Ambiguous new contract clause 4.11

[Abiyoyo]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Indeed, that's what you'd expect... But clause 4.11 is currently so badly worded it then goes on to prevent such information being included.  

 

Mark

I do not understand if I upload a image of the Bilbao Guggenheim building I cannot add Frank Gehry, even there are millions of places, including Wiki, that stated that. The same with millions of known or little known buildings, sculptures, paintings, etc. 

In the worst case scenario maybe a good part of the Alamy images need to be removed.

[fotoDogue]

3 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

 

Yes, it's not only news images or "journalistic". What should I do with my images of buildings by famous architects f.inst - if I couldn't use their name and company name  as key words. It may not be images I would define as news images as such - but images for which I would prefer to use the stock upload route.

 

Niels

 

 

It seems to me that without names many of these images would have little stock value.I recently had a zoom based on the keyword "Frank Gehry IAC." it's unlikely this client would've waded through thousands, if not millions, of photos looking for "post modern architecture." And how would the client even know they have to use such generalized keywords? Most likely they would presume Alamy has nothing on the subject and go elsewhere.

[RedSnapper]

1 hour ago, Martin B said:

So you haven't read the GDPR. These are Alamy company rules, responding in part to that law, but apply equally to all contributors, regardless of location. And the GDPR also applies to anyone doing business through the EU or UK. I've read sections of the new law, but hearing some people talk about the GDPR, you would think it was the end of photography on the European continent.

 

 

The legal implications to you, being outside the EU, are minimal...as a citizen of the US you are not liable to EU law in terms of being prosecuted or fined..

How Alamy , as a company, alter their operations as a result of GDPR is an entirely different matter, and not one I was commenting on

 

km

 

 

 

 

[Alamy]

Hi Everyone,

 

Apologies once again for the confusion regarding the unclear wording of clause 4.11. We've updated the wording now to make it clearer. 

 

You can view the updated summary of changes here: http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp

 

And the updated full contract here: http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.asp

 

If you've got any questions, please email the Contributor Relations team on contributors@alamy.com.

 

Thanks,

 

Alamy

[Matt Ashmore]

31 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi Everyone,

 

Apologies once again for the confusion regarding the unclear wording of clause 4.11. We've updated the wording now to make it clearer. 

 

You can view the updated summary of changes here: http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp

 

And the updated full contract here: http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.asp

 

If you've got any questions, please email the Contributor Relations team on contributors@alamy.com.

 

Thanks,

 

Alamy

 

 

Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, Pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions only includes information that is pertaining to the specific Image itself, and does not include contact details, web addresses, Uniform Resource Locator’s (URL’s), copyright and rights management information or, except in cases of journalism or news reporting or where the consent of any person shown in an Image has been obtained or another legitimate reason exists, any personal details from which a living person can be identified.

 

This would be far easier to read if the  list of 'or's was a number of bullet points.

 

So I guess the 'journalism and news reporting' would cover any public figure doing something in public.

Does getting a signed model release indicate consent to include the name? If not, how do you prove consent?

 

[spacecadet]

It must be  "legitimate", for example, to include the name of an architect in an image of one of his buildings, or a chef bruléeing one of his crêmes (yes, I have one of those). It's the image's raison d' être.

I assume that Alamy is introducing this term to fulfil its due diligence obligations under the GDPR. We're not the data user in this context, Alamy is. So I don't see any adverse consequences for us. If a particular image falls foul, we're technically in breach of contract, but it gets corrected.

I am not a lawyer of course.

[Martin B]

6 hours ago, RedSnapper said:

 

 

are not liable to EU law in terms of being prosecuted or fined..

 

 

 

You, as an individual photographer, for the most part aren't either. You really need to read the GDPR. Let me know when you have 250 employees or get in the business of breaking down and disseminating biometric data.  http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-30-records-of-processing-activities-GDPR.htm

 

Also, anyone doing business in the EU or UK is equally capable of being prosecuted or fined under the law, regardless of where they live or where their company is based. Think Facebook as an example.  http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-3-territorial-scope-GDPR.htm

[Martin B]

4 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

 

Does getting a signed model release indicate consent to include the name? If not, how do you prove consent?

 

Yes, a model release is the definition of consent, as it pertains to photography. Also, what purpose would the name of the subject or model in the caption of a stock photo serve? Unless the model is famous or otherwise notable, there should be no advantage or reason to add his or her name.

[Cryptoprocta]

34 minutes ago, Martin B said:

Yes, a model release is the definition of consent, as it pertains to photography. Also, what purpose would the name of the subject or model in the caption of a stock photo serve? Unless the model is famous or otherwise notable, there should be no advantage or reason to add his or her name.

I'm sure a 'normal' model release is not a consent to include a name, unless that is specified in the signed contract.

[Martin B]

26 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I'm sure a 'normal' model release is not a consent to include a name, unless that is specified in the signed contract.

Of course it depends on how a particular model release is worded. Any comprehensive legally binding model release form should cover that if the photographer or end user has usage of that information that goes beyond just organizing files. The current Alamy standard release does not cover use of name, but does cover ethnicity.  https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-model-release-form.pdf

[TeeCee]

I expect like so many others here, the more I read online about this issue, the more confused I get. Just three of my numerous confusions below:

 

1)      “any personal details from which a living person can be identified.” Facial  recognition technology makes everyone’s face a means through which they can be identified, irrespective of whether any names/contact details/whatever are attached via meta data. High resolution files contain sufficient data to easily identify someone (for example) in the background of a simple shot of a tourist attraction. Do we delete all such photos?

 

2)      If there are to be journalistic  exemptions, when does a photo cease to be news? Alamy accepts Live News submissions which within a few days become stock – are those images still exempt at this point?

 

3)      The GDPR legislation becomes active on May 25th, but deletion of Alamy images  takes 180 days. If we wish to remove remove pictures before that point, will there be a facility to do so?

[famousbelgian]

It's official, the world has gone mad ...

[Michael Ventura]

I would hope that photos of public figures and celebrities would be exempt from this clause.

[spacecadet]

4 hours ago, TeeCee said:

 

 

I expect like so many others here, the more I read online about this issue, the more confused I get. Just three of my numerous confusions below:

 

1)      “any personal details from which a living person can be identified.” Facial  recognition technology makes everyone’s face a means through which they can be identified, irrespective of whether any names/contact details/whatever are attached via meta data. High resolution files contain sufficient data to easily identify someone (for example) in the

Fortunately this one's easy to deal with.

A photograph of a person isn't personal data unless it's taken for the purpose of identifying the person.  That it happens to identify them isn't enough.

So a photojournalist's picture of a named person isn't personal data, but a police surveillance image of them is. This is settled legal opinion according to the ICO.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/.../determining-what-is-personal-data.pdf

 

page 14-15

[MDM]

4 hours ago, TeeCee said:

 

 

I expect like so many others here, the more I read online about this issue, the more confused I get. Just three of my numerous confusions below:

 

1)      “any personal details from which a living person can be identified.” Facial  recognition technology makes everyone’s face a means through which they can be identified, irrespective of whether any names/contact details/whatever are attached via meta data. High resolution files contain sufficient data to easily identify someone (for example) in the background of a simple shot of a tourist attraction. Do we delete all such photos?

 

2)      If there are to be journalistic  exemptions, when does a photo cease to be news? Alamy accepts Live News submissions which within a few days become stock – are those images still exempt at this point?

 

3)      The GDPR legislation becomes active on May 25th, but deletion of Alamy images  takes 180 days. If we wish to remove remove pictures before that point, will there be a facility to do so?

 

Also not a lawyer but here is my interpretation. 

 

1. This is about metadata not the image itself. That is another question but from what I gather it is not the picture itself that is the issue. 

 

2. Great question. And how is news or journalism defined exactly? 

 

3. Legislation is not usually retrospective. 

 

8 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I would hope that photos of public figures and celebrities would be exempt from this clause.

 

And how exactly do we define a celebrity or public figure?

[MDM]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

Fortunately this one's easy to deal with.

A photograph of a person isn't personal data unless it's taken for the purpose of identifying the person.  That it happens to identify them isn't enough.

So a photojournalist's picture of a named person isn't personal data, but a police surveillance image of them is. This is settled legal opinion according to the ICO.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/.../determining-what-is-personal-data.pdf

 

 

page 14-15

 

Great at answer but the link is not working. 

[spacecadet]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwi43qrP9bTaAhVDGsAKHZ0CA8AQFghaMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fico.org.uk%2Fmedia%2Ffor-organisations%2Fdocuments%2F1554%2Fdetermining-what-is-personal-data.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0GHa55CKWpFZj9ocxJWnE_

[MDM]

Thanks.

[fotoDogue]

4 hours ago, TeeCee said:

 

3)      The GDPR legislation becomes active on May 25th, but deletion of Alamy images  takes 180 days. If we wish to remove remove pictures before that point, will there be a facility to do so?

 

I would think photographers could simply edit captions and keywords rather that delete images. Of course for those with larger ports this is quite a task.

I feel we need clearer definitions from Alamy before making any changes.

[Niels Quist]

1 hour ago, famousbelgian said:

It's official, the world has gone mad ...

 

Yes, the world has gone berzerk, too much amanita...

[Martin B]

7 hours ago, TeeCee said:

 

2)      If there are to be journalistic  exemptions, when does a photo cease to be news? Alamy accepts Live News submissions which within a few days become stock – are those images still exempt at this point?

 

 

"except in cases of journalism or news reporting or where the consent of any person shown in an Image has been obtained or another legitimate reason exists"

I think you missed the point. If there is a reason to include a name, say to help the image come up on an image search, then it doesn't necessarily have to be journalistic. I can't imagine how a common guy on the street, or an unknown model need their name in a caption or tag, and can't think of a reason for a photographer to intentionally add it.

[M.Chapman]

23 hours ago, Martin B said:

Of course it depends on how a particular model release is worded. Any comprehensive legally binding model release form should cover that if the photographer or end user has usage of that information that goes beyond just organizing files. The current Alamy standard release does not cover use of name, but does cover ethnicity.  https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-model-release-form.pdf

 

But by signing the current Alamy model release the model does give the following permission.

 

I consent to the inclusion of this Model Release form including the personal details recommended in it being added to the public database owned or operated by Alamy Limited or its subsidiary.

 

Would this cover adding their details into the captions, tags, description etc. in Alamy's image database?

 

Also isn't the term "recommended" a but unusual in this context?

 

Mark

[RedSnapper]

6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwi43qrP9bTaAhVDGsAKHZ0CA8AQFghaMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fico.org.uk%2Fmedia%2Ffor-organisations%2Fdocuments%2F1554%2Fdetermining-what-is-personal-data.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0GHa55CKWpFZj9ocxJWnE_

 

 

Unfortunately for the current debate, that document is dealing with the provisions and definitions  of the Data Protection Act 1998  not the 2018 GDPR... which is a different beast entirely

 

km

[TeeCee]

4 hours ago, Martin B said:

"except in cases of journalism or news reporting or where the consent of any person shown in an Image has been obtained or another legitimate reason exists"

I think you missed the point. If there is a reason to include a name, say to help the image come up on an image search, then it doesn't necessarily have to be journalistic. I can't imagine how a common guy on the street, or an unknown model need their name in a caption or tag, and can't think of a reason for a photographer to intentionally add it.

Martin, still referring to my first point about a face itself being the data, not the meta tags or names contained within.

Following quote is interesting from an RPS blog I found - http://www.rps.org/special-interest-groups/contemporary/blogs/2018/february/gdpr-and-street-photography

 

"Personal data is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.  In a computing sense this includes online identifiers, such as IP addresses and cookies if they are capable of being linked back to the data subject.  It also includes information such as physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identities that can be traced back to a specific individual.

Don’t photographs often include physical, economic, cultural or social identities that can be traced back to an individual?

A person’s face is considered as biometric information or data.  The GDPR defines biometric data as “personal data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person”.  It is one of the “special categories of personal data” that can only be processed if:
• The data subject has given explicit consent;
• Processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the fields of employment and social security and social protection law;
• Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject;
• Processing is necessary for the establishment and exercise of defence of legal claims; or
• Processing is necessary for reasons of public interest."

[Martin B]

43 minutes ago, TeeCee said:

Martin, still referring to my first point about a face itself being the data, not the meta tags or names contained within.

Following quote is interesting from an RPS blog I found - http://www.rps.org/special-interest-groups/contemporary/blogs/2018/february/gdpr-and-street-photography

 

"Personal data is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.  In a computing sense this includes online identifiers, such as IP addresses and cookies if they are capable of being linked back to the data subject.  It also includes information such as physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identities that can be traced back to a specific individual.

Don’t photographs often include physical, economic, cultural or social identities that can be traced back to an individual?

A person’s face is considered as biometric information or data.  The GDPR defines biometric data as “personal data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person”.  It is one of the “special categories of personal data” that can only be processed if:
• The data subject has given explicit consent;
• Processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the fields of employment and social security and social protection law;
• Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject;
• Processing is necessary for the establishment and exercise of defence of legal claims; or
• Processing is necessary for reasons of public interest."

"personal data resulting from specific technical processing" "specific technical processing" does not mean clicking a shutter release and editing in Photoshop. It means breaking down that photographic information into digitized biometric data.