Author Topic: Changes to Alamy Contract (Read 10895 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **on:** April 26, 2017, 04:54 »

Key changes:

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

Full contract:

http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.asp?

Looks like loads of changes so will take a while to work through.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 26, 2017, 08:35 »

To me the main changes looked like they are lowering the payout amount from $75 to $50 and they are putting the legal onus on making sure everything is OK on to the photographer and exonerating themselves. The other changes looked like minor wordsmithing to me.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** April 26, 2017, 08:37 »

I'm now wading through it - I wish they made it easier to find the changes (long paragraphs where one word has changed but you can't tell that at a glance).

They're doing away with the 45 day notice on future changes.

They're changing the relationship from licensee to agent - I wonder why that would be? From their forums, someone asked and CR replied that it wasn't a change in how they did things, just catching up the language to reflect it...

I don't know what "Image Options" is - but if I agree to it they can alter (pre-format) my images prior to licensing. If that's just converting a color space, I don't care, but if it's something else, I'm hoping that means there's an opt out. I guess I now need to know about Image Options

Some category of people who can make a charge on the total paid by the buyer called "Affiliates" is introduced (was just Distributors).

If they machine translate the metadata, you can't sue them if the machine mangles the text. You're only responsible for the accuracy of your original language.

The rules about what rights you hold in the image have been broadened to include copyright free work. Not sure if that's a change in practice or just catching the legal document up to what they were already doing - I've never uploaded public domain work.

ravens · « **Reply #3 on:** April 26, 2017, 08:57 »

4.2.
This was there already:
(i) You are the Copyright Owner of the Images or have authority from the Copyright Owner to enter into the Contract and that the Copyright Owner is the sole owner free from any third party rights of the entire copyright and all other intellectual property rights throughout the World in the Image except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted for the use of the Image/s, and that accordingly the Image/s do not infringe upon any third party copyright, trade mark, moral right or other intellectual property rights; or

THIS IS NEW:
(ii) the Image has been supplied to you to distribute under contract for the uses for which they are proposed to be licensed; or (iii) the Image is entirely free from copyright and no attribution is required.

What does this mean for us?
Somebody can purchase our work and upload them and sell, claiming they are free from copyright?
They will begin distributing a huge amount of creative commons content?
In the end they will become an immense FREE site, so where does that leave us, the sales will be even fewer.

PS. If you are still on Novel Use Scheme, opt out, you can only do that in April. Novel use means that there are actually no rules about image use or pricing and you won't necessarily be paid.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2017, 09:11 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on April 26, 2017, 08:35

To me the main changes looked like they are lowering the payout amount from $75 to $50 ...

It's been $50 since last November - that part about posting a change on the site from time to time means they don't need a contract change to implement a new threshold. It'd be better to separate out the actual number into an earnings schedule (as a number of other sites do) so you don't embed the actual number in the contract. Then there's a link in the contract and you can quickly find the current number.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2017, 09:37 »

Quote from: ravens on April 26, 2017, 08:57

4.2.
This was there already:
(i) You are the Copyright Owner of the Images or have authority from the Copyright Owner to enter into the Contract and that the Copyright Owner is the sole owner free from any third party rights of the entire copyright and all other intellectual property rights throughout the World in the Image except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted for the use of the Image/s, and that accordingly the Image/s do not infringe upon any third party copyright, trade mark, moral right or other intellectual property rights; or

THIS IS NEW:
(ii) the Image has been supplied to you to distribute under contract for the uses for which they are proposed to be licensed; or (iii) the Image is entirely free from copyright and no attribution is required.

What does this mean for us?
Somebody can purchase our work and upload them and sell, claiming they are free from copyright?
They will begin distributing a huge amount of creative commons content?
In the end they will become an immense FREE site, so where does that leave us, the sales will be even fewer.

PS. If you are still on Novel Use Scheme, opt out, you can only do that in April. Novel use means that there are actually no rules about image use or pricing and you won't necessarily be paid.

No this isn't a change to how the license. It just means you declare that you have the rights to sell the images you are selling. The content you upload is either yours or "(iii) the Image is entirely free from copyright and no attribution is required." so definitely in the public domain or whatever.

ravens · « **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2017, 11:12 »

Exactly. Alamy's becoming a free site. If something is public domain only lunatic would pay for it.

philopenshaw · « **Reply #7 on:** April 26, 2017, 11:50 »

i think that (iii) means 'blah blah or else you are declaring you have taken copyright free image and done something to it'... as i believe some people do with concept images etc...

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #8 on:** April 26, 2017, 11:58 »

There's no change there. This has always been the case, it just makes the policy clearer. It's for people using nasa images, scans of very old books and the like.

stockastic · « **Reply #9 on:** April 26, 2017, 12:51 »

The number of people trying to sell NASA images just astounds me. FAA is full of them. IMHO, it's a shabby way to make a few bucks. Yes I know it's legal. But there's just a bit of scamming going on here, relying on the fact that most people don't know these images are available free.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** April 26, 2017, 13:27 »

Quote from: ravens on April 26, 2017, 11:12

Exactly. Alamy's becoming a free site. If something is public domain only lunatic would pay for it.

Getty have apparently beendoing this for years.

https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper

ravens · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2017, 13:43 »

Interesting case but here the "celebrated photographer" was a fool. Why did she donate her images into the public domain? What fool does that? She was shooting her own foot. This kind of behavior is also against every professional photographer who actually has to live by photography, you know, buy things to eat, buy clothes, buy gear, pay rent! Professional photographers don't live by "free". So she got what she was asking for. Good.

What we learn from this is: don't give away your copyright.
Defend your copyright!

Quote from: ShadySue on April 26, 2017, 13:27

Quote from: ravens on April 26, 2017, 11:12
Exactly. Alamy's becoming a free site. If something is public domain only lunatic would pay for it.
Getty have apparently beendoing this for years.

https://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2017, 03:32 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 26, 2017, 12:51

The number of people trying to sell NASA images just astounds me. FAA is full of them. IMHO, it's a shabby way to make a few bucks. Yes I know it's legal. But there's just a bit of scamming going on here, relying on the fact that most people don't know these images are available free.

From what I recall, it's not legal unless you name NASA as the source. Which nobody ever does, of course. But NASA don't sue.

ravens · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2017, 11:13 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 26, 2017, 12:51

The number of people trying to sell NASA images just astounds me. FAA is full of them. IMHO, it's a shabby way to make a few bucks. Yes I know it's legal. But there's just a bit of scamming going on here, relying on the fact that most people don't know these images are available free.

If you don't have to be the copyright holder there is no problem to download or swipe stock images and then resell them via Alamy. Alamy is a huge agency, they don't notice or ask questions. If the image creator complains, he has no case, since copyright is not required for uploading and selling.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** April 27, 2017, 13:28 »

Quote from: ravens on April 27, 2017, 11:13

If you don't have to be the copyright holder there is no problem to download or swipe stock images and then resell them via Alamy. Alamy is a huge agency, they don't notice or ask questions. If the image creator complains, he has no case, since copyright is not required for uploading and selling.

NO.
You have to either:
1. be the copyright holder
2. have the permission of the copyright holder
3. be certain that the work is free of all copyrights.
And in this new contract, Alamy make it clear the responsibility is the uploader's if one of the above does not apply.

ravens · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2017, 15:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 27, 2017, 13:28

Quote from: ravens on April 27, 2017, 11:13
If you don't have to be the copyright holder there is no problem to download or swipe stock images and then resell them via Alamy. Alamy is a huge agency, they don't notice or ask questions. If the image creator complains, he has no case, since copyright is not required for uploading and selling.
NO.
You have to either:
1. be the copyright holder
2. have the permission of the copyright holder
3. be certain that the work is free of all copyrights.
And in this new contract, Alamy make it clear the responsibility is the uploader's if one of the above does not apply.

Theoretically and when the world is good this should be the case. But in the real world it isn't. If the thief says, ooops, I did not know, I acted bona fide, then they will get away cashing in on other people's work.

And what reputable stock agency sells public domain content which should be free in the first place?

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** April 27, 2017, 16:54 »

Quote from: ravens on April 27, 2017, 15:15

Quote from: ShadySue on April 27, 2017, 13:28
Quote from: ravens on April 27, 2017, 11:13
If you don't have to be the copyright holder there is no problem to download or swipe stock images and then resell them via Alamy. Alamy is a huge agency, they don't notice or ask questions. If the image creator complains, he has no case, since copyright is not required for uploading and selling.
NO.
You have to either:
1. be the copyright holder
2. have the permission of the copyright holder
3. be certain that the work is free of all copyrights.
And in this new contract, Alamy make it clear the responsibility is the uploader's if one of the above does not apply.
Theoretically and when the world is good this should be the case. But in the real world it isn't. If the thief says, ooops, I did not know, I acted bona fide, then they will get away cashing in on other people's work.

And what reputable stock agency sells public domain content which should be free in the first place?

Which microstock agency do you consider to be 'reputable'? (I know you didn't specify micro, but this is the microstock group)
Most of them have been found to have stolen images, even which are already on their own sites. So it would be rather surprising if most of them didn't have images, or elements of images which are public domain.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #17 on:** April 27, 2017, 17:15 »

Quote from: ravens on April 27, 2017, 15:15

And what reputable stock agency sells public domain content which should be free in the first place?

Getty Images

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2017, 06:34 »

Quote from: ravens on April 27, 2017, 15:15

Quote from: ShadySue on April 27, 2017, 13:28
Quote from: ravens on April 27, 2017, 11:13
If you don't have to be the copyright holder there is no problem to download or swipe stock images and then resell them via Alamy. Alamy is a huge agency, they don't notice or ask questions. If the image creator complains, he has no case, since copyright is not required for uploading and selling.
NO.
You have to either:
1. be the copyright holder
2. have the permission of the copyright holder
3. be certain that the work is free of all copyrights.
And in this new contract, Alamy make it clear the responsibility is the uploader's if one of the above does not apply.
Theoretically and when the world is good this should be the case. But in the real world it isn't. If the thief says, ooops, I did not know, I acted bona fide, then they will get away cashing in on other people's work.

That's the case at the moment. There are theives cashing in on other people's work who get away with it until they're caught, e.g. on the image sleuth thread here.
Alamy hasn't said that it's OK to steal non-PD images.

ravens · « **Reply #19 on:** April 29, 2017, 14:13 »

Are you then saying it is OK in your opinion that Alamy will sell public domain content? Seriously?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #20 on:** April 29, 2017, 15:00 »

I am saying they already do and every other site does it too. There are users on here who's whole portfolios are scans of work that is out of copyright. I didn't say it was okay or that I liked it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** April 29, 2017, 15:29 »

I would rather none of the sites sold public domain images but as they all do it, wouldn't Alamy be foolish not to?

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** April 29, 2017, 16:15 »

Quote from: ravens on April 29, 2017, 14:13

Are you then saying it is OK in your opinion that Alamy will sell public domain content? Seriously?

If you're talking to me, where did you think I said that?
Of all the people on this thread, you're the only person who has actually hinted it was OK in post #11 when you said, "So she got what she was asking for. Good." implying that you think it's OK if someone has allowed it.

But actually, if someone has allowed an image to be used commercially, it's legally OK, if morally debatable.
However, sometimes people have spent a lot of time cleaning up an old image, which an end-user might be happy to pay for, or perhaps they have used PD image/s as part/s of a composite.

ravens · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2017, 04:57 »

In the Getty case, the foolish photographer had no case. She had given her content to PD and hence, had no claims over it. If you give something away, you can't cry afterwards and claim it back. It's gone. Hence the stupid photographer got what she was asking for, which is good. Maybe she learnt a lesson. It is too late to cry when the milk is already spilled.
She gave her content away to free use, what do you think it means for other photographers? Do you think our work will be purchased more or paid better? No. People only want more free images.
This foolish photographer and likes of her just make things worse for us.

The lesson here is that we need to defend our copyright and demand that agencies do not blur the concept of copyright.
It doesn't help if we understand what Copyright means but how do you think buyers react to these multiple definitions? Many don't understand them and when they don't understand, they don't care.

Give give give mentality leads to disastrous results.

If you people on this board think that Alamy is doing wrong or do not like it, let Alamy know! It is terribly worrying that so many talented people here find reasons to defend the party who abuses their rights, and fail to defend themselves.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2017, 06:10 »

Quote from: ravens on April 30, 2017, 04:57

In the Getty case, the foolish photographer had no case. She had given her content to PD and hence, had no claims over it. If you give something away, you can't cry afterwards and claim it back. It's gone. Hence the stupid photographer got what she was asking for, which is good. Maybe she learnt a lesson. It is too late to cry when the milk is already spilled.
She gave her content away to free use, what do you think it means for other photographers? Do you think our work will be purchased more or paid better? No. People only want more free images.
This foolish photographer and likes of her just make things worse for us.

The lesson here is that we need to defend our copyright and demand that agencies do not blur the concept of copyright.
It doesn't help if we understand what Copyright means but how do you think buyers react to these multiple definitions? Many don't understand them and when they don't understand, they don't care.

You are being totally inconsistent.

On one hand, you say that if someone gives their work as PD, it's fine that it's sold commercially and serves them right.
On the other hand, you say that it's wrong for agencies to sell PD work.

Both are valid opinions, but rather incompatible.

Where do you see that Alamy (or any other agency*) is blurring the meaning of copyright?

*Actually, again the worst offender is iS/Getty (no surprise there) where they have changed 'copyright/artist' to 'credit/artist', without actually requiring a credit. That certainly gives no indication that a file is copyright. I strongly object to that, have mentioned it on their forums, but nothing we say/do makes any difference to Getty. All I could do was remove many files when I had the ability to do so (before they made that change), and not upload any more.

BTW, in the Getty case referred to above, what I really object to is that Getty would pursue anyone for using an image which is in the public domain.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Changes to Alamy Contract (Read 10895 times)

Justanotherphotographer

sgoodwin4813

Jo Ann Snover

ravens

Jo Ann Snover

Justanotherphotographer

ravens

philopenshaw

Justanotherphotographer

stockastic

ShadySue

ravens

BaldricksTrousers

ravens

ShadySue

ravens

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

ravens

Justanotherphotographer

sharpshot

ShadySue

ravens

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors