MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: PaulieWalnuts on February 26, 2015, 19:33
-
This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites.
http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms (http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms)
"Alamy, it seems is trying to establish a perpetual and irrevocable contract with images that they have previously sold on our behalf at a time when this was not the case, which allows them to continue selling them even after the contract with the photographer has been terminated. While this may have advantages for Alamy it has significant disadvantages for the photographer. The provision would last for the full term of copyright and we see it as unreasonably extensive."
-
I think all the EPUK concerns seem relevant and a total overreach by Alamy.
I think that once an image is removed from an agency, they should never be able to issue new licenses to prior licensors of that image. I talked with iStock/Getty about this when they paid me some money for "off web site" licenses - initially without telling me anything about what licenses or which images.
It turned out that two of the three images had been removed by me (I have only a tiny portion of my portfolio there any more). They said it was OK because it was just adding on to licenses that had been previously granted while the images were active. I told them they had no right to make any licenses of those images to anyone after I deactivated them and I wanted their acknowledgement that they would not do this again (I wasn't going to make a legal stink over two licenses and $60). That they should get Getty's lawyers to look at this if necessary.
After months they acknowledged that it had been a mistake. They are supposed to check that an image is still active before issuing such licenses but they messed up in this case.
So Alamy is saying they can do this and it's no problem. What if a photographer wanted to make some sort of exclusive deal over an image after it had been removed? Taking away the photographer's ability to control who can license their work seems pretty fundamental and very wrong.
-
all this after i said it was a perfect agency if it only got the sales.
u know, i also said that with all the effing-up done by these other sites like alamy,etc
ss does not have to do anything to stay #1 if only they fire the ppl (reviewers incl)
who eff-up on the email, sales, flipping, inconsistency of reviewing,etc for the past year.
but with the way everyone is effing-up , you wonder where all this is coming from...
is there a global epidermic of minds effing-up in stock agencies or what???
giving them al the benefit of the doubt, i say it must be due to management changes
-
This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites.
but PW, you just said on the other thread
Setting up the website is the easy part. Getting traffic to it is the hard part. If you want to actually get traffic you'll need to become pretty skilled at marketing, SEO and Social Media. Without the marketing you're wasting your time and money.
how do you intend to overcome the "not-easy" part of Getting traffic ... marketing, SEO and Social Media
-
Unbelievable!!! I joined Alamy just a few weeks ago and now it seems I'll better terminate my contract with them.
Thanks PaulieWalnuts for starting this thread. I received the e-mail but had not read the new contract yet. I just did :(
-
is this LEGAL ?
i don't think so ... as it's clashing against EU copyright law.
-
I think all the EPUK concerns seem relevant and a total overreach by Alamy.
I think that once an image is removed from an agency, they should never be able to issue new licenses to prior licensors of that image. I talked with iStock/Getty about this when they paid me some money for "off web site" licenses - initially without telling me anything about what licenses or which images.
It turned out that two of the three images had been removed by me (I have only a tiny portion of my portfolio there any more). They said it was OK because it was just adding on to licenses that had been previously granted while the images were active. I told them they had no right to make any licenses of those images to anyone after I deactivated them and I wanted their acknowledgement that they would not do this again (I wasn't going to make a legal stink over two licenses and $60). That they should get Getty's lawyers to look at this if necessary.
After months they acknowledged that it had been a mistake. They are supposed to check that an image is still active before issuing such licenses but they messed up in this case.
I'd be interested in knowing when your iStock incident happened. I had the same experience recently and it took me a long time to get an answer about why they sold one of my deactivated images. They finally told me exactly what they told you -- it was a mistake; they were supposed to check if the images had been deactivated etc. If your case occurred before mine, it sounds like they're not trying very hard to avoid making this mistake. And, of course, I got no assurances that it won't happen again (not that I'd necessarily put much faith in such assurances anyway.)
This is very worrying because, in addition to the problems related to future control of your images being discussed here, you can never be sure that deactivated images won't end up being used in inappropriate ways.
I had planned to start submitting images to Alamy but this would definitely be a showstopper for me.
If they want to do something like this, why can't they just ask the photographer if he/she wants to allow the additional licensing? And abide by the answer, of course.
-
I'd be interested in knowing when your iStock incident happened. I had the same experience recently and it took me a long time to get an answer about why they sold one of my deactivated images. ...
I received a royalty adjustment Oct 10, 2014. The files had been deactivated in February 2013. The e-mail about the adjustment just said the files "..were recently licensed..."
I got notes in October and November thanking me for my patience and saying they were working with other teams to get answers. Then a long gap to February 9, 2015 when they acknowledged that they'd bungled the check to ensure the images were active. They never told me the date of the transaction, only that these were extended licenses.
-
This is unfortunate. I think it will probably be quite rare for any of these things to have a practical effect - but is it just standard practice for lawyers to sit around thinking of every possible eventuality so they can draw up unfair and abusive contracts to impose on their clients' business partners?
-
Isn't it a contradiction to DMCA? Copyright holder can demand everybody except agency? Or not exposing but continuing to sell is not under DMCA?
-
Isn't it a contradiction to DMCA? Copyright holder can demand everybody except agency? Or not exposing but continuing to sell is not under DMCA?
If you agree to the terms then that would trump the DMCA.
-
Come on in James. How will you spin this?
-
would be interesting to see how they could justify doing this if someone sold the copyright to an image and then de-activated it from their port.
i really don't understand where something like this even comes from. why would an agency want to have a 'just kidding' clause in their image de-activation process?
maybei'm missing something.
-
Isn't it a contradiction to DMCA? Copyright holder can demand everybody except agency? Or not exposing but continuing to sell is not under DMCA?
If you agree to the terms then that would trump the DMCA.
But for example employee contracts are "under" general country law. Shouldn't be here the same law priority?
-
They usually sort out problems like this, unlike some other sites. I will wait and see their response.
-
Agree with most on this thread. One reason to remove images is that you have negotiated a buyout. Even some of the agencies like DT and 123RF offer this as an option. Typically that means you agree to never license the image again and the buyer agrees to honour previous license sales.
This is going to cause all kinds of problems
-
It might be worth posting over there http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/3763-contributor-contracts-changes (http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/3763-contributor-contracts-changes), but I'm not sure if this Alamy discussion will be like recent iS 'discussion' threads.
FWIW, I posted my other concerns about the new contract here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/change-to-terms-conditions/msg408497/#msg408497 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/change-to-terms-conditions/msg408497/#msg408497)
but also 'noted to self' some of the internally contradictory terms.
It's very odd that they have forced the 'all time re-use' clause as they have aways stood firmly against exclusivity, and although the two issues aren't the same, they are definitely linked.
-
Another bell rings. This time Alamy.
-
>:(
-
That chat between the infringer and Alamy retroactively licensing an image to them while the photographer was pursuing them for payment is remarkably sleazy. Isn't that falsifying documents, offering to go in and change the dates on the license after the fact to "undo" the stealing of an image? If I were the photographer I'd continue to pursue the infringer and go after Alamy as well.
Forget the new terms...that act alone is enough for me to decide not to place images with them. Now I'm glad their "two weeks" for uploading vectors stretched into years.
-
That chat between the infringer and Alamy retroactively licensing an image to them while the photographer was pursuing them for payment is remarkably sleazy. Isn't that falsifying documents, offering to go in and change the dates on the license after the fact to "undo" the stealing of an image? If I were the photographer I'd continue to pursue the infringer and go after Alamy as well.
Forget the new terms...that act alone is enough for me to decide not to place images with them. Now I'm glad their "two weeks" for uploading vectors stretched into years.
I doubt if that license would be valid once legal proceedings had begun, it would probably amount to a criminal conspiracy, and I don't think it's clear that Alamy knew anything about there being an existing legal action at the time they were being asked for a backdated license. The e-mail made clear that they were going to mark it as newly issued but to cover an earlier time, so it couldn't be presented in court as being issued prior to the illegal usage, so I doubt that the court would accept it.
I think we all knew that if Alamy tracked down, for example, unpaid usage by an established client they would simply charge for backdated usage rather than trying to get damages. I had a case of a sale that wasn't credited long after the usage and after I reported it to them they chased-up and I duly got a payment shortly afterwards. Do we object to them doing that? Getty Images also had a habit of invoicing (admittedly at punitive rates) rather than suing if they caught an illegal use.
-
In this case the image had been stolen from elsewhere, not from Alamy. But Alamy allowed them to license the image from them and then backdated it anyway. Why couldn't they just have said "I'm sorry, but we can't retroactively license an image?" That would have kept them out of any legal hot water. Was it worth the tiny bit of money they got from that sale? Now they've got legal issues AND and bad press.
-
This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites.
but PW, you just said on the other thread
Setting up the website is the easy part. Getting traffic to it is the hard part. If you want to actually get traffic you'll need to become pretty skilled at marketing, SEO and Social Media. Without the marketing you're wasting your time and money.
how do you intend to overcome the "not-easy" part of Getting traffic ... marketing, SEO and Social Media
Haaa! Well, I already have. I've spent the past couple of years on marketing my new site so I know it's not easy. But with hard work the results have been good. I get to set my own pricing and keep 100%. Plus I don't need to worry about all of the shady deals. It's refreshing. So, selling direct is my top goal for 2015.
-
I'd be interested in knowing when your iStock incident happened. I had the same experience recently and it took me a long time to get an answer about why they sold one of my deactivated images. ...
I received a royalty adjustment Oct 10, 2014. The files had been deactivated in February 2013. The e-mail about the adjustment just said the files "..were recently licensed..."
I got notes in October and November thanking me for my patience and saying they were working with other teams to get answers. Then a long gap to February 9, 2015 when they acknowledged that they'd bungled the check to ensure the images were active. They never told me the date of the transaction, only that these were extended licenses.
The timing on yours was concurrent with mine, even the long gap in getting an answer. They didn't tell me the date of the transaction either.
Let's hope they've learned a lesson from this and it won't happen again. But it still bothers me that my deactivated images are somehow available and vulnerable to such "mistakes." I don't understand why they don't just delete deactivated images from their database; that way, there's no room for "mistakes."
-
This is the result of crowd sourcing. They have tens of millions of images now and are in the drivers seat to accept a few defectors. The more images an agency has the more room they have to execute these kinds of terms. Obviously, the alamy attitude is "if you dont like it then leave now". They can do this because it will mean nothing in terms of content erosion. Just so sad that this is where the industry is going and i am ashamed to be a contributor of alamy.
-
They usually sort out problems like this, unlike some other sites. I will wait and see their response.
Collecting from an infringer after the picture has been deactivated is our benefit.
-
It seems like the new contract is just codifying practices they've been using for years (see below**), but it is troubling that it trashes our right to choose to sue for violations by, in effect, letting Alamy settle the dispute by allowing a retroactive license.
The hold over any image previously licensed is also troubling. If an image is on Alamy and you are asked for an exclusive by someone else, you can set restrictions that would protect against its use during the exclusive period, but if your image has been removed, you now have no way to ever license it for an exclusive term since Alamy is free to do what it wants with an image once it is removed.
I guess the only protection would be to contact Alamy and put them on notice that they may not re-license an image, because it will conflict with your new license terms, but we should not be forced to step through so many hoops for images that have been withdrawn.
**I've had many instances where I found an image being used and Alamy chased down their client who failed to report the use and paid me for a retroactive license. In the old days, the rate was punitive and I figured it was far easier than suing someone for copyright violation and trying to collect from someone in a different country. Lately though, they would issue a license at the new lower rate which really annoyed me, but again seemed easier in the long run that suing for copyright violation and trying to collect from an international source (all the unreported images were used by British and Canadian sources and I'm in the US).
I've also had them issue licenses (albeit on very favorable terms) for images that I had deleted from Alamy. In that case, it was actually to my benefit, but it could have been a disaster if they'd done this with an RM image and it contradicted an territory, use or image exclusive license.
They do have a good record for backpedaling and trying to work with contributors when they make a poor decision, so let's hope they do so in this case.
-
They do have a good record for backpedaling and trying to work with contributors when they make a poor decision, so let's hope they do so in this case.
No news yet...
-
Alamy are trying to avoid answering this too hard to answer question
-
This is from their forum.
"We're preparing a full response to the EPUK letter that will be ready very soon. If the response is not posted to the EPUK website in full, we will post it somewhere where everyone can read it.
The response covers all of the concerns raised.
Alamy."
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/3763-contributor-contracts-changes/?p=63197 (http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/3763-contributor-contracts-changes/?p=63197)
-
This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites.
[url]http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms[/url] ([url]http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms[/url])
"Alamy, it seems is trying to establish a perpetual and irrevocable contract with images that they have previously sold on our behalf at a time when this was not the case, which allows them to continue selling them even after the contract with the photographer has been terminated. While this may have advantages for Alamy it has significant disadvantages for the photographer. The provision would last for the full term of copyright and we see it as unreasonably extensive."
Not a problem at all IF THEY ADD CONTIBUTORS ON MONTHLY PAY ROLL :) Say usual photographers wages? About GBP 40.000 Plus taxes?
-
Alamy responds to EPUK:
http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter (http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter)
-
Alamy responds to EPUK:
[url]http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter[/url] ([url]http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter[/url])
yeah yeah ... and then at the end of their rant there's a "Commenting is closed for this article" warning message ... like saying "that's it, so now shut up and F up".
-
Alamy responds to EPUK:
[url]http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter[/url] ([url]http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter[/url])
yeah yeah ... and then at the end of their rant there's a "Commenting is closed for this article" warning message ... like saying "that's it, so now shut up and F up".
Did you actually read it?
"We welcome your comments on Alamy's response and on our original article. Rather than comment here we'd like to keep all the comments in one place with the original article. Click here to add your voice."
Where here is http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms#comments (http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms#comments)
-
Not speaking on the merits yet as I haven't had time for a detailed read, but you have to give them credit on the form. Granted, the EPUK complaints came from a powerful source. But still: What other agency replies to photographers' grievances with such effort and such speed these days?
-
Not speaking on the merits yet as I haven't had time for a detailed read, but you have to give them credit on the form. Granted, the EPUK complaints came from a powerful source. But still: What other agency replies to photographers' grievances with such effort and such speed these days?
In my opinion they debunked all the EPUK arguments.
-
Not really Hobo, at the bottom of the article it includes a link to where continued comments should be posted.
"We welcome your comments on Alamy's response and on our original article. Rather than comment here we'd like to keep all the comments in one place with the original article. Click here to add your voice."
Alamy responds to EPUK:
[url]http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter[/url] ([url]http://www.epuk.org/news/alamy-responds-to-epuk-s-open-letter[/url])
yeah yeah ... and then at the end of their rant there's a "Commenting is closed for this article" warning message ... like saying "that's it, so now shut up and F up".
-
Thats kind of what I said ;)
-
New changes to the contract today.
-
Sounds like time to drop them.
-
Well at least Alamy advise contributors before they change the contract and are willing to make amendments. :)
Unlike the Fotolia/DPC debacle and iStock (everything they do) and Shutterstock's latest "contract update" :(
Quote from Alamy email today:
"We made some changes to your Alamy contract on 16th February that were due to come into force on April 1st.
We've had some feedback from our photographers and it made us realise that some of the clauses didn't accurately reflect how we work, so we've made some changes.
To summarise:
After deletion or termination, we will only issue re-use licences for the same product or project as the original sale.
We will only licence images after deletion or termination if we've already entered into negotiations or had a download for the proposed licence before the image was removed from the site.
We've set a limit of two years from the date of deletion or termination for licensing of images where there's been a download or we've entered into negotiations.
We're not preventing photographers from chasing alleged copyright infringements, but they need to check with us first.
We're sorry we didn't do a good job of explaining this before.
Because we've made some further changes we're writing to give you 45 days notice of all recent changes.
The new contract is here and the key changes are listed here. All changes will be effective from 14th May 2015."
http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20changes%20-%2030th%20March%202015%20%28pre16%2F02%29&utm_term=Contributors (http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20changes%20-%2030th%20March%202015%20%28pre16%2F02%29&utm_term=Contributors)
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/amendments/300315.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Changes%20to%20the%20contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20changes%20-%2030th%20March%202015%20%28pre16%2F02%29&utm_term=Contributors (http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/amendments/300315.asp?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Changes%20to%20the%20contract&utm_campaign=Contractual%20changes%20-%2030th%20March%202015%20%28pre16%2F02%29&utm_term=Contributors)