Changes to the Contributor contract

[losdemas]

^^ Yes, yes & yes.  But the changes to the contract would suggest otherwise.  I would like to hear Alamy's thoughts on this.

[AlbertSnapper]

Thanks for pointing out the Newspaper Scheme auto opt-in.

Now opted back out.

By the way...last Friday a UK newspaper that pays peanuts used one of my images from Alamy ( I opted out in April). Wondering now if the auto opt-in was done back then ?  or can they just use and pay peanuts whether you're opted in or out anyway ?

[digi2ap]

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...

 

And presumably private/public places not uncommon in London e.g. Canary Wharf and the Olympic Park.  That's a lot of images to delete!!  So what about the rights of photographers to make secondary editorial?

[M.Chapman]

It's the wording at the end of the new Clause 1.5 that bemuses me.

"Where Alamy makes available Images this should be considered only as a courtesy and does not limit your responsibility for the Images."

A courtesy? Seems like a very curious way of defining the relationship (contract) where Alamy take a 50% commission of any sales made. I understand why Alamy have used this term (an attempt to put all responsibility on the contributor for the images they sell on the contributors behalf). But, given that Alamy share in the financial benefits of the sale, I feel that "courtesy" is an inappropriate term. Does anyone know how this might relate to the sale of goods act? Can the vendor absolve themselves of all responsibility for the goods being sold?

[Marianne]

I'm no expert, I expect Alamy to know what's up and not put that entire burden on us to determine whether we can offer a photograph to be licensed - they can have boxes for us to tick off - did you have credentials, do you have a property release, etc. and then make a determination. We tell them if a photo is digitally altered, if we have releases, and that info goes to the buyer who should ultimately be the responsible party. 

 

When you start getting into the British Rail stuff and other buildings and logos in a skyline, I think that as one of the largest image libraries in the world, Alamy should be fighting for us to get access, not caving in to those who want to limit photographers' rights to take newsworthy photographs. This new language sounds like they want us to just cave in for them. It's disappointing. 

[Alamy]

To be clear - there have been no changes to the newspaper scheme opt in / out related to the contract change. You can still opt in or out of this at any time. 

 

As some of you have reported being opted in when you remember opting out, we will be investigating this to see what has happened - in any case it should be unrelated to the contract change.

 

If you want to check your preferences you can do this via the My Alamy dashboard. You can also email memberservices@alamy.com and ask them to make sure you are opted out / in accordingly.

 

Thanks,

 

Alamy 

[Inchiquin]

 

As some of you have reported being opted in when you remember opting out, we will be investigating this to see what has happened - in any case it should be unrelated to the contract change.

 

I opted out of the newspaper scheme from day one because I didn't (and still don't) like the concept, but when I checked after reading this thread I found myself opted in.

 

Alan

[losdemas]

 

 

As some of you have reported being opted in when you remember opting out, we will be investigating this to see what has happened - in any case it should be unrelated to the contract change.

 

I opted out of the newspaper scheme from day one because I didn't (and still don't) like the concept, but when I checked after reading this thread I found myself opted in.

 

Alan

 

 

 

I received an e-mail from MS this afternoon: "Your concern regarding ‘Newspaper scheme opt out’, there’s an internal system error and we are aware of it.  Apologise for the hiccup."

[Dave C]

One of my crowd sourcing POD's recently put a similar amendment in the contract putting the onus on the contributor to ensure everything they upload is kosher. We all want our cake and eat it and there is an element of this here. They want to and encourage sourcing the product from the crowd, removing barriers to entry, but expect all of the crowd to know the in's and out's of the industry. And if they dont, I'm alright Jack, look at the contract. It does make it look as though they have no idea what they are selling... but that shouldn;t be a surprise if a gazzillion photos a day are being uploaded.

 

There is also the question of the situation that they sell the image for a usage which the creator has indicated should not be allowed... which has happened. If I have been diligent enough to place restrictions and they sell it regardless, I really dont think they can turn around and say it is our fault if it goes pear shaped.

When I first started contributing on here I was contacted by Alamy to ask why I had placed restrictions on some images.  When I replied that they were of people or property I didn't have releases for & was therefore restricting it to editorial, I was advised to remove the restrictions as it might limit sales, and told it was sufficient I had indicated no release was available. D