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand why Alamy can't pursue infringements regardless of whether the creator registered copyright in the US or not. Copyright exists, independent of any attempts to monetise its existence . . . no?

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am curious how Alamy can pursue infringements when they don't even know if a photo has a registered copyright...

L

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand why Alamy can't pursue infringements regardless of whether the creator registered copyright in the US or not. Copyright exists, independent of any attempts to monetise its existence . . . no?

 

dd

 

Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am curious how Alamy can pursue infringements when they don't even know if a photo has a registered copyright...

L

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand why Alamy can't pursue infringements regardless of whether the creator registered copyright in the US or not. Copyright exists, independent of any attempts to monetise its existence . . . no?

 

dd

 

Yes.

 

 

Phew, that's a relief !! :-)

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I am curious how Alamy can pursue infringements when they don't even know if a photo has a registered copyright...

L

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand why Alamy can't pursue infringements regardless of whether the creator registered copyright in the US or not. Copyright exists, independent of any attempts to monetise its existence . . . no?

 

dd

 

Yes.

 

 

Phew, that's a relief !! :-)

 

dd

 

The difference is without registration you cannot pursue punitive damages, in the US only. As a result recovery services like Image Rights may not be interested in pursuing the case. In the UK punitive damages are not part of the process. Indeed for small claims some legal representation and other costs are often not recoverable in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I am curious how Alamy can pursue infringements when they don't even know if a photo has a registered copyright...

L

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand why Alamy can't pursue infringements regardless of whether the creator registered copyright in the US or not. Copyright exists, independent of any attempts to monetise its existence . . . no?

 

dd

 

Yes.

 

 

Phew, that's a relief !! :-)

 

dd

 

The Berne Convention doesn't permit copyright to be conditional on any formalities- it must be automatic. The US didn't join until 1989 because it wasn't- registration and a copyright notice were required there hitherto.

The UK signed the original treaty in 1886 and Australia  in 1928.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I am curious how Alamy can pursue infringements when they don't even know if a photo has a registered copyright...

L

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand why Alamy can't pursue infringements regardless of whether the creator registered copyright in the US or not. Copyright exists, independent of any attempts to monetise its existence . . . no?

 

dd

 

Yes.

 

 

Phew, that's a relief !! :-)

 

dd

 

The difference is without registration you cannot pursue punitive damages, in the US only. As a result recovery services like Image Rights may not be interested in pursuing the case. In the UK punitive damages are not part of the process. Indeed for small claims some legal representation and other costs are often not recoverable in the UK.

 

 

I truly do understand this whole "punitive damages" shindig, and understand that for some that's the main game . . . but I was commenting on the comment that seems to imply infringements cannot be pursued sans copyright registration . . .

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read Alamy's response to the EPUK letter and must say I'm still not happy with the revised contract, in spite of their reassurances.

 

In particular I'd like the following clause 4.2.1 to be amended so that it more clearly reflects Alamy's stated intentions.

 

Where Alamy has Licensed an image to one of its Customers or if an Image has been sourced directly or indirectly from the Alamy System and or if the image is solely available via the Alamy System and the systems of its Distributors, You agree that you will not contact the Customer or user of the Image for any reason pertaining to this sale or the use of the Image. This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced from Alamy.

To my mind the legal wording of the contract does not match Alamy's reassurance.

 

We are most definitely not saying that photographers cannot chase any infringements.

Please can Alamy consider rewording this clause to remove the term "indirectly" or to clarify what it means? Does "indirectly" mean sourced from an Alamy distributor, or does it include copying of in image from another publication (e.g. newspaper)? Alternatively, please consider rewording the last sentence to This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced directly from Alamy or their distributors.

 

The use of "and or" in the first sentence of the clause also strikes me as problematic. Surely that should just say "and"?

 

As was mentioned previously here or elsewhere, the contract is the thing that will be argued in court. An email or forum post saying "this is what we meant" will not cut it so the contract needs to be changed to reflect that.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

, the contract is the thing that will be argued in court.

Not if Alamy chooses not to argue it. Assuming epuk's assertion is correct. Alamy says not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

, the contract is the thing that will be argued in court.

Not if Alamy chooses not to argue it. Assuming epuk's assertion is correct. Alamy says not.

 

 

Exactly. It's not black & white watertight :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

.You can't collect damages if you did not have the image registered BEFORE the infringement.

 

L

 

Linda, please remember that most of the world doesn't have copyright registration.

 

It doesn't matter if the rest of the world doesn't have copyright registrations. But having pursued over 700 cases,having the copyright certificate does bring them to the table quicker to settle and show that you are dead serious about protecting the rights of your work. I've even collected thousands from China!

 

It would make no difference to an English court. I'm sure I don't have to repeat that copyright is automatic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've read Alamy's response to the EPUK letter and must say I'm still not happy with the revised contract, in spite of their reassurances.

 

In particular I'd like the following clause 4.2.1 to be amended so that it more clearly reflects Alamy's stated intentions.

 

Where Alamy has Licensed an image to one of its Customers or if an Image has been sourced directly or indirectly from the Alamy System and or if the image is solely available via the Alamy System and the systems of its Distributors, You agree that you will not contact the Customer or user of the Image for any reason pertaining to this sale or the use of the Image. This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced from Alamy.

To my mind the legal wording of the contract does not match Alamy's reassurance.

 

We are most definitely not saying that photographers cannot chase any infringements.

Please can Alamy consider rewording this clause to remove the term "indirectly" or to clarify what it means? Does "indirectly" mean sourced from an Alamy distributor, or does it include copying of in image from another publication (e.g. newspaper)? Alternatively, please consider rewording the last sentence to This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced directly from Alamy or their distributors.

 

The use of "and or" in the first sentence of the clause also strikes me as problematic. Surely that should just say "and"?

 

As was mentioned previously here or elsewhere, the contract is the thing that will be argued in court. An email or forum post saying "this is what we meant" will not cut it so the contract needs to be changed to reflect that.

 

 

+1 Absolutely - that's why I'd like to see the contract changed.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked as Contract Administrator for a large Telecommunications Company.  Their policy was to keep the contracts loosely worded so that interpretation was always in their favor.  If you didn't like the contract you didn't have to play.  I can see the same principle being used here.  I also see some institutionalized incompetance being applied on Alamy's part as far as tracking downloads and following up on customer usage.  The other explanation would be extremely poor management overall.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

A friend of mine has a computer manufactory (or how do you call this in English)

 

 

Philippe

 

If he assembles computers, we'd say workshop. If he made them by the thousand that would be a factory.

'Manufactory' was used at the beginning of the Industrial revolution but it soon became just 'factory' but we still use 'manufacture' to mean 'make in a factory'.

English is great, n'est-ce pas?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied and pasted across from the locked thread, which I startd because this one had gone on a bit of tangent.

 

It always seems that Alamy changes its contracts whilst I am away. I am not sure if that is good or bad...

 

This clause:

(Now clause 4.12) Where Alamy has Licensed an image to one of its Customers or if an Image has been sourced directly or indirectly from the Alamy System and or if the image is solely available via the Alamy System and the systems of its Distributors, You agree that you will not contact the Customer or user of the Image for any reason pertaining to this sale or the use of the Image. This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced from Alamy.

 

Also alluded to by Bob C on the EPUK reply to the the contract. If Alamy's customer is also my customer - which could well be the case... there are some overlaps... then how do they know I didn;t supply the image direct?

 

16.4 If a Customer is declared bankrupt or goes into liquidation owing Alamy any money, we will write off the debt. If we subsequently receive any money from the official trustee or liquidator we will donate any such amount to charity if the amount recovered means it is not cost effective to pay out the funds we receive.

 

I dont mind giving to charity, and I do, but I would rather do it on my own recognicence to the charities I choose when I can afford it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the charity was Alamy's own Fischer Family Trust. Not sure if the directors take a salary from that non-profit making org.

 

http://www.alamy.com/about-alamy/our-story.asp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clicking on the link in the original post returns a 'page not found message'. I also can't find anything in the Alamy Blog/For Contributors/Announcements section.

 

Does this mean that the Contract Changes are being rewritten?

 

If so please could Alamy confirm that?  

 

Michael

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
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
×
×
  • 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.