Changes to the Contributor contract

[losdemas]

After a very quick scan of this, main changes appear to be clarifying that Contributors have full responsibility for what and where they photograph; default automatic opt-in to Alamy collecting DACS (or other) monies on your behalf; a (minor?) change to RM definitions (to include whatever terms Alamy decide to place in the calculator).

 

What have I missed?

 

Any thoughts or comments on the changes?

[spacecadet]

I've already opted out of DACS collecting. But it may catch out a few.

[Chris Burrows]

I can only remember being invited to opt-in previously which I declined.  Not sure if this counts as an opt-out so have emailed member service to definately opt-out.

 

Chris

[Matt Ashmore]

I think this one is interesting:

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

So this touches on the subject of a number of previous threads around taking pictures at the likes of NT properties, Network Rail properties, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon...

[vpics]

Alamy - Can we please have our DACS status (preferably differentiated between TV rights and others) in the Additional Revenue Options. Many thanks.

[Matt Ashmore]

What changes?

 

Check your email...

 

Or there's a summry here:

 

http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp?utm_campaign=408018_Contract%20change%20June%202016&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy%20Contributors%20&dm_i=2SWW,8QTU,12IGLU,SUJV,1#150616

[vpics]

What changes?

 

Mine was in my spam folder. 

[Joseph Clemson]

I think this one is interesting:

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

So this touches on the subject of a number of previous threads around taking pictures at the likes of NT properties, Network Rail properties, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon...

 

It does indeed, and seems to provide a degree of clarification on where we stand (even if it is not always welcome). However, I do recall that part of the debate over proposed restrictions on Network Rail property was that their restrictions impinged on the photographers right to depict genuinely newsworthy events, limiting press freedom. Perhaps this is worthy of a topic in itself:  where under the new Alamy restriction do we stand on the newsworthy editorial photo of. for example, a robbery taking place in Wimbledon Centre Court?

[Arletta]

Mine was in spam folder too, not usual for Alamy's emails...

 

Please someone explain to me the 28th point and this: "You also confirm that for sales made by Alamy you authorise Alamy to grant to the Collecting Society an exclusive licence. "

[Slartybartfast]

Can someone from Alamy please explain how I opt out of the automatic opt in allowing Alamy  to collect money on my behalf from collecting agencies? I think that this is a bit cheeky to say the least, putting this in terms and conditions, as this is entirely separate from the role as our agent,in selling images.

[SFL]

For those who opted out UK Newspaper Scheme, check your status.

 

You might be now automatically 'Opt in' unless you change it.

[Arletta]

Can someone from Alamy please explain how I opt out of the automatic opt in allowing Alamy  to collect money on my behalf from collecting agencies? ...

 

 

I don't even understand what it means   

[York Photographer]

I've already opted out of DACS collecting. But it may catch out a few.

 

I take it by previously opting out, we don't need to opt out again?

[Alamy]

For those that have previously told us not to claim with collecting societies (e.g DACS) then we will still honor that. We will email all of you who this affects separately to confirm soon. If you're concerned, you can email MS and they will confirm with you.

 

If you want to opt out of us claiming with collecting societies on your behalf you can just let us know in this 45 day notice period and we will opt you out.

 

In any case, with the DACS example, DACS will remove the Alamy claim if you’ve already claimed yourself. Therefore this will not affect your personal claim.

 

Having this as an opt in / out option in "additional revenue opportunities" as earlier suggested is not really workable as it doesn't affect all contributors. 

 

For any further questions, please email memberservices@alamy.com as the inbox there will be monitored more regularly than here on the forum.

 

Thanks

 

Alamy 

[fotoDogue]

I haven't received this. I checked both my in box and my spam folder. Not there.

[losdemas]

For those who opted out UK Newspaper Scheme, check your status.

 

You might be now automatically 'Opt in' unless you change it.

 

Very well spotted - thanks.  I have never been opted in to the newspaper scheme, yet all of a sudden, I was.  Someone playing with buttons?

 

Now opted out again.

 

EDIT: I didn't see any mention of this in the changes.  Perhaps Alamy would care to explain this?

[Marianne]

I was hoping the new contract would include the new option for "Royalty Free Editorial Use Only" as has been discussed earlier. Being in the US, specifically New York, I would like to be able to submit newsworthy images to Alamy and an unnamed micro site here in NY simultaneously, as this would give me a better chance for sales, so I was really hoping I wouldn't have to keep deciding which agency to use each time I shoot something with good immediate and secondary sales potential.

 

Alamy, any idea when that change will occur?

 

I've advised them I'll be collecting from DACS on my own as the time involved doesn't justify losing half of what I've collected the past few years.  

 

It's a shame that they will be making us remove images taken where arguably we have a right to photograph newsworthy events, notwithstanding a venue's language to the contrary, when that determination hasn't been made by the courts or other law. Shouldn't the end buyer be able to make a decision about use as long as we've ticked "no property release?" 

 

I was worried that there would be changes to our commissions so despite the above concerns, I have to say kudos to Alamy for keeping us at 50%. Not thrilled with the new contract, but I can live with it. 

[John Mitchell]

 

For those who opted out UK Newspaper Scheme, check your status.

 

You might be now automatically 'Opt in' unless you change it.

 

Very well spotted - thanks.  I have never been opted in to the newspaper scheme, yet all of a sudden, I was.  Someone playing with buttons?

 

Now opted out again.

 

EDIT: I didn't see any mention of this in the changes.  Perhaps Alamy would care to explain this?

 

 

Yes, thanks. I was mysteriously opted in. Am now opted out (again).

[John Mitchell]

I think this one is interesting:

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

So this touches on the subject of a number of previous threads around taking pictures at the likes of NT properties, Network Rail properties, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon...

 

I assume "commercial gain" refers to possible commercial use, not editorial use?

[losdemas]

 

I think this one is interesting:

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

So this touches on the subject of a number of previous threads around taking pictures at the likes of NT properties, Network Rail properties, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon...

 

I assume "commercial gain" refers to possible commercial use, not editorial use?

 

 

Interesting.  I think that we need some clarification from Alamy on this point.  My reading of it is that Alamy are demanding that the photographer understand the meaning of 'commercial gain' from the T&Cs of the ticket/entrance and acknowledge that they understand that meaning from the organisation prior to uploading the image.  The onus being on us to get the organisation concerned to clarify this in writing first, should it be unclear?  Nightmare.

 

Alamy, what say you?

[John Mitchell]

Potential "nightmare" for sure.

[fotoDogue]

 

I think this one is interesting:

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

So this touches on the subject of a number of previous threads around taking pictures at the likes of NT properties, Network Rail properties, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon...

 

I assume "commercial gain" refers to possible commercial use, not editorial use?

 

 

 

"Commercial Gain" is such a vague term it could mean anything the venue intends it to mean. I'd imagine it could include Editorial Use if the photographer is paid .

Most often I've found it's used by people who don't understand the difference between Commercial and Editorial.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

I think this one is interesting:

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

So this touches on the subject of a number of previous threads around taking pictures at the likes of NT properties, Network Rail properties, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon...

 

I assume "commercial gain" refers to possible commercial use, not editorial use?

 

 

 

"Commercial Gain" is such a vague term it could mean anything the venue intends it to mean. I'd imagine it could include Editorial Use if the photographer is paid .

Most often I've found it's used by people who don't understand the difference between Commercial and Editorial.

 

 

You're probably correct about that.

 

Does Alamy expect/want mass deletions of thousands of images, I wonder?

[losdemas]

 

 

 

I think this one is interesting:

 

4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

 

So this touches on the subject of a number of previous threads around taking pictures at the likes of NT properties, Network Rail properties, Royal Ascot, Wimbledon...

 

I assume "commercial gain" refers to possible commercial use, not editorial use?

 

 

 

"Commercial Gain" is such a vague term it could mean anything the venue intends it to mean. I'd imagine it could include Editorial Use if the photographer is paid .

Most often I've found it's used by people who don't understand the difference between Commercial and Editorial.

 

 

You're probably correct about that.

 

Does Alamy expect/want mass deletions of thousands of images, I wonder?

 

 

I imagine that they don't particularly care - just want us to shoulder full responsibility for any potential claim against them in the future.

[Callie]

Is this taking the responsibility off the buyer and putting it on us? If we say we have no property release for an image is that not clear enough? If the buyer then decides to do whatever with it, is that not their problem?