Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So my new contract wording popped in a few minutes ago:

Already I've noticed:

"4.11  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 any personal details from which a living person can be identified."

Which I'm sure they don't intend to mean we can't name whichever well-known person is the subject of our images. However, that is what it says. Their intention must be made more clear in the writty.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
clarity of title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my new contract wording popped in a few minutes ago:

Already I've noticed:

"4.11  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 any personal details from which a living person can be identified."

Which I'm sure they don't intend to mean we can't name whichever well-known person is the subject of our images. However, that is what it says. Their intention must be made more clear in the writty.

 

 

 

 

hmm, good point, I have read it too quickly and just thought it ment that I should not put my contact details into the captions or keywords. 

 

8 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

In the what?

new contributor contract, you should receive an email today.

I do not currently think it is a big deal, more cosmetic,

Now also contains alamy afiliates sales, gues this is when they buy other agencies and sell through those. 

 

here is the link to the changes 

http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp?utm_campaign=1157400_Contract Change - April 2018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy Contributors &dm_i=2SWW,OT20,2JUE5N,2JDNC,1

 

 

Edited by hdh
added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

???

"Writty". I've had the email.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

If the image is of a well-known person then such information about who the person is 'is pertaining to the specific Image itself' and should be included.

 

If it is of a member of the public they shouldn't be named and no information about them should be included because such information does not pertain to the specific image.  

That is your perfectly reasonable inference, but inferences don't have much legal status.

My inference is also perfectly reasonable from what was written, even though I know it isn't what they meant.

 

The member of the public's name may well pertain to the specific image, e.g. "Wee Jeanie McCall dancing at a wedding".

I've seen 'members of the public' often named in Live News captions. Are you saying that you think Alamy is saying that has to stop?

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, what does "writty" mean?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Please, what does "writty" mean?

Sorry, I had absolutely no idea that that term isn't in general use until I just googled it.

"Something which is written".

I've amended the thread title.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

If the image is of a well-known person then such information about that person 'is pertaining to the specific Image itself' and should be/can be included.

 

If it is of a member of the public they shouldn't be named and no information about them should be included because such information does not pertain to the specific image.  

But someone's name is a "personal detail from which a living person can be identified". Hmm. Surely it can't apply to news images, but I have non-news images with names. I'm sure most of us do.

To answer OP's question, no, it isn't made any clearer in the full version.

This must be incorrect.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, hdh said:

Now also contains alamy afiliates sales, gues this is when they buy other agencies and sell through those. 

No, this is when a buyer is directed to Alamy.com by a link on any affiliate's website. I put such a link on my site, but deleted it after they changed the terms. The roll-out was done in a strange way; first the contributor got 50%, months later changed to 38.5%. The numbers don't bother me as much as the fact that an affiliate sale happens at alamy.com and the contributor does not receive 50% per the contract. Details on affiliate page link at the bottom of most pages; http://www.alamy.com/customer/help/affiliate-program.aspx 

Edited by KevinS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a licensee and an agent? 

 

7.3 Amendment Alamy shall act as licensee in respect of the Images and does not act as an agent.  Alamy shall act as an agent in respect of the Images.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

But someone's name is a "personal detail from which a living person can be identified". Hmm. Surely it can't apply to news images, but I have non-news images with names. I'm sure most of us do.

To answer OP's question, no, it isn't made any clearer in the full version.

This must be incorrect.

 

I can understand that this contract change on including caption and keyword details which identify a living person probably arises from the forthcoming change in data protection law (GDPR). However, to say that no personal details can be included is such a massive shift that it really needs proper and detailed explanation from Alamy on the implications of this. What about famous people? What about existing images? If this really is correct, the whole Alamy contributor community will need some help in understanding and implementing it. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've emailed MS but I didn't get the usual acknowledgement. Perhaps this has broken their email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

I can understand that this contract change on including caption and keyword details which identify a living person probably arises from the forthcoming change in data protection law (GDPR). However, to say that no personal details can be included is such a massive shift that it really needs proper and detailed explanation from Alamy on the implications of this. What about famous people? What about existing images? If this really is correct, the whole Alamy contributor community will need some help in understanding and implementing it. 

 

Agreed. I guess we shouldn't expect an immediate response since Alamy will no doubt want to consult their lawyers first. :unsure:

Look forward to Alamy's clarification.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Sorry - the wording isn't clear enough from us here so we're currently re-working it and will amend it very soon.

 

There are journalistic exceptions to this clause where the name can be included if pertinent to the image, such as for a news story.

 

More soon.

 

Alamy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Hi everyone,

 

Sorry - the wording isn't clear enough from us here so we're currently re-working it and will amend it very soon.

 

There are journalistic exceptions to this clause where the name can be included if pertinent to the image, such as for a news story.

 

More soon.

 

Alamy

 

Should probably explicitly state what happens about photos of items where the name of the owner, the artist, the architect or inventor etc, is pertinent to the image, even though the person isn't in the image... It's not just news stories...

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Should probably explicitly state what happens about photos of items where the name of the artist or architect, inventor etc, is pertinent to the image, even though the person isn't in the image... It's not just news stories...

 

Mark

"where the name can be included if pertinent to the image"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Martin B said:

"where the name can be included if pertinent to the image"

 

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. :wacko: 

 

Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes 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. :wacko: 

 

Mark

I didn't understand it to mean that, but the wording is too vague at the moment. They'll get it worked out. In the mean time, I'm not sweating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Martin B said:

I didn't understand it to mean that, but the wording is too vague at the moment. They'll get it worked out. In the mean time, I'm not sweating it.

 

Same here. I only made my posting in case Alamy felt that by simply adding something about "Journalistic" or "News" it would fix the problem. In my opinion it won't. Although the strictly legal interpretation may be different to my layman's reading, I feel it's important that contributors can understand what we're being asked to sign without needing to employ a lawyer to interpret the contract for us.

 

Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 the owner, the artist, the architect or inventor etc, is pertinent to the image, even though the person isn't in the image...

 

Mark

Urk, I hadn't though of that. I must have dozens of those, being such a conscientious annotator;). Calatrava, Amanda Levete, chefs, Richard Rogers.... all very much alive.

Needs work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martin B said:

They'll get it worked out. In the mean time, I'm not sweating it.

 

 

And being based in Montana USA, the European GDPR and its legal implications are of little practical consequence to you...

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Same here. I only made my posting in case Alamy felt that by simply adding something about "Journalistic" or "News" it would fix the problem. In my opinion it won't. Although the strictly legal interpretation may be different to my layman's reading, I feel it's important that contributors can understand what we're being asked to sign without needing to employ a lawyer to interpret the contract for us.

 

Mark

 

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

Edited by Niels Quist
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy has been working on this contract for months, and this is the result?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedSnapper said:

 

 

And being based in Montana USA, the European GDPR and its legal implications are of little practical consequence to you...

 

km

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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.