Author Topic: Is Alamy now trying to screw contributors? (Read 15188 times)

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

"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."

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2015, 21:02 »

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.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2015, 22:20 »

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

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2015, 22:24 »

Quote from: 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.

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

Digital66 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2015, 23:40 »

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

Hobostocker · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2015, 00:02 »

is this LEGAL ?
i don't think so ... as it's clashing against EU copyright law.

polar · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2015, 00:50 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 26, 2015, 21:02

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2015, 01:20 »

Quote from: polar on February 27, 2015, 00:50

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2015, 01:29 »

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?

skyfish · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2015, 03:14 »

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?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2015, 03:20 »

Quote from: skyfish on February 27, 2015, 03:14

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.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2015, 03:34 »

Come on in James. How will you spin this?

Copidosoma · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2015, 03:54 »

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.

skyfish · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2015, 03:55 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2015, 03:20

Quote from: skyfish on February 27, 2015, 03:14
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?

sharpshot · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2015, 04:44 »

They usually sort out problems like this, unlike some other sites. I will wait and see their response.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2015, 05:56 »

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2015, 06:05 »

It might be worth posting over there 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
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.

skyfish · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2015, 07:09 »

Another bell rings. This time Alamy.

Digital66 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2015, 08:14 »

Shelma1 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2015, 08:16 »

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2015, 08:32 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 27, 2015, 08:16

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2015, 08:56 »

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.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2015, 09:09 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on February 26, 2015, 22:24

Quote from: 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.

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.

polar · « **Reply #23 on:** February 27, 2015, 09:56 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 27, 2015, 01:20

Quote from: polar on February 27, 2015, 00:50
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."

Mantis · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:24 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is Alamy now trying to screw contributors? (Read 15188 times)

PaulieWalnuts

Jo Ann Snover

etudiante_rapide

etudiante_rapide

Digital66

Hobostocker

polar

Jo Ann Snover

BaldricksTrousers

skyfish

BaldricksTrousers

Semmick Photo

Copidosoma

skyfish

sharpshot

Justanotherphotographer

ShadySue

skyfish

Digital66

Shelma1

BaldricksTrousers

Shelma1

PaulieWalnuts

polar

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors