So this arrived this morning...

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp

What stood out:

If you agree to Image Options you grant Alamy the right to carry out certain pre-formatting changes to the Images prior to release for licensing, and;

Alamy shall act as an agent in respect of the Images.

Original statement: Alamy shall act as licensee in respect of the Images and does not act as an agent.

No earner to me, so not interested regarding any news from Alamy.

No earner to me, so not interested regarding any news from Alamy.

However, interested enough to look at, and reply to, a post on the Alamy board.

There is a way we can avoid seeing certain forums, I've done it in the past, but I can't remember how to do it. Hopefully, someone else can help.

What's the actual difference between an agent and a licensee*?
It was looked on as negative when iS moved away from being an agent to whatever they declared themselves to be instead.
*It seems a very odd use of the word 'licensee'.

Was this info in an email? If so, I didn't get it, but the Image Options thing has been aired on Alamy's forum.

As a licensee, they received a license from the photographer and then granted a sublicense to the buyer. As an agent, they grant a license directly from the photographer (acting as an agent in the photographer's name) to the buyer.

It makes Alamy's business into a commission agent model: they sell things directly in their own name that they do not own, for the account of a third party principal (us), and then arrange for direct fulfilment of the sale by the principal. In return, they get to keep a commission.

At least that's how I understand it. And I am not sure that it makes terribly much of a difference to us (but stand ready to be corrected -- maybe on the accounting side?). That will take some deep thinking though, which I am sure Alamy's lawyers have done (scary thought of the day!).

I just got the letter today, and it is dated as a contract change of 10th April 2018.
Haven't read it through, but I noticed this, which hasn't been thought through:
"Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, ... and does not include ... any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
I don't think that's what they mean, or else they are going to lose a lot of sales from searches relating to well-known people.
However, even if it's not what they mean, it's what they said.

Full text:
"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."

You can't include in the EXIF or descriptions - your website, name, phone number, email, Etc... which would allow people to contact you directly? Not about famous people if I'm reading it right.

http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp?utm_campaign=1157400_Contract%20Change%20-%20April%202018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy%20Contributors%20&dm_i=2SWW,OT20,12IO8X,2JDNC,1

Contract changes in case anyone didn't get the email.

I received the email but Alamy's English is yet another foreign language to me, I never ubderstand what they really say.

Anyway, this last contract change is:

The latest version of the Alamy Contributor contract, published on 10th April, included some minor changes to our terms. Most of these changes have been made to reflect the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) policies.

Of course they doesn't reflect what they say, on the contrary, it violates GDPR policies but that is their problem.

What I would like to know, are there some changes in our commission?

What is the the difference between Alamy Distribution and Alamy Affiliate? What the he*l is affiliate provider?

Quote from: ShadySue on April 10, 2018, 08:07

I just got the letter today, and it is dated as a contract change of 10th April 2018.
Haven't read it through, but I noticed this, which hasn't been thought through:
"Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, ... and does not include ... any personal details from which a living person can be identified."
I don't think that's what they mean, or else they are going to lose a lot of sales from searches relating to well-known people.
However, even if it's not what they mean, it's what they said.

Full text:
"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."

You can't include in the EXIF or descriptions - your website, name, phone number, email, Etc... which would allow people to contact you directly? Not about famous people if I'm reading it right.

http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.asp?utm_campaign=1157400_Contract%20Change%20-%20April%202018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alamy%20Contributors%20&dm_i=2SWW,OT20,12IO8X,2JDNC,1

Contract changes in case anyone didn't get the email.

Just by browsing Alamy images I've noticed that some contributors have the habit to put their username or studio name among keywords. Maybe this oddly written clause is added to put a stop to that.

Quote

On a legal document, "if I'm reading it right" should not be a question.

legal documents always have some sort of ambiguousness to them otherwise there would be no neverending lawsuits and lawyers couldnt line their pockets

Sigh.

Human language has ambiguity. Human interactions are complicated and have ambiguity. The lawyers that draft contracts don't make money from ambiguities and lawsuits -- quite the opposite. They are liable for them.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on April 11, 2018, 05:38

Quote from: Microstockphoto on April 10, 2018, 09:37

Quote

On a legal document, "if I'm reading it right" should not be a question.

legal documents always have some sort of ambiguousness to them otherwise there would be no neverending lawsuits and lawyers couldnt line their pockets

Sigh.

Human language has ambiguity. Human interactions are complicated and have ambiguity. The lawyers that draft contracts don't make money from ambiguities and lawsuits -- quite the opposite. They are liable for them.

Alamy have apologised and are going to have that clause reworded.

Good. I agree that it is not a well drafted clause for public terms.

I think the language was clear, it just didn't say what you wanted it to say.

^^ Indeed, who decides what is 'legitimate'? The man in the Clapham omnibus?
Still, so much is legal ambiguity, like 'in the public interest'.