Contributor contracts - changes

[Lastrega]

I am bewildered. Alamy have had to explain the contract - so change the contract to explicitly match the explanation. 

That they are prepared to see contributors leave, rather than amend the wording in the contract is worrying as it's obviously more important to Alamy to keep the duff wording that keep the contribs.

 

Surely if you mean a specific thing, you should say that in the actual contract and not watch the contribs. leave?  

 

Or is it nose-spite-face? 

[Paul Thompson Images]

Whilst I understand there are concerns about the contract - there are two reasons why I won't be leaving Alamy:

 

a. They have sent me money every month since September 2003.

 

b.  I just don't have enough time to write all the necessary posts on the forum:

"I'm leaving"

"No, I'm definitely leaving"

"well, this is the last post I'm making"

"Just thought I'd also say....."

"I've won awards you know"

"Yep, this is me gone"

"Another couple of weeks and I'll be gone"

"I'm serious about this"

"After Easter that'll be it"

"I might create another account"

"Can I still be here if I'm gone?"

"I used to be decisive but I'm not so sure now"  

[spacecadet]

I am bewildered. Alamy have had to explain the contract - so change the contract to explicitly match the explanation. 

That they are prepared to see contributors leave, rather than amend the wording in the contract is worrying as it's obviously more important to Alamy to keep the duff wording that keep the contribs.

 

Surely if you mean a specific thing, you should say that in the actual contract and not watch the contribs. leave?  

 

Or is it nose-spite-face? 

It's quite possible that the leavers are incorrect in their interpretation.

[Bill Brooks]

I know of 3 stock photo libraries that regularly take infringers to court in the USA on behalf of their photographers, and win. 

 

In fact I receive regular monthly payments for images that have been detected by Picscout. The stock photo library does all the work on my behalf, I just cash the cheques. Some payments are from court settlements, and some from out of court settlements.

 

I also receive the occasional payment for European and Canadian infringements.

 

The last time I checked, I had 41 images in either collection or litigation by that stock library.

 

The contract has to be written so that photographers give the stock library the right to act on their behalf.

 

That is probably why Alamy changed your contract.

 

If you do not run your own collection agency, I think the new Alamy contract is a good thing.

[Johnnie5]

Jeff it appears that the court decided that copyright resides with the content creator unless rights are formally transferred by contract.  It seems the court decided that you as the copyright holder have the exclusive right to pursue infringements.  Clauses in contracts are regularly thrown out by courts without negating the rest of the contract.  That may be the case here with Alamy.  I think a US copyright attorney would have better insight into this.  I could see a situation where Alamy gets an infringement settlement from an entity and a photographer would still be perfectly within his rights do the same.  Leaving liability with Alamy for improperly making an infringement settlement because they are not the copyright holder.  That really opens up a can of worms.  I am not a Lawyer.    

[Martin P Wilson]

Surely you can make anyone your agent at any point. How would lawyers and others operate otherwise? Being someone's agent has specific legal meaning which I suspect is why most library contracts make the point very clearly that they are not the contributor's agent. Hence without a separate agreement (possibly limited but in the same contract) that is probably why they could not act to pursue infringements on the copyright holders behalf.

[Phil Crean]

Power of attorney?

[M.Chapman]

But I shall stay. Not because I agree with the contract. Not because I think it's fair, or open or in some cases, as being in my interests. I stay because I've put - I dunno - hundreds and hundreds of evening hours hunched over a keyboard tapping and tapping .. and I simply cannot turn my back on that lost time. 

 

Richard.

 

I feel the same, I'm unlikely to leave because of the changes to the contract.

 

However, what I'm very likely to do is to take my best images away from Alamy and place them elsewhere where I have more control over the pricing and licence terms.

 

I'll be very disappointed if Alamy don't further amend the legal contract so it clearly matches their stated intentions (which seem perfectly reasonable). Who's running Alamy? The lawyers?

 

Mark

[John Mitchell]

 

I am bewildered. Alamy have had to explain the contract - so change the contract to explicitly match the explanation. 

That they are prepared to see contributors leave, rather than amend the wording in the contract is worrying as it's obviously more important to Alamy to keep the duff wording that keep the contribs.

 

Surely if you mean a specific thing, you should say that in the actual contract and not watch the contribs. leave?  

 

Or is it nose-spite-face? 

It's quite possible that the leavers are incorrect in their interpretation.

 

 

Let's face it, the only people who understand contracts are the lawyers who create them, and even that's questionable.

 

I've got a new batch of images ready to upload. Hope they pass QC. I wouldn't want to have to give up Alamy for Lent.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

But I shall stay. Not because I agree with the contract. Not because I think it's fair, or open or in some cases, as being in my interests. I stay because I've put - I dunno - hundreds and hundreds of evening hours hunched over a keyboard tapping and tapping .. and I simply cannot turn my back on that lost time. 

 

Richard.

 

I feel the same, I'm unlikely to leave because of the changes to the contract.

 

However, what I'm very likely to do is to take my best images away from Alamy and place them elsewhere where I have more control over the pricing and licence terms.

 

I'll be very disappointed if Alamy don't further amend the legal contract so it clearly matches their stated intentions (which seem perfectly reasonable). Who's running Alamy? The lawyers?

 

Mark

 

 

Well they told me that they were not planning to make any changes. So it is accept it or leave.

[Shergar]

Its a "gotcha" take it or leave it contract. 

 

We need rules and laws to prevent ending up with a contract that has no resemblance to the original being changed with nothing we can do about it apart from leave . 

 

I won't be holding my breath.

[dustydingo]

Its a "gotcha" take it or leave it contract. 

 

We need rules and laws to prevent ending up with a contract that has no resemblance to the original being changed with nothing we can do about it apart from leave . 

 

I won't be holding my breath.

 

The "take it or leave it" aspect of this contract is not what everyone is complaining about . . . well, it certainy shouldn't be: after all, a contract is an agreement between parties--no agreement, no contract (another way of saying take it or leave it). I don't think I have ever seen, let alone entered into, a contract that wasn't "take it or leave it". Every time I click "I Accept" on my way to using and/or installing software underlines this particular (and might I suggest "universal") quirk of contracts . . .

 

So to legislate for some change to that basic fact . . . ?? . . . what else would you like legislated for "us" to be able to do (other than not accept) when a contract is presented that "we" don't like?

 

This of course has nothing to do with the fact that no one has to be happy about it, or believe that the contract is above criticism or ridicule or praise or contempt, or that it shouldn't be trumpeted as the absolutely worst/best thing since sliced bread, but making laws to allow "us" to . . . to what? Decide what the changes should be? I really don't think so, and neither do I think the legal and commercial worlds think so either. Refuse to accept the changes? Well, we can do that now, without any new laws giving us that right.

 

In the case of Alamy's contract changes, the contract demands that those changes must be communicated to us, but that in no way changes Alamy's right to make those changes--they can change it to whatever they like, as often as they like, in the knowledge that no one, repeat no one, is forced to accept it. To rail against this aspect of the contract is surely diluting and drawing attention away from the real concerns of many almost all here, i.e. some of the actual conditions contained in the wording of the contract.

 

Back on the specific topic, not being a lawyer, I'm not commenting on any of those actual conditions of the contract, but so far I'm accepting them and still contributing.

 

dd

[Lastrega]

 

I am bewildered. Alamy have had to explain the contract - so change the contract to explicitly match the explanation. 

That they are prepared to see contributors leave, rather than amend the wording in the contract is worrying as it's obviously more important to Alamy to keep the duff wording that keep the contribs.

 

Surely if you mean a specific thing, you should say that in the actual contract and not watch the contribs. leave?  

 

Or is it nose-spite-face? 

It's quite possible that the leavers are incorrect in their interpretation.

 

 

 

Yes it is possible, I'm not making any public judgement on who is right, just that if there is an intended interpretation, then that should be clear.  I'm not commenting on whether the interpretation is correct, just that if it is woolly enough for such varied interpretation and Alamy have actually written a response to the open letter from EPUK explaining the new terms, then why not just match that explanation in the contract without ambiguity (or as near as can be)? 

 

I'd just like things to be spelt out exactly as they will be and then folk can take it or leave it, you shouldn't have to follow open letter threads on a different site to have the contract terms explained. 

 

If my other half said to me 'Could you stop buying shoes?' Would I go ask his mother what he means by that, whether he's serious, does he mean 'do I actually have the willpower to stop' or does he mean 'Will you please stop, you are bankrupting me'. Couldn't he just sit down and tell me, rather than leaving a post-it note on his mother's fridge that says 'of course you can buy new shoes, but I 'm going to donate your existing ones to the deserving, less well-shod'.

 

Sorry to make light of it, but it really does bewilder me. For what it's worth, I'll be staying anyway. 

[Shergar]

 

It's a "gotcha" take it or leave it contract. 

 

We need rules and laws to prevent ending up with a contract that has no resemblance to the original being changed with nothing we can do about it apart from leave . 

 

I won't be holding my breath.

 

The "take it or leave it" aspect of this contract is not what everyone is complaining about . . . well, it certainy shouldn't be: after all, a contract is an agreement between parties--no agreement, no contract (another way of saying take it or leave it). I don't think I have ever seen, let alone entered into, a contract that wasn't "take it or leave it". Every time I click "I Accept" on my way to using and/or installing software underlines this particular (and might I suggest "universal") quirk of contracts . . .

 

So to legislate for some change to that basic fact . . . ?? . . . what else would you like legislated for "us" to be able to do (other than not accept) when a contract is presented that "we" don't like?

 

This of course has nothing to do with the fact that no one has to be happy about it, or believe that the contract is above criticism or ridicule or praise or contempt, or that it shouldn't be trumpeted as the absolutely worst/best thing since sliced bread, but making laws to allow "us" to . . . to what? Decide what the changes should be? I really don't think so, and neither do I think the legal and commercial worlds think so either. Refuse to accept the changes? Well, we can do that now, without any new laws giving us that right.

 

In the case of Alamy's contract changes, the contract demands that those changes must be communicated to us, but that in no way changes Alamy's right to make those changes--they can change it to whatever they like, as often as they like, in the knowledge that no one, repeat no one, is forced to accept it. To rail against this aspect of the contract is surely diluting and drawing attention away from the real concerns of many almost all here, i.e. some of the actual conditions contained in the wording of the contract.

 

Back on the specific topic, not being a lawyer, I'm not commenting on any of those actual conditions of the contract, but so far I'm accepting them and still contributing.

 

 

I can see how you would think this stupid when you choose to quote "take it or leave it" only , that by its self would be pretty silly. But thats not what I said is it. I said it's a "gotcha take it or leave it contract" in other words you have spent many hours editing, uploading, key-wording, investing time and money because you read a contract that you once liked only later to find that either you  had to accept a new one that you didn't like or waste all that time and money and leave.