In my email on Friday I wrote that we would be writing to Alamy re the difficulties we see with the contract amendments. Since then we’ve become aware of more widespread concern among Alamy contributors in general, not only EPUK members.
Rather than keep this a conversation between EPUK and Alamy we feel that it would be better to make our concerns public and so we are publishing an open letter to Alamy on EPUK outlining the problems we see. I do hope that you or your colleagues will add your comments.
Alamy have a record of coming up with constructive solutions to impossible problems. We all hope that you can do that again!
for the EPUK Moderators
This is Alamy's reply to our original article. We're publishing it complete and unedited.
Our view of this reply from Alamy is here.
Alamy: Many thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond. It has been our practice since we started to have regular reviews of our contract and the recent changes are a result of such a review. We’ve made changes to reflect how we work, to tidy up language and to clarify clauses. This round of contract changes is being painted by EPUK as a fundamental shift in our approach to our photographers and that is absolutely not the case.
We believe the changes we’ve made are for the benefit of our photographers and are an honest reflection of the way we work. EPUK’s response is overwhelmingly negative and in many cases simply incorrect and we welcome the opportunity to explain our position. We’d like to initially clarify the situation with regards to some of the key points.
1) Infringements – We have listened to our photographers (who have been asking us to do more on this) and we’ve invested in this area. We are now working with PicScout to track down and get payment from infringers.
We’ve been in discussion with Picscout for many months and those discussions are one of the things that have fed in some changes for this contract update to reflect the reasonable cases where the infringer should be pursued by us.
We aren’t stopping photographers from chasing their own infringements.
We’ll show that we don’t allow retrospective licensing to be a ‘get out’ for infringers.
2) DACS – We made our first DACS claim last year. We give photographers the option to use us to claim DACS on their behalf. Many took up that offer. Many who had never heard of DACS claimed themselves for the first time. We’ve changed our contract to reflect how we work with DACS.
3) Re-uses – We’ve had clauses in our contract for many years that confirm we’ll issue reuses after images have been deleted. The only change we’ve made is to confirm that deleted images also include those deleted as a result of a photographer terminating their contract. This is not a new clause, just a tidying up of the wording to make it clearer. Again we’re not trying to bring in a change in practice.
4) Downloads – We track all downloads from Alamy and regularly undertake costly and thorough audits of our customers. Our work with PicScout will further strengthen our handle on this. It’s incorrect to suggest we’ve a laissez-faire attitude to customer downloads.
5) Deleted images – Images deleted from Alamy stay deleted, they’re not visible to customers.
We’ll respond to the specific points raised below.
PROBLEMS WITH THE ALAMY CONTRIBUTOR CONTRACT AMENDMENTS 02/2015
1) AMENDMENT 6.4.1
When re-licensing Images that have been previously licensed for a particular use ("Previous Use"), if in Alamy's reasonable opinion the use to which the Image/s is to be put is the same or closely similar to the Previous Use (including but not limited to extensions of print runs and foreign language versions), 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.
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.
Alamy: We’ve always made it very easy to join Alamy and similarly we make it very easy to leave. We don’t believe photographers should be tied in to long term contracts. If a photographer terminates their contract we remove their images from our web site so customers can’t search and buy them. The implication with the above is that we will continue to distribute and sell your images that have sold after termination. This sentence is particularly misleading ‘which allows them to continue selling them even after the contract with the photographer has been terminated.’
Clause 6.4.1 is very clear that the only sales we intend to make after termination are ones where the use is a re-use, ‘the use to which the Image/s is to be put is the same or closely similar to the Previous Use (including but not limited to extensions of print runs and foreign language versions), 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.
Re-uses are more prevalent in book publishing than anywhere so we’ll use that as our example. Any new requests to licence imagery for new projects, e.g. if the image was sold for one book and the customer wanted to use it in a different book, are refused.
Customers want to produce products safe in the knowledge that if it’s a success they can produce more copies in the future or perhaps expand it into different territories. The publishing industry has undergone dramatic changes in recent years and the reality now is that many large book publishers will either buy exclusively RF or seek assurances that reuses will be available.
We’ve a long and proven track record of listening to our photographers and our customers and we try to get the balance right.
a) Amendment 6.4.1. (last sentence: “This clause will remain in full force and effect even after termination of this contract or deletion of the Image/s” means that the photographer, having left Alamy will never regain full rights over an image that Alamy has previously sold. Such images may never be sold with exclusive rights because Alamy retains a perpetual right to re-license the image to previous buyers. The contributor has no way of knowing to which images this applies and so their whole collection is devalued.
Alamy: The suggestion that this means Alamy removes the ability for you to control the rights to your images is incorrect as you already have all the information available regarding how the image was originally sold. When managing rights in the future you’ll be aware that re-uses of past sales may occur. This clause is required for the exception rather than the norm. In reality, the majority of books have a short shelf life and will not be re-published.
b) It opens up the potential for litigation if the photographer licenses an image to a client on terms which a subsequent Alamy sale may violate and, as the agreement between the photographer and Alamy has ceased, there would be no way of finding out what those terms may be.
Alamy: The rights originally sold will inform the photographer as to the possible rights issued in the future. For example, if the image was sold for an editorial book, the re-use would be for an editorial book.
c) Because of Alamy’s policy of allowing some of their clients unlimited downloads while refusing to identify to the photographer to whom sales are made it would become very difficult to identify illegitimate uses of images and would often make enforcing photographers’ intellectual property rights impossible in practice.
Alamy: Customers can’t download imagery that has been deleted or is from a terminated account. If they require access to an image that they previously used because they need it for a re-use, they have to come through Alamy. This gives us the point in the process to determine that the re-use is exactly that.
d) Where infringements are found, the provisions of Clause 6.4.1 offer the infringer the ability to purchase a retrospective licence with the specific purpose of avoiding litigation by the photographer.
Alamy: No, this is not what this clause says at all and we will show that we do not work in this way later on in our response.
One Alamy member said –
“The contract allows them to issue licences to restore legality to forgetful and cheating customers, and to keep on issuing licences on photos that clients have downloaded and kept on file even where you've subsequently withdrawn the material.”
Alamy: This is incorrect, as per above it’s only for re-uses, any new uses would and have to be refused.
e) The new terms also appear to apply to all the images that were ever downloaded from the Alamy servers. Not just to those that remain once the new contract takes effect.
Alamy: No, this is not the case and not what the contract says, the clause applies for any images that were downloaded and used.
2) RETROSPECTIVE LICENSING
Alamy seems to have a policy of issuing retrospective licences to cover past unlicensed publications of images sourced from them. Alamy should NOT be issuing a retrospective licence after the infringement has been reported. There is no legal basis for such a licence. The earlier publication was unlawful and the issue of a licence later cannot make that earlier unlawful act lawful.
Alamy: Regarding ‘Alamy should NOT be issuing a retrospective licence after the infringement has been reported.’ We agree and will demonstrate that isn’t what we did. In the stock industry granting a licence after an image has been used is nothing new. From the earliest days of stock, companies such as Tony Stone would track down customers asking them to confirm use. In many cases the customer would have already used the image. So from Tony Stone to Getty the industry has relied on trust, but has also had to fall back on chasing and tracking down to try to keep track of usage. Microstock chose to solve that problem by charging for any download.
In some cases Alamy has also issued retrospective licences for images that they hold but which were sourced elsewhere by an infringer. One Alamy member has related the following -
I was chasing after a company who were using my image without my permission.
In the emails I received from the infringer, they said we have now found your image on Alamy and have just bought it for £39.00. The infringer went on to say they were proving a point on how much my image was worth.
During the emailing, the infringer sent over a copy of the online chat between themselves and Alamy.
Here is a part of it:
Infringer: One of our interns used a helter skelter image on Facebook (but when we found out we took it down). Nonetheless, would it be possible to retrospectively purchase the rights to use the image so we avoid an infringement?
Infringer: We're a small company (5 employees).
Alamy: Thanks for letting us know ****, it wouldn’t be a problem to retrospectively license the image
Alamy: as for the licence would it just be used for website?
Infringer: It was used on Facebook, Twitter and a blog (all are currently removed). They are the only places. It also was edited to include some text. Can I send you an example through this chat feature to check it's acceptable?
Alamy: if some text has been added which isn't defamatory or derogatory that's fine as we allow minor edits to the images.
Alamy: I'll just check the best licence for you, wont be a minute
Alamy: When the image was used over the different sites had the design changed or was it all in the same context?
Alamy: so essentially was it used for the same campaign
The online chat goes on and the Infringer is ultimately buys the image online and then requests the invoice is backdated.
Infringer: It says that it's valid from 3rd Sept, but we really would like it to cover us retrospectively
Alamy: ah sorry my mistake
Alamy: i'll change that now
Alamy: Ok the way need to get this done from February is you'll need to purchase the image as it currently is
Alamy: Once the invoice has been raised for the purchase I can then go in and change the invoice details so in the additional notes would be “Retrospective licence to run from 1st February 2014 - 30th January 2019.
The result was a licence purchased solely to block ongoing litigation even though the infringed image was not obtained through Alamy in the first place.
Alamy: We agree that the above is a true transcript of part of a number of conversations regarding this transaction. EPUK are not sharing the whole story though. It’s clear from the above at no stage did Alamy see this as a being an image subject to litigation. An intern using an image is entirely plausible and by no means unheard of. On face value, this was a user of an image wanting to pay for it which is very different than a deliberate infringer trying to get away with not paying. In this case we initially decided to grant a licence and proceed as we’re now engaging with a customer. We‘re committed to having a business built on selling our photographers’ images and making sure when images are used, a photographer gets paid.
So whilst the above snippet shows we’re happy to grant a licence, we feel it is a dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of this particular case and our approach to infringements in general .What your member may or may not have shared with you is the following.
Once we were told via the photographer that they were already pursuing the user of the image Alamy stepped aside, immediately refunded the sale and told the user of the image that we weren’t going to licence the image so they could avoid litigation. Your suggestion that we’re comfortable licensing images to avoid litigation holds no water as a result.
Here’s a copy of the email we sent to the user of the image upon being told the photographer was pursuing the user.
From: Charlene Campbell - Alamy
Sent: 04 September 2014 11:20
Subject: Image CxxxxA purchase null and void
The recent purchase of image CxxxxA has been cancelled due to a legal dispute. The licence purchased yesterday is null and void (credit note attached).
The photographer/copyright holder of this image has already been in contact with you about the unauthorised use. Please contact the photographer/copyright holder to arrange the correct licence.
Alamy cannot prove you with a licence for this image.
Customer Service Manger
Therefore we feel we have actually acted in a manner that EPUK would agree with, rather than criticise.
3) TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
CLAUSE 20 TERMINATION
20.1 You may terminate this contract:
20.1.1. on 45 days prior notice to Alamy at any time;
20.1.2. Immediately by written notice to Alamy if Alamy:
184.108.40.206 breaches any terms of this Contract which breach is not capable
of effective remedy or;
220.127.116.11. breaches any term of this Contract which is capable of remedy
but which is not remedied within 30 days of the date of a notice specifying
the breach and requiring that party to comply with that term.
18.104.22.168 enters into insolvent liquidation.
22.214.171.124. ceases to carry on its business of operating the System.
126.96.36.199 where Alamy gives 45 days notice to vary the contract pursuant to
clause 19.1, by written notice to Alamy at any time during that 45 day
period expiring at the end thereof.
A contributors contract with Alamy can be cancelled subject to 45 days notice.
A member cancelled their contract with Alamy. Under clause 20 the last date when images could be sold was 20.10.2014. They wrote –
The last day for selling and displaying my images was the 20th October 2014. Looking through the Alamy website,(four months later) my images are still being displayed, even though it says above all images ‘not for sale’.
Alamy: We’re aware of this case and it’s an anomaly and we hold our hands up to this one. The images weren’t left on sale and they weren’t searchable but if (as the photographer) you had an existing URL to the image that still took you to the image. We’ve now rectified the error and learnt from it. We’ve apologised to the photographer.
Over the years we’ve had to delete images and terminate contracts and we’ve never had an issue like this before. It’s not representative of the norm and we’re sure you have many other members who can testify to Alamy’s efficiency and also, at times, our understanding and accommodating approach in deleting imagery.
Another image of mine was sold end of Jan 2015, Again, Alamy stated that the buyer was in talks prior to my contract terminating.
Another member has also raised this same issue. While Alamy has the right to continue and to renew deals that were already in place at the time of termination it seems wrong to display the images after deletion. It also seems wrong for them to interpret a use following termination as widely as they do. Reprints or run extensions might be reasonable but not new editions, different media or other publications.
Alamy: Regarding ‘it seems wrong to display the images after deletion.’ We do not display images after deletion.
This is not a new clause just a strengthening of the definition to make it clear how we are working.
In terms of our interpretation of a re-use, we don’t see it as a ‘wide’ interpretation, we treat each case on its merits and regularly suggest to customers that the use they are asking for is not a re-use and that the image is no longer available.
4) SECONDARY RIGHTS & COLLECTING SOCIETIES
CLAUSE 28. Collecting societies
You agree that where you cannot claim yourself for sales made by Alamy
but where we can claim on your behalf including, without limitation,
through collecting societies, that you give us the right to collect
any money due to you. Where there is the option for you to claim
yourself, you may opt to do so or for us to claim on your behalf.
Where we claim on your behalf you agree that we will recoup our
external costs (if any) then share any remaining amount equally with you.
Alamy wish to make a DACS claim on behalf of its members if they are unable or do not wish to do so themselves.
Because Alamy refuses to identify individual sales to members it is impossible for individual members to make a full and accurate claim to any collecting societies.
Alamy: With regards to DACS, we do understand the issue, our policy of not giving out customer info is not something that came in with DACS; we’ve never shared that information.
The reasons are; we don’t want to release competitive information and risk it getting out into the public domain, in some cases data protection laws may stop it and we respect client confidentiality (a lot of our big customers do not want their commercial dealings being made public so require us to sign confidentiality clauses). So it’s not that we are keeping the info to ourselves to prevent photographers from claiming, it’s more that legally and practically it’s not something we’re in a position to do. We’ve reviewed it many times, but always come back to the same conclusion. It’s not a mechanism we’re using to hinder photographers.
With DACS we were very upfront about the options available to photographers and we received a lot of thanks from photographers who had previously been unaware of DACS and we helped them understand how they could claim themselves.
5) AMENDMENT 4.1.2
Where Alamy has Licensed an image to one of its Customers or if an Image has been sourced directly or indirectly from the Alamy System and or if the image is solely available via the Alamy System and the systems of its Distributors, You agree that you will not contact the Customer or user of the Image for any reason pertaining to this sale or the use of the Image. This includes, without limitation, in relation to copyright Infringements where the Image was sourced from Alamy.
Alamy want to prevent photographers contacting their customers over copyright infringements or for any other purpose where the image was sourced via Alamy or its distributors.
This may have been acceptable if Alamy had retained a tight hold in controlling access to downloads and maintained metadata integrity. However, without consultation, Alamy diluted that over time to the point where very large numbers of files (estimated to be in the millions) have been freely downloaded without checks as to usage, instead simply relying on clients (many of whom have been known to reproduce images without reporting that fact) reporting each use properly.
Alamy: With regards to metadata, we include a significant amount of metadata in our images and our terms and conditions with customers are very robust on requiring that they retain the metadata in the images.
Alamy: In relation to ‘if Alamy had retained a tight hold in controlling access to downloads and maintained metadata integrity’ We’ve a record of every download and we do have sophisticated processes for follow up and monitoring. We undertake lengthy and costly audits of our customer base looking at download and sales activity. We track our downloads to sales ratio and it’s at a level that doesn’t give any cause for concern and the suggestion that millions of images have been flooded onto the market by Alamy unchecked is simply untrue. It’s true that we have sold millions of images for our photographers but we haven’t achieved this through an uncontrolled stream of images onto the market.
This has put our ability to take action over the infringements of our work that we find published on the web very largely into Alamy's control. This is particularly egregious where no paid publication has occurred or where the infringement has been copied (and sometimes re-re-re-copied) from an unpaid or low paying Alamy related source.
Alamy: With regards to infringements, we recognised that we weren’t doing as good a job as we’d like to so we’ve invested in this area and Alamy is now working with industry leader PicScout on a programme to track down infringers and that’s why we’ve introduced this clause.
We need to have processes in place which can maximise the likelihood of us finding and generating revenue from infringements where the image originated from Alamy. This seems entirely reasonable as the infringement has taken place as a result of the image being on Alamy.
We are most definitely not saying that photographers cannot chase any infringements.
The example EPUK refers to above shows that we are not seeking to licence images that are subject to ongoing infringement so we hope this illustrates that we don’t intend to hinder our photographers in their own pursuit of infringements.
What we can’t see is a situation where everyone pursues each infringement and whoever gets their first or who has the biggest pockets for legal fees wins. A good lawyer could tie everyone up in knots if it’s very unclear who should be seen as having the legitimate infringement claim.
We’ve a process in place where our photographers can report an infringement and we can check the facts at our end. Has the image been purchased or downloaded? Do we know the user? The spirit of our approach to infringements is to be efficient but collaborative where necessary.
We want to concentrate on generating revenue for our photographers and we believe that PicScout will help us do that. We’ve open channels of communication so any confusion can be cleared up well before any suggestion of breaching of contracts, etc. That’s not the way we work.
We believe we’re taking a sensible approach. We completely understand the frustration felt by photographers when it comes to infringements and as a result we’ve upped our game this year.
As one member wrote –
I am not supposed to contact anyone that has downloaded an image from Alamy, to chase up infringements. But if Alamy is not my exclusive agent (it isn't) and does not tell me who has downloaded images (it doesn't, nor who the legitimate downloads and users are), and also refuses to tell me these (it won't, I've asked), then how am I supposed to know if I am breaching my contract with Alamy?
Alamy seems to simply rely on clients to report their image use honestly when many have been known to reproduce images without reporting their publication.
This is a very different way of working from that in place when Alamy began and it has led to a very large number of members’ files having been distributed to an unknown number of Alamy clients. Many of these files had their metadata removed by Alamy before distribution. Many of the clients will have redistributed those files outside of their organisation. No matter how remote an infringing use may be from the client originally downloading the file Alamy prevents us from taking any action to protect our copyright.
No notification to us that this was occurring has ever been given. We have no way of knowing which files have been distributed, to whom or who now has copies. We are unable to control infringement when the file came from Alamy and our ability to identify and follow up on infringements when the file was sourced elsewhere is seriously undermined.
6) CLAUSE 15.1
You agree that the Images may be used at Alamy's option without charge and without prior consent or approval from you in Promotional/Marketing material designed to promote sales of Images and/or to enhance awareness of the Alamy name/brand or that of the individual Contributor. You agree that any such promotional items may be distributed by Alamy worldwide for up to two years, notwithstanding the earlier termination of the Contract for any reason. For the avoidance of doubt Promotional/Marketing material also includes articles and interviews featuring Alamy and/or its imagery, social media and search engine listing and promotion including but not limited to 'Google Images'.
Alamy request the right to use members’ images to promote Alamy and/or a photographer whom they no longer represent without their prior approval/permission.
This presents a problem where Alamy are not the sole distributor of a member’s images. A scenario could present itself where the member has agreed a sale outwith Alamy on exclusive terms and where usage by Alamy for promotion may violate this.
An ex-Alamy photographer may be exclusively represented by another agent and use of their material to promote him/her or Alamy would be deceptive and may breach the agreement between photographer and new agent.
In any case the period of two years is unreasonably long. Three to six months would be more appropriate.
Alamy: This clause has been in our contract for over 10 years and to our knowledge our use of images in promotion and marketing hasn’t ever caused a problem. The only change has been a slight change in definition.
With regards to ‘Alamy request the right to use members’ images to promote Alamy and/or a photographer whom they no longer represent without their prior approval/permission.’ The interpretation is incorrect as the clause only applies to images already used in marketing pieces.
When selecting images for marketing pieces we only look at imagery that is currently for sale and not already deleted or subject to a deletion in the future for any reason. 12
We need confidence when working on marketing pieces. Imagine Alamy produces a print run of promotional coasters, featuring 12 images, 2,000 coasters per image printed. One day after printing a contributor terminates his contract and the image is then deleted. Alamy would then have to throw away all the coasters with that image on. We need to be sure that we can use the pieces for their natural lifespan (we’ve specified up to two years but in reality it’s usually far shorter).
Photographers want exposure and are invariably delighted for us to use their images to promote Alamy. It’s impractical to expect us to ask permission each time we use images. Our photographers will be pleased to hear our marketing activity is ever increasing, but it simply wouldn’t work to involve the photographers in the image selection process.
7) PERSONAL USE LICENSING
The facility for (presumably) non-professional image buyers to download digital images for personal/home own use creates a real danger of infringement. How long would it take for something licensed for home use to appear on social media, then scraped from a Google search and then subject to a commercial infringement?
Additionally it undermines the quality control that members may usually insist on if the file is printed out and may undermine the photographer’s own print sales.
The low pricing makes it a very attractive option for dishonest buyers, especially if there is the ability to download 50 megabyte files..
Alamy: This seems to be a side issue from the contract changes but in response, we’ve sold images for “Personal use” since we began and the number of images we’ve sold for this use is miniscule compared to all the licences we’ve granted so we don’t feel this is a well worn route to cheat the system.
8) CLAUSE 1.3.4
Delete any Images after one hundred and eighty (180) days notice. On image deletion Alamy will cease to grant Licences for the Image so deleted (but without prejudice to any Licences which may subsequently be granted for Images already downloaded, or where any Image is re-used or where Alamy entered into negotiations to licence an Image prior to deletion).
Alamy will delete images upon request after 180 days notice but will continue to grant licences if a customer has at any time entered into negotiations to buy.
Alamy: This clause has been in place for over 10 years and we’ve reworded to make it clearer. This way of working hasn’t caused us problems in the past. If a customer is in negotiations or has asked us about the image or has downloaded the image with our permission we will continue and make the sale even if the image has subsequently been deleted. Customers need confidence that once embarking on a purchase and mocking up designs etc, they won’t have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute.
9) CLAUSE 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.
If Alamy does not pay you in US dollars, Alamy may increase the currency conversion charge to the contributor from 2% to 2.5%, a 25% increase.
Alamy: Correct, we periodically review this figure and try to set it at a rate so that we don’t lose or gain money on currency conversion.
10) AMENDMENT 16.2.3
If you take action then Alamy's sole obligations shall be to at your request and cost, provide testimony in any action which may be brought by you by verifying the terms of the contract entered. Prior to giving this assistance Alamy may require you to have indemnified Alamy for all of the costs and expenses of any such action including at Alamy's discretion providing and securing the costs of Alamy's legal and other advisers.
Unlike under the previous provisions Alamy will no longer provide the member with information from its records should the member find themselves taking legal action against the Alamy customer.
This seems to set Alamy and the contributor in conflict with each other, with Alamy siding with the customer in the event of a dispute.
Alamy: We’ve many examples where we have worked closely with photographers and have a proven track record of collaboration, we don’t intend to change this. We can’t commit to simply making all relevant information available, as with the question before, in some cases we need to be sensitive to data protection law and confidentiality agreements we may have with our customers. We’ve changed the wording to reflect that we can’t guarantee that we can provide information. We hope we’ll be judged on our actions and not hypothetical assumptions when it comes to disputes.
We’re a business reliant on our image suppliers and our image buyers. We consider both sides when making key decisions and we seek to strike a balance that allows photographers to trust us with their work and gives buyers a trustworthy and efficient source of imagery.
1) Amendment 6.4.1
Re-licensing rights on terminated Alamy/photographer contracts and/or on deleted files should only be permitted for a period of six months after termination and where the sale process was already under way before termination/deletion and after that only with the specific permission of photographer/copyright holder.
2) Retrospective Licensing
Retrospective licensing should cease immediately other than in exceptional circumstances. Discounts on licence fees should be conditional on full and timely reporting of the relevant use.
3) Clause 20, Termination
i) Ensure that cancellation rules are applied so that the display of former members’ images and/or deleted images ceases as soon as is practicably possible following deletion or termination.
ii) Licensing for new editions, different media or other publications in respect of terminated members or deleted images ceases.
4) Secondary Rights & Collecting Societies
Sufficient disclosure by Alamy of information relating to members’ sales to allow claims for secondary rights payments to be made to collecting societies.
5) Amendment 4.1.2
i) Amendment 4.1.2 is removed and Alamy, while retaining the right to pursue all infringements stemming from their supply (as is the case now) adopt the default position that, unless having a specific need to pursue these themselves, instead offer the contributor the opportunity to do so and provide such information that they have to assist the contributor. Any fee that would have been due to Alamy to be paid to them out of the proceeds.
ii) Alamy re-establish positive control over download privileges.
6) Clause 15.1
Alamy contacts the member before use and gives them the option to decline.
7) Personal Use Licensing
Allow members to opt out of Personal Use Licensing.
8) Clause 1.3.4
A clear definition of "entered into negotiations" is required otherwise this is too vague. ‘Negotiations’ could be just a vague licence quote obtained for guidance many years ago. Simply allowing a download could be claimed to be the initiation of a negotiation.
9) Clause 12.6
Alamy should explain why they have increased their charge on currency conversion by 25% when overall bank transfer fees have become much cheaper.
10) Amendment 16.2.3
Alamy should assist the member in providing reasonable information on the customer from their databases as they did under clause 188.8.131.52 (If you take action then Alamy's sole obligations shall be to at your request and cost supply you with the information on its database relating to that Customer).
Note added March 13, 2015: If you are leaving Alamy we have a step by step guide here.
Want to contact the EPUK Website editor? email@example.com