MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on June 15, 2016, 05:13
-
I'm just going out so have only skimmed the longish list of changes to the Alamy contract, but this one jumped out at me:
"29: "Promotional/Marketing Material" means promotional and marketing material that shall include, but not be limited to ... ... ... supply of Images to third parties for use in Image galleries (Images unaccompanied by copy) and editorial pieces (Images accompanied by copy), websites and blogs in return for publicity, specific ad-hoc marketing campaigns, supply of Images to third parties for use in conferences/presentations/keynote speeches in exchange for publicity, and other uses by third parties in return for publicity.",
a definition applying to:
15:1 "You agree that the Images may be used worldwide at Alamy's option without charge and without prior consent or approval from you in Promotional/Marketing Material or in any other manner at the sole discretion of Alamy designed to promote sales of Images and/or to enhance awareness of the Alamy name/brand or that of the individual Contributor,"
Apart from the 'no free images for publicity' mantra, how would they ensure that the 'publicity' was more than a tiny credit in the corner, and in that case, why wouldn't just about everyone do that to get free images?
-
Artist dies of exposure. Story at 11.
-
Artist dies of exposure. Story at 11.
More like Artists die of exposure...
-
The publicity uses didn't seem to me to be a big departure - just trying to broaden the "for instances" of what promotional uses were. I can't imagine this would set off a wave of cheating to get freebies - businesses wouldn't want to take the risk.
I did note the new clause that makes it clear that Alamy takes no responsibility for the legal issues with any images we upload:
" 1.5 You accept that you are solely and exclusively responsible for all Images that you submit and for all data that you store on Alamy's servers. You acknowledge that Alamy does not and cannot review all Images uploaded and is not responsible for the Images. Where Alamy makes available Images this should be considered only as a courtesy and does not limit your responsibility for the Images."
I assume they want to avoid getting entangled in legal disputes over uses of images, but this comment about "...Alamy does not and cannot review all Images uploaded..." seems very hands off. However stupid other agency's review processes are, they at least go through the motions of suggesting they look at what they're selling.
-
The publicity uses didn't seem to me to be a big departure - just trying to broaden the "for instances" of what promotional uses were. I can't imagine this would set off a wave of cheating to get freebies - businesses wouldn't want to take the risk.
I did note the new clause that makes it clear that Alamy takes no responsibility for the legal issues with any images we upload:
" 1.5 You accept that you are solely and exclusively responsible for all Images that you submit and for all data that you store on Alamy's servers. You acknowledge that Alamy does not and cannot review all Images uploaded and is not responsible for the Images. Where Alamy makes available Images this should be considered only as a courtesy and does not limit your responsibility for the Images."
I assume they want to avoid getting entangled in legal disputes over uses of images, but this comment about "...Alamy does not and cannot review all Images uploaded..." seems very hands off. However stupid other agency's review processes are, they at least go through the motions of suggesting they look at what they're selling.
The 'hands off' approach is simply the way Alamy has always operated. They don't inspect every image for quality because they expect their contributors to be professional and adhere to their standards without being 100% supervised. In the same way, they are now making it clear that the contributor is responsible for making sure their images do not incur any legal infringements and that they will not be checking to make sure nothing slips through.
The microstock agencies tend to hand-hold their contributors in respect of quality and legal issues, and this is another reminder that Alamy is not simply another microstock agency and contributors to Alamy need to pay close attention when uploading there.
-
I know Alamy's inspection process and that it hasn't changed in the time I've been there (since 2007). I understand the spot check system and that they don't edit submissions other than for technical quality.
They for some reason felt the need to spell out that they have no involvement in determining the suitability of content they license now. Given that nothing is changing in the way they operate, why change the agreement?
And if I were their customer, it might be a concern that I couldn't depend on the agency to ensure that I was licensing a legally safe image.
-
I know Alamy's inspection process and that it hasn't changed in the time I've been there (since 2007). I understand the spot check system and that they don't edit submissions other than for technical quality.
They for some reason felt the need to spell out that they have no involvement in determining the suitability of content they license now. Given that nothing is changing in the way they operate, why change the agreement?
And if I were their customer, it might be a concern that I couldn't depend on the agency to ensure that I was licensing a legally safe image.
Perhaps it because the nature of both their customers and contributors has changed. Customers would, at one time, all have been professionals who knew how to deal with issues of copyright, releases etc. Now Alamy can't be so sure. In the same way, Alamy have encouraged increasing numbers of first-time contributors who may not be fully conversent with every aspect of legality relating to the images they are submitting. Alamy are now making it abundantly clear, to the contributors in particular, that legality is their problem. Whether they are doing the same for the buyers, I don't know.