pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Change to terms & conditions  (Read 3747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 16, 2015, 08:50 »
+2
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/amendments/160215.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Key%20Changes%20to%20Contributor%20Contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20ammendments%20-%20Jan%202015&utm_term=Contributors


I didn't see anything too disturbing except clause 6.2 (which may be picky on my part but......)

Basically I read this as if a customer wants to license your RF image as RM, you will be given a 45 day notice to respond. If you are NOT okay with it, they can delete your image from their collection as punishment. That's a crumb bum way to behave.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2015, 08:54 »
+1
Its not about being OK with it, if the image has been sold as RF, it cant be sold as RM. Even if I want to change the licence, it could get me in trouble. Unless I am missing something.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2015, 09:15 »
+1
Files previously sold as RF can be sold as general RM on Alamy, but not if the buyer  needs any exclusive rights. 

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2015, 09:36 »
0
Thanks.

I dont understand why Alamy wants to delete the image if you dont play ball.

« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2015, 09:47 »
+1
Thanks.

I dont understand why Alamy wants to delete the image if you dont play ball.

Punishment. I see no other strategic reason for that clause.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 09:51 by Mantis »

« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2015, 11:48 »
+2
It's a marginally softer approach to the "we're in control and you have no say other than to leave" message that Getty sent when it changed the contract to say that they could decide what sold as RM, RF or for subscriptions (which was a big sticking point for some, having their work moved to Thinkstock).

Alamy says they can delete the image; Getty said you could leave if you didn't like what they did. Both are making clear who's in the driver's seat (according to them).

It'd be so delightful to see someone with a large, lucrative portfolio just leave the agency in such cases - in theory this game of chicken could be played either way - but of course there's too much at stake, people have to eat and so the agency gets what it wants.

I know, it's just business...

« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2015, 14:11 »
+6

« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2015, 14:25 »
+5
they can delete your image from their collection as punishment.

There is no suggestion that this is a "punishment". And - it says that they "may", not that they "will", delete it.

My guess is that the decision to delete would relate to images which, under the Alamy system,  should not have been listed as RF in the first place. ie there are potential rights / release issues which the client request has brought to light.

IMO Alamy are too cool to be bothered to punish people for choosing how their work is licensed - provided that it has been listed properly in the first place. They just are not like that as people.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 14:28 by bunhill »

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2015, 14:30 »
+1
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/amendments/160215.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Key%20Changes%20to%20Contributor%20Contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20ammendments%20-%20Jan%202015&utm_term=Contributors


I didn't see anything too disturbing except clause 6.2 (which may be picky on my part but......)

Basically I read this as if a customer wants to license your RF image as RM, you will be given a 45 day notice to respond. If you are NOT okay with it, they can delete your image from their collection as punishment. That's a crumb bum way to behave.


But that's not really new. It's the way the contract has always been, other than the lack of the mention of RM-Exclusive in the new agreement.

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2015, 14:51 »
+3
Hmmm.
It would have been better if both of these Alamy columns had been the same width, for easier comparison.
One can only assume that  that must have been a deliberate decision, because the 'obvious' way would have been to make them equally wide.

Intriguing that the old version has:
Alamy is a member of the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA) and subscribes to its Code of Professional Ethics.
and the new version has:
Alamy is a member of the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA) and the Digital Media Licensing Association (formerly PACA)
(Getty is a  member of BAPLA and a case could be made for suggesting that they don't adhere to their Code of Professional Ethics.)

"12.6 Amounts due to you where you are not paid in US Dollars shall be converted from US Dollars to the currency for payment at the rate provided by Alamy or Alamy's Payment provider on the date of payment or the preceding UK working day. If the rate is provided by Alamy it will be within 2% of the spot rate on that day."

New:
12.6 Amounts due to you where you are not paid in US Dollars shall be converted from US Dollars to the currency for payment at the rate provided by Alamy or Alamy's Payment provider on the date of payment or the preceding UK working day. If the rate is provided by Alamy it will be within 2.5% of the spot rate on that day.

I always think it's crazy that a UK company selling a UK contributor's files to UK companies priced in UK nevertheless report these sales to me in US$ whereby I'm subject to currency costs. 

New sentence in bold:
Alamy is permitted to grant a re-use licence on the terms and conditions, restrictions and availability in place at the time of the original licence. This clause will remain in full force and effect even after termination of this contract or deletion of the Image/s.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
4290 Views
Last post April 25, 2007, 14:10
by tdoes
1 Replies
2259 Views
Last post June 05, 2009, 04:41
by zager
19 Replies
4750 Views
Last post June 03, 2010, 06:48
by borg
2 Replies
1395 Views
Last post February 18, 2013, 12:41
by Petr Toman
4 Replies
1194 Views
Last post March 04, 2017, 00:55
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results